HANSARD'S
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. XXIII.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM
THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH,
TO
THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, 1830.
[Second Volume of the Session.]
LONDON:
Printed by T. C. HANSARD at the Pater-norter-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; B. JEFFERY AND SON; S. RODWELL; CALKIN AND BUDD; R. H. EVANS; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1830.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. PETITIONS.
IV. PROTESTS.
V. LISTS
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
page
1830 Mar. 10. Tax on Leather
70
Relief of the Jews
72
1830 Mar.11. Country Bank Notes
157
Conveyance of Life-hold Property Duty—Fire Insurances
158
State of the Country—Relations with Portugal—Turkey
160
Marriages Validating Act
166
1830 Mar.12. Irish Poor
225
East-India Charter
225
1830 Mar.15. Coal Trade
296
Shipping Interest
297
Speakers of the Mouse of Lords
298
1830 Mar.16. Coal Tax
365
Irish Poor Laws
366
Court of Chancery
376
1830 Mar.17. Ellenborough's Divorce Bill
431
1830 Mar.18. National Distress
475
State of the Labouring Classes
476
1830 Mar.19. Legal Amendments
613
1830 Mar.22. Reforms in Courts of Justice
674
1830 Mar.23. Affair at Terceira
737
1830 Mar.25. Welsh Judicature
829
Improvement of Roads
830
1830 Mar.25. East Retford
831
Distress
832
Corn Averages
882
Taxation
834
Kentish Petition
835
Free Trade—Exports and Imports
844
1830 Mar26. Jews—Petition
920
Foreign Flour—Petition
920
1830 Mar 29. Standing Orders
961
Malt Tax—Petition
961
Christian Natives of India
962
Distress—Petition from Birmingham
963
Corn Laws
966
1830 Mar30. Commercial Treaties
1046
Supply of the Precious Metals
1048
1830 Mar31. Tithes—Petition
1115
1830 April 1. Administration of Justice
1118
Ireland—Duty on Coals
1119
Tithes
1121
Distress
1121
Poor Laws—Scotland
1124
1830 April 2. Greece
1189
Amendment of the Law
1189
Algiers
1190
East Retford Witnesses' Bill
1190
1830 April 5. Spirits
1265
East India Company's Monopoly
1265
1830 April 6. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1336
Prevention of Smuggling Bill
1337
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1830 Mar. 9. Herring Fishery—Scotland
2
Agricultural Distress
3
Distress in the Iron Trade
3
Welsh Judicature
8
Judge Jebb
10
East India Charter
10
Supply
12
Welsh Judicature—Administration of the Law
53
1830 Mar.10. Agricultural Distress
73
Duty on Spirits
73
Standard of the Currency
74
Roman Catholics of Galway
75
Affairs of Portugal
76
1830 Mar.11. Forms and Orders of the House
168
Licensed Victuallers
172
1830 Mar. 11. Distress and Reform
176
Slavery
177
East India Company's Monopoly
177
Radical Reform
181
Scotch Judicature
222
Coal Trade
223
1830 Mar.12. Metropolis Turnpike Roads
226
Avon and Gloucester Rail Roads
228
Distress
229
Treasurer of the Navy
243
1830 Mar.15. Tanjore and Carnatic Commissions
299
Smuggling Tobacco
299
Distress in Scotland—Taxation
300
Finances of the Country
301
Haymarket and St. James's Park
364
1830 Mar.16. Call of the House
377
St. Giles's and St. George's Bloomsbury Vestry Bill
371
Distress of the Country
378
Public Distress—the Malt Trade
383
Truck System
387
Corn Trade
388
Wool Duties
389
Poor Laws—Ireland
389
Licensing System
389
Suttees
390
Select Vestry Act—Ireland
390
State of the Nation
391
Excise Acts
430
Stamp Duties
430
1830 Mar.17. Distress
456
Coals and Taxation
457
Scotch and Irish Vagrants
460
Truck System
461
1830 Mar.18. Revision of the Criminal Law
541
Operative Weavers
542
Reform of Parliament
543
Borough of Carlow
544
Galway Town
544
Trials at Cork
545
Wool Trade
546
Lunatic Commissions Bill
547
Distress of the Country, Adjourned Debate
548
1830 Mar.19. Duty on Malt—Beer Trade
620
Duty on West India Produce
622
Lead
623
Committees
624
Distress of the Country, Adjourned Debate
624
1830 Mar.22. Insolvent Debtors
694
1830 Mar. 22. Corn Laws
694
Lottery Officers
695
Malt and Beer Duties and Publicans
695
Distress and Taxation
697
Dublin Pig Market
699
Coal Meters, Dublin
700
Union with Ireland
701
Irish Tobacco
708
Deccan Prize Money
709
Forgery
710
Law Reform
710
India
711
Committee of Supply—Greece
712
Number of Electors
713
Colonial Expenditure
714
Ordnance
716
Navy Estimates
716
1830 Mar.23. Emigration
782
Voting by Ballot
784
Surrey Petition
785
Double Punishment
787
Distress of the Country, Adjourned Debate
789
1830 Mar.25. Misrepresentation
846
Distress
846
Manufacture of Arms
852
Manufacture of Flour
854
Canada
855
Trial by Jury—New South Wales
856
Injudicious Taxation
857
1830 Mar.26. Removal of the Haymarket—St. James's Park
921
Conversion of Annuities, New 3½ per cents
923
Supply—Navy Estimates
931
Pensions for the Hon. R. Dundas, and Hon. W. L. Bathurst
945
1830 Mar.29. Lord Eldon
986
Kent Petition—Corn Laws
987
Supply
990
Committee of Supply
994
Navy Estimates
999
Ordnance Estimates
1005
1830 Mar.30. Distress and Crime
1053
Sugar Duties
1053
Duties on Coals
1054
Crown Lands
1055
Irish Constabulary Force
1110
1830 Mar.31. Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill
1116
1830 April 1. St George's and St. Giles's Select Vestry Bill
1125
Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill
1128
Trial by Jury in Scotland
1138
1830 April 1. Law of Forgery
1176
1830 April 2. The New Haymarket
1209
St. Giles's and St. George's, Bloomsbury
1209
Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill
1214
Shipping Interest
1215
Foreign Relations of the Country
1234
Supply—Report—Civil Contingencies
1240
Supply
1242
Beer Duty
1263
Arms Bill—Ireland
1264
1830 April 5. Vice-Treasurer of Ireland
1267
Distress—Ireland
1268
Administration of Justice in Scotland
1268
Forgery
1269
Ambassadors' Expenses—Civil Contingencies
1270
Bounties on the Fisheries
1271
Scotch and Irish Poor
1273
Forgery
1274
Opening from Waterloo Place
1275
Forest of Dean
1276
Baron de Bode
1276
Economy in the Packet Service
1286
The Jews
1287
1830 April 6. Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill
1340
Tobacco Duties
1403
Portugal
1404
Employment of the Poor
1406
Supply—Assessed Taxes
1410
1830 April 7. Excessive Taxation
1414
Misrepresentation
1414
Reports of the Proceedings in Parliament
1417
Stamp Duties—Ireland
1417
Distillers of Corn Spirits
1418
Library of the House of Commons
1427
Malt Duties
1429
4 per cent. Annuities Bill
1429
Stamp Duties Acts
1432
Tobacco Duties
1433
Compensation to Officers of the Courts of Law
1436
III. PETITIONS.
1830 Mar. 11. PETITION from Merchants and Agents connected with the Trade to the East Indies against the East-India Company's Monopoly
178
1830 Mar. 12. Substance of a Petition, from a Meeting held at the Mansion House respecting the Distress
231
1830 April 5 Petition of Baron de Bode
1283
IV. PROTESTS.
1830 Mar. 23. By certain of the Lords with respect to the Affair at Terceira
780
1830 April 2. By Lord Holland in the matter of East Retford
1205
V. LISTS.
1830 Mar. 9. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, upon the Supply Question
24
LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the State of the Poor
26
1830 Mar.10. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Motion respecting the affairs of Portugal
157
1830 Mar.12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on a Motion respecting the Treasurer of the Navy
295
1830 Mar.15. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Amendment of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
355
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Ballot clause of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
363
1830 Mar.18. LIST of the Majority and Minority, in the House of Lords, on the State of the Labouring Classes
538
1830 Mar.22. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Amendment of the Motion on Navy Estimates
725
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the original Motion on the Navy Estimates
734
1830 Mar.25. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Injudicious Taxation
918
1830 Mar.26. LIST of the Majority, in the House of Commons, against Ministers, on the Motion respecting the Pensions of the hon. R. Dundas, and the hon. W. L. Bathurst
958
1830 Mar.29. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Ordnance Estimates
1044
1830 Mar.30. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Motion respecting the Crown Lands
1110
1830 April 6. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord Ellen-borough's Divorce Bill
1394
During the
of the
of the United Kingdom of
and
appointed to meet at Westminster the 4th of February,
in the Eleventh Year of the Reign of His Majesty
GEORGE THE FOURTH.
[
SECOND VOLUME OF THE SESSION
1830.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 9, 1830.
MINUTES.] On the Motion or the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, an Address was presented to his Majesty, for a copy of the second Report of the Commissioners for Inquiry into the proceedings in Suits in the Superior Courts of Common Law.
On the Motion of the Earl of ROSSLYN, Lord ELLEN-BOROUGH'S Divorce Bill, after Counsel had been heard was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 9, 1830.
MINUTBS.] MR. WARD took the Oaths and his Seat as Member for Leominster.
Accounts were ordered, on the Motion of Mr. HUME, of Cotton Yam and Twists exported from this Country from 1826 to 1829, inclusive, together with their value, &c.:—of the Four and a Half per Cent Duties on Goods imported into Barbadoes, and other neighbouring Colonies, which had before been laid on the Table, down to 1819, to be brought down to the present time, with a view, as the hon. Member said, of attempting to relieve the West Indies from this charge, which they were quite unable to bear:—Of the persons employed in Commissions of Inquiry in the year 1829, of the Balances paid them, of the Expenses of the Commissions and of the Reports made to the House.
On the Motion of Colonel SIBTHORP, Accounts were ordered, of all Persons in the Civil and Military Establishments of Great Britain and Ireland holding two or more situations, or receiving two or more pensions or allowances, in the year 1829, with the name, date, &c.:—of all Offices, Pensions, Fees, and Allowances of any kind, held in Reversion; with the names of the occupant, the reversioner, the date, and the particulars.
On the Motion of Sir JAMBS GRAHAM, of the Names and Offices of all Persons now employed in the respective Civil Departments of the United Kingdom, whose Salaries and Emoluments exceed 2501. per annum; shewing the compensation amount in 1815 and 1829; the grounds on which increase, if any, had been made, and giving the date of that increase:—of the Net Amount of the Revenue
2
Notices were given by Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that, on Friday next, he would move for the following Return:—Of all Salaries, Profits, Pay, Fees, and Emoluments, whether Civil or Military, from 5th January, 1829, to the 5th January, 1830, held and enjoyed by each Member of the Privy Council; specifying the total amount received by each individual, and distinguishing the various sources from which they were derived; and also that, on Friday, before the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Navy Estimates, he would move a Resolution respecting the recent appointment of the Treasurer of the Navy.
Leave was obtained by Mr. POULETT THOMSON, to bring in a Bill to Amend the Laws relating to Usury. A Bill was brought in to regulate the Office of Sheriff in Ireland. The Game Bill was read a second time. The Exchequer Bills Bill, and the Transfer of Aids Bill were passed. The Mutiny Bill went through a Committee. The Pensions and Duties Bill was read a first time. The Estimates of the Army Extraordinarily, Civil Contingencies, and expense of the Commissariat Department were laid on the Table. An humble Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, for a copy of the Commission issued for Inquiry into the Ecclesiastical Courts of England and Wales: also for an Account of the Expenditure, including Charges of Conveyance and outfit for Diplomatic and Insular Establishments in the New States of America.
HERRING FISHERY—SCOTLAND.]
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
, in presenting a Petition from the Magistrates and others of Cromarty, engaged in the cure of Herrings, praying for the continuance of the bounty on that branch of industry, stated that the people engaged in this trade, by aid of this bounty had been enabled to carry it on, and that it nourished 48,000 sea-
3
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Sir William Rowley
, in presenting Petitions from several Hundreds in Suffolk, praying for the remission of the Duties on Malt and Beer, stated that the petitioner, in common with all the agriculturists, were suffering under vast distress, which they said was much enhanced by the Duties on Malt and Beer pressing particularly on them, by preventing the consumption of Barley. He earnestly prayed, that the Government would give ear to the petitioners, and give relief to the Agricultural Interest, by repealing these and other burthens.
DISTRESS IN THE IRON TRADE.]
Mr. Alderman Thompson
, in presenting a Petition signed by 400 respectable inhabit-
4
Sir Christopher Cole
bore his testimony to the severe sufferings of the petitioners, and at the same time said, they had, in the midst of all their sufferings, displayed invariable loyalty and good conduct. He was happy, however, to say, that there had of late been a gradual improvement in the trade of that part of the country.
Petition read and printed.
Lord Althorp
presented a Petition from the Grand Jury of the County of Northampton, complaining of the sums of money paid for passing Irish and Scotch Vagrants. It was difficult, his Lordship said, to credit the expense to which parishes were subject on this account. A single parish, in 1825, paid 797
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Cartwright
stated, that he fully concurred in what had fallen from the noble Lord, and agreed with him that some remedy ought to be applied to this evil. The necessity of passing vagrants caused an enormous expense to parishes.
Mr. Greene
concurred in this representation of the evil. In the absence of a noble Lord (Stanley), he begged to say that it was his intention to bring some measure respecting this subject under the
5
l.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, that there was abundant proof of the expense occasioned by Irish vagrants; but he knew no examples of money thus spent in the conveyance of Scotch vagrants. Scotland would be glad to maintain her own vagrants, if she had none others to support, but she was burthened to a great extent with the expense of supporting Irish paupers.
Mr. Munday
expressed his satisfaction, that an evil which had long been seriously felt in many parts of the country, had at length attracted the attention of the House, and he hoped that the committee, for which he understood the noble Lord meant to move, might devise some remedy.
Sir James Graham
said, he could inform his hon. friend the Member for Kircudbright, that the expense of passing Scotch paupers was very considerable in the county which he represented.
Mr. C. Davenport
could also inform the House, that where he resided, the expense of passing Scotch and Irish paupers was very great, and he would give his strenuous support to any measure for relieving the country from this enormous expense.
Sir M. W. Ridley
also asserted, that the expense of passing Scotch vagrants was very considerable, and which fell very heavy in some of the northern counties. Where he resided it was very severely felt, and would, he was afraid, continue as long as the practice was continued of banishing men from Scotland. Whether that were a punishment or not to the individuals he would not say, but it was a severe infliction for the northern parts of England which had to pay for the passing and repassing of these banished Scotchmen.
Mr. O'Connell
thought, that if Irish vagrants were to be driven from this country, their deportation should be provided for at the expense, not of the country to which they were going, but of that in which they had spent their life, and enriched by their labour. It would be cruel on those men, after having spent their youth in the service of England, to send them back in their old age to starve in Ireland, or be a burthen on a land they had voluntarily quitted. There was an-
6
Mr. Littleton
said, that he did not think the case of the Irish vagrants was quite what the hon. and learned Member for Clare represented it. They did not benefit the country one-half so much by their labour as they injured it by the excessive competition they introduced, and the paupers their system of working created. He could assert, that they were a real grievance to the central counties. Staffordshire alone had paid 2,000
l.
Mr. George Dawson
said, that injustice was often committed towards Ireland in removing thither the female vagrants with whom the men had formed connections in this country. With regard to Scotland, he could show that invitations were often sent over to Ireland for labourers to go to Scotland, where they were wanted to underwork the active labourers of the soil, and they were then sent back in a very miserable condition, after they had served the purposes of those who had called them over.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
observed, that the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken, as Scotland unfortunately possessed no power of sending back the vagrants to their own country. That was the great defect in her law. In one county alone there had been 40,000 Irish paupers. He repeated what he had before said, that Scotland would gladly maintain her own poor if she had no others to support. In reply to his hon. friend, the Member for Cumberland, he would say that he did not assert that there were no Scotch vagrants in England, but only that the number was small.
Mr. Griffith
said, the hon. and learned Member for Clare was mistaken in the way in which he had spoken of the Irish vagrants. Our great evil was, that as soon as they had been sent back to Ireland they came back again, and out of a large number very few would at any time be found who had not been in this country before. They made a trade of this passing and repassing between the two countries.
7
Sir R. Heron
said, that the Irish labourers who found their way into Lincolnshire were very useful, and he had generally found them to be very orderly, well behaved men.
General Gascoyne
declared that the Irish vagrants were a grievous tax upon the people of Liverpool. One-half, or nearly two-thirds of the taxes raised in that town for the poor, were directly or indirectly consumed on account of the Irish vagrants. He thought an act ought to be passed declaring that every person who brought over an Irishman here, and did not give security that he should not become a burthen to any parish, should be liable either to pay a penalty, or to have him sent back to Ireland. He was quite sure that England would gladly take back all her paupers, from both Ireland and Scotland, if those two countries would undertake to receive their own from this country. He hoped the noble Lord would lose no time in bringing forward his promised measure.
Mr. Slaney
thought, that all the schemes for preventing the emigration of the vagrants of one of the three countries into either of the other two would be found useless, so long as the condition of the labouring classes in either of the three was superior to that of the same men in the other. The only mode of preventing the emigration of Irish vagrants here was to raise the condition of the peasantry of that country, and to place them as nearly as possible on a level with the peasantry of England.
Mr. O'Connell
denied, that the poor of Ireland were any worse off than those of England. At least, they were not subject to the tyranny of parish overseers and select vestries.
Sir C. Burrell
contended, that select vestries, which in London were considered such evils, in the country produced great advantage. They exercised no tyranny over the poor, but promoted their happiness.
Mr. G. Dawson
contended, in opposition to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool, that that town derived the highest benefit from its contiguity to Ireland, instead of sustaining any injury, and that the Irish labourers paid in the sweat of their brows for whatever they obtained in this country. Very few cases could, he believed, be found, of an Irishman being a willing pauper. He
8
Mr. Benett
argued that the evil arose out of a difference of laws relating to the poor prevailing in England and Ireland. The sure remedy was, to establish the same Poor-laws in both. The existing tithe-system in Ireland prevented the outlay of capital upon the land there, and the extension of cultivation. If some equitable means could be found out for commuting the tithes there, it would give, he believed, a great stimulus to the demand for labour in the country, and both keep the peasantry at home, and improve their condition.
Mr. Protheroe
concurred with the hon. Member for Wiltshire, and said, he was sure that the evil must speedily be remedied some way or other.
Sir Robert Inglis
stated, that the expense of removing every pauper was as great as if he were sent by the mail, and the expense fell on counties lying betwixt Liverpool and London, which derived little or no benefit from the labour of Irish labourers.
Petition read.
WELSH JUDICATURE.]
Mr. R. Trevor
, after observing that he wished the Judges of Wales to be placed upon the same footing as those of England, and that he for one could not consent to the dividing and mixing up of counties for the sake of making assize districts, presented a Petition from the freeholders of the County of Carmarthen against the Bill for the alteration of the Welsh Judicature. The hon. Member added, that he in a great degree concurred in the prayer of the petition. There might be some improvements in the present system, but he could not agree to its total abolition. Some Gentlemen spoke of the Welsh law as a foreign code; it was, in fact, the old English law differently, and in some respects better, administered.
Petition laid upon the Table.
Sir J. Owen
presented a Petition with the same prayer, from between 1,800 and 1,900 freeholders of the County of Pembroke. He concurred heartily in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Jones
presented a similar Petition from the Sheriff, Magistrates, &c. of the Borough of Carmarthen. The hon. Member trusted that no attempt would
9
Sir C. Cole
said, that the borough of Glamorgan was in favour of the Bill before the House.
Mr. Peel
denied that any mystery had been kept up regarding the Bill, which had originated in the recommendation of a commission, after due inquiry. It had been submitted to Parliament last year, and he had himself seen sixteen or eighteen gentlemen connected with the Principality on the subject, so that there was no pretence for saying that the matter had been kept secret. He, however, concurred in the objection that had been raised respecting the division of counties, and full time, he said should be allowed, to enable the people of Wales to give an opinion upon the whole measure.
Mr. Jones
reiterated his objection to the alteration of the system, excepting as far as regarded placing the Welsh Judges upon the same footing as those of England.
Mr. Peel
was ready to enter into this compact, that all due time for consideration should be allowed, provided the hon. Member and his friends would not throw needless impediments in the way, so as to prevent the passing of the Bill in the present Session.
Mr. Jones
consented to these terms, and laid upon the Table two other Petitions, with the same prayer as that he before presented, one from the Burgesses and Commonalty of Carmarthen, and the other from Kidwelly.
Colonel Powell
presented a similar Petition from the freeholders of the County of Cardigan.
10
JUDGE JEBB.]
Mr. O'Connell
, after referring to a charge given to the Grand Jury by one of the Irish Judges, which was in opposition to the tenor of a Proclamation issued by the Government, moved "that there be laid before the House a Memorial addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of certain prosecutions for murder to be tried at the next Assizes for the county of Fermanagh."
Lord F. L. Gower
objected to the production of such documents, unless some ground of suspicion were previously laid: to grant it, would imply a want of impartiality in the executive government of Ireland, and the precedent would be liable to inconvenience and abuse. He heard with considerable regret anything like an insinuation against a member of the Bench of Ireland—Judge Jebb; and he felt bound to state, that were his own life in jeopardy on any charge, he should think he could not intrust it to any Judge more safely than to that distinguished individual.
Mr. Peel
thought it would be dangerous to set a precedent like that now attempted to be established. It appeared that a judge of one of the superior Courts of Ireland differed in opinion from the executive government on the subject of a certain proclamation. Judges were intended to control the executive government when it attempted unduly to interfere with the liberty of the subject. He protested against the production of the memorial.
Mr. O'Connell
did not intend, in the most remote degree, to charge the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with partiality: any man who did so would be guilty of a high crime, inasmuch as he would do gross injustice to that noble personage. The parties accused felt their lives at stake, as a judge who had expressed such a hostile opinion was about to try them. He thought that the better mode would be for the parties interested to present a petition.
Mr. Peel
added, that he did not mean to impute the slightest partiality to the executive government of Ireland, and he was himself a party to the proclamation from which Judge Jebb had dissented.
Mr. O'Connell
withdrew his Motion.
EAST INDIA CHARTER.]
Mr. Littleton
, in presenting a Petition from the Proprietors of various Iron Mines in the Coun-
11
Mr. Huskisson
remembered the application made by the hon. Member at the Board of Trade, and he also remembered telling him, and those by whom he was accompanied, that the hardware trade of this country would be most materially improved and benefitted by the introduction into this country of the lighter productions of other countries; and he had no doubt that that effect would be produced were the cause allowed to come into Full operation. He was formerly of opinion that allowing the raw material to be brought into this country, would be a benefit; our manufacturers would be able to make their articles cheaper, and foreigners have something to exchange for them. He was glad to find that the people were beginning to be sensible of the advantages of the liberal policy he had recommended; and had that not been followed, he believed that our present difficulties would have been much greater. He would not then enter further into the subject, but he could not permit that opportunity to pass of acknowledging the honourable and candid manner in which the gentlemen who attended on that occasion, and formerly opposed him, now admitted that the measures then in progress for removing the restriction on foreign trade have turned out for the good of the country; and that the originators of those measures intended them to be productive of good.
Mr. Robinson
thought the right hon. Gentleman drew a hasty conclusion when h inferred, because these petitioners were not suffering, that his measures must have been beneficial to the whole country.
Mr. Littleton
said, the petitioners were suffering much; that no one engaged in the Iron Trade in England, Wales, or Scotland, was free from very severe privations.
12
The Petition was brought up and ordered to be printed.
SUPPLY.]
Mr. Fysche Palmer
then rose;
Sir Henry Hardinge
said, he hoped the hon. Member would allow the Report of the Committee of Supply to be brought up.
Mr. Fysche Palmer
had no objection, on the understanding that he should be allowed to move afterwards.
On the question that the Report of the Committee of Supply be brought up,
Mr. Robert Gordon
said, that in bringing forward the Resolution with which he intended to conclude, he meant to convey no imputation whatever upon the great and illustrious men who had served their country, either in the Army or the Navy; all he wished was, to establish a principle, he hoped a correct principle, upon which the half-pay of military officers might in future be regulated. It had been customary to introduce into the Appropriation Act a clause regulating the half-pay and allowances of the military. Early in the reign of the late King, it was made a rule that no officer on half-pay should hold a civil office without giving up his half-pay or retired allowance. This practice was continued from the year 1761 to the year 1820, when it was, for the first time, departed from, and by a new regulation, officers on half-pay were allowed to retain their civil employments, if any they had, and their half-pay at the same time. The Finance Committee recommended a recurrence to the ancient usage, and from that time to this, the regulation he spoke of remained on the old footing. Thus the House would see that the deviation from the ancient practice was to be found in the change of 1820, and the recommendation of the Committee went to a restoration of the old practice. He thought, that when the House came to look at the facts, it would agree with him, that the same regulations ought to apply to full as to half pay, and that neither should be retained by the holder of a civil office. He did not object to a military man holding a civil office; but when he did hold a civil employment he ought not to enjoy a greater benefit than a civilian holding a similar situation. Why should he possess greater benefits than the civil servants of the state? For example, if any person holding a Parliamentary pension obtain a civil employment, the practice up to this time has been, that he
13
14
15
Sir Henry Hardinge
admitted the perfect fairness of the statement made by the hon. Member who had just sat down. Nothing could be fairer or more courteous than his observations, and he congratulated the gentlemen on half-pay on their possessing so able an advocate. With respect, in the first place, to the alterations made in the year 1820, and the change by the Finance Committee, he at the time, as now, pronounced that change to be exceedingly ill-judged. It was neither economical nor politic. There were many places of small emolument, which ought, nevertheless, to be filled by respectable persons; by persons who offered a long life of integrity, and possessed a commission as a guarantee to their employers; but such men, he believed, could no where be found, unless among officers on half-pay, and they would not accept such offices unless they were allowed to retain their half-pay. As an illustration of the effect which the refusal to allow half-pay to be retained by officers accepting other appointments, he would instance the case of a captain appointed to the situation of barrack-master. The pay of a barrack-master was 7
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
d.
16
l.
l.
l.
l.
17
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
18
Mr. C. Wood
supported the Motion, and said, that he heard nothing to invalidate his hon. friend's statements. The gallant officer had shown, that half-pay officers were harshly treated; but he had not given any reason why officers on whole pay should be suffered to have the emoluments both of civil and military employments. In his opinion, the pay of an officer ought to abate when he took a civil office.
Sir Francis Burdett
said a few words against the Motion. He was sorry that he could not agree with his hon. friend; for he was not aware of any reason why officers who had passed a long life in the service of their country, should be excluded from accepting office in the civil departments of the country; and he thought, that when they did, it would be very hard to deprive them of their military pay and emoluments. He saw no reason for depriving any class of officers of that half-pay which they had so hardly earned. As he understood the Motion, it would go to deprive some officers of their half-pay, which was quite contrary to the general principles which, he thought, ought to be acted on. He was quite aware of the necessity of encouraging the Ministers to practise that economy which was now required by the country, but he could not consent to urge that economy at the expense of individuals.
Mr. C. Fergusson
observed, that there were many situations with small salaries which could not be properly filled except by half-pay officers, and he thought it was hard to deprive them of the power of holding such offices. If the subject were likely to be taken into consideration by his Majesty's Government, he would recommend his hon. friend to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Althorp
felt all the inconvenience of Ministers beng placed in a situation of refusing to make allowances and grant superannuations to gentlemen; he felt, however, that the House was placed in a critical situation; and while he regretted the difficulty in which Government was placed, he must insist that it was the duty of the House to press economy on the Government. It was painful, perhaps, for Members to enforce economy when it affected individuals, but there was a necessity for them, being trustees for the public, not to allow their feelings to get the better of their duty to the public.
19
Mr. Huskisson
was disposed generally to concur in the views of the noble Lord; but considering all the circumstances of the case, he should feel more satisfaction if the Motion were not pressed to a division. He thought that the time was come when the whole system of superannuations, allowances, pensions, and half-pay must, from the circumstances of the country, become a subject of investigation. The House ought to go into such an inquiry, not with reference solely to half-pay or full pay, but with reference to every kind of salary, pension, and allowance. It would be wise and good policy to do so, and the Government ought to be encouraged to take the arduous task into its own hands. He admitted that the recompense of the half-pay was well earned, but the House must look at the difficulties under which the country was placed. If, according to the statement of his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of seventeen millions expended annually only eleven millions were applied to the efficient and active service of the country, while six millions were paid for superannuation allowances, pensions, and half-pay, and if this sum had been increasing since 1822, it was time to consider if the whole establishment could not be gradually diminished, instead of taking any partial view. He had listened with attention to his right hon. friend, the Secretary of War, but had not clearly understood that there was any other difference between continuing the full pay
20
Mr. R. Gordon
, in reply, did not think the right hon. Gentleman had answered his objections; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last would move either for a Select Committee or a Committee of the whole House, to inquire into the subject. With an understanding that the subject would be taken up by his Majesty's Ministers, or by the right hon. Gentleman, he would consent to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Secretary Peel
protested against its being understood that his Majesty's Government was pledged to a motion of which no notice had been given, and of which he did not yet know the terms. As an earnest of the intentions of his Majes-
21
Mr. Huskisson
wished the hon. Member to understand that he had not pledged himself to move for any Committee, but only that he might possibly call the attention of the House to the subject, if no Member more competent to the task than himself should take it up. He thought the whole subject required revision, but he was of opinion that some better opportunity should be found than on that occasion, to go into the matter.
Mr. Secretary Peel
informed the House that the principle of the bill formerly introduced into the House had been applied to every person subsequently accepting office, and to all new offices. A deduction had been made from their salaries to form a fund for retiring allowances.
Lord Howick
hoped his hon. friend would not withdraw his Motion, unless he received a distinct pledge from the Government that it would go into a general inquiry. He regretted that the hon. Member for Westminster, and the hon. Member for Kircudbright should encourage the Government in its extravagance. The Government was ready enough to attend to recommendations similar to those. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought in the bill alluded to, he had not marshalled all his forces to pass it; and he had withdrawn it after a very feeble opposition from the hon. Gentleman, who was then on the Opposition side of the House, and was now Paymaster of the Army. Since then, the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing on the subject. He had allowed a whole Session to pass away, and had made no effort to get over his defeat. He hoped that his hon. friend
22
Mr. Maberly
defended the Government. He was sure that it was ready to go fully into any such inquiry as that recommended. It was very seldom that he rose for such a purpose; but he was bound, in justice to the Government to declare, that he believed it was ready to go immediately into the investigation. He thought that the same principle that was applied to persons receiving half-pay ought to be applied universally, and that no person ought to be allowed to hold two offices, and receive two salaries.
Mr. Secretary Peel
could not suppose that the House would be so unjust as to require that the Ministers should pledge themselves to a Motion of which no notice had been given, and of which the terms were not known. Did the noble Lord wish to deprive officers of their half-pay? On Monday next his right hon. friend was to bring forward his view of the financial state of the country. The ordinary expenditure of the country was 11,000,000
l.
l.
l.
Lord Howick
only rose to guard himself against its being supposed that he wished to touch the half-pay of officers, or to deprive any person of the emoluments he then possessed; but he wanted a pledge that there should be no increase.
Sir H. Hardinge
understood the hon. Member to accuse the Government of gross partiality, in continuing the allowances of general officers while subalterns were obliged to give up their half-pay on accepting office. But the House would remember that in 1815 it was recommended that the number of general officers should be diminished; and from 378, their number then, they had been gradually reduced to 120, by which a saving had
23
l.
On the Question being put on the original Motion,
Mr. Hume
suggested, that it would be wise in the House to withhold the grant till after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his financial statement.
Mr. R. Gordon
had no desire to press the Motion if the right hon. Member for Liverpool would undertake the inquiry.
Mr. Huskisson
would only pledge himself to turn his attention to the subject in the course of the Session.
Lord Howick
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do so, as no person could accomplish the matter so well.
The Amendment, by the leave of the House, withdrawn.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up. Several items were agreed to without opposition. On the Question that the House agree to the Resolution of the Committee for granting 32,000
l.
Mr. Hume
took the opportunity of ob-serving, that the quarantine establishments were at present expensive; and to express his hope that, if any vacancies occurred in them, or in any other offices of the State, that they would not be filled up.
Mr. Herries
believed, that his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not need the suggestion of the hon. Member to attend to the subject he had alluded to. It had engaged the serious and careful consideration of his Majesty's Ministers. As to the Treasury, he could say that it had, to the utmost of its power, carried into execution the recommendation of the Finance Committee, with regard to salaries and superannuations. The noble Lord (Lord Howick) had done his right hon. friend injustice by accusing him of lukewarmness in regard to the bill he had brought into the House the Session before last. He knew that his right hon. friend had made the greatest exertions to get that bill through the House, but he had not been supported, with the exception of the hon. Member for Montrose, even by the Members of the Finance Committee.
Resolution agreed to.
On the Question that the House agree to the Resolution of the Committee to grant 60,612
l.
Mr. Hume
expressed his surprise that this vote should be continued. If we were
24
l.
On the Question being put,
Mr. Portman
said, he would give the Motion his warmest support. He expressed a hope that on the eve of a Motion by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Horton) for taking into consideration the causes of the present extent of suffering among the poorer classes, the House would not allow this last proposition, for a just and wise reduction of the Estimates, to be frittered away like the former ones. He agreed most fully with the hon. Member, that the Volunteers should perform voluntary service; and that in times like the present, unless they could be supported without such an enormous expense, the country would be better without their services. He would therefore implore hon. Members to consider the necessity for economy; and he was confident there was not a man in the House, meaning honestly and sincerely to relieve the burthens of the people, who could refuse his vote to the Amendment now proposed.
Sir H. Hardinge
did not mean again to trouble the House with any observations on this subject after the very protracted discussion, of more than two hours, which it had undergone on a former occasion. The Estimates, he repeated, were framed on as low a scale as they could be; and he put it to the courtesy of the hon. Member whether he would thus continue an opposition which so many majorities had already decided to be ill-founded.
The House then divided—For the original Resolution 104: For the Amendment 59:—Majority 45.
Original Resolutions agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Burrell, W.
Baring, Sir T.
Burdett, Sir F.
Baring, A.
Burrell, C.
Baring, F.
Cave, O.
Baring, B.
Carter, J.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Carew, R.
Blake, Sir F.
Dundas, hon. T.
Bright, H.
Denison, J. E.
25
Ebrington, Lord
Philips, Sir G.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Philips, G. R.
Fane, J.
Rice, T. S.
Fyler, T. B.
Russell, Lord J.
Hoye, J. B.
Robinson, G. R.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Rumbold, C. E.
Lennard, C. B.
Kickford, W.
Lamb, hon. J.
Sandon, Lord
Lott, H. B.
Smith, W.
Lester, B.
Smith, V.
Labouchere, H.
Sebright, Sir J.
Monck, J. B.
Thomson, C. P.
Marjoribanks, S.
Ward, J.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Warburton, H.
Martin, J.
White, Col.
Macqueen, T. P.
Wood, C.
Nugent, Lord
Wood, Alderma
O'Connell, D.
Whitmore, W. W.
Parnell, Sir H.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Wilbraham, G.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
TELLERS.
Price, R.
Hume, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Portman, E. B.
DUTIES OF HIGH SHERIFF.]
Mr. Fysche Palmer
, pursuant to notice, rose, to move for a Committee to inquire into the nature of the Duties of High Sheriff, and entered into a detail of the various complicated subjects on which a High Sheriff was expected to be conversant, and of the number of Courts in which he was supposed to preside, if he fulfilled in person the duties of his office. Among these he enumerated the presiding in the County Courts, the protection of the public as conservator of the peace, his duties as Collector of the Crown Rents, and as the officer called on to execute all writs issued within the county. All these, and many other judicial and ministerial functions, were performed by a man who was compelled to discharge a large portion of the expenses out of his own pocket, and who was liable to be prosecuted for the failure or misconduct of his officers. Every expense of the Judges of Assize was paid by the Sheriff—the table of their attendants, the coals, the beer, the wine consumed at their place of residence—all was defrayed by the property of the High Sheriff, while he was, at the same time, compelled to bring a vast number of retainers to the court town, at his own entire cost, to be employed as javelin-men, and for other purposes. To so great an extent had this gone, that a law was passed in the 13th and 14th of Charles the Second by which it was enacted, that no Sheriff should be compelled to keep a table at the Assize town for any save the members of his own family, or the judges' servants; that he
26
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
begged the House to recollect that the office of High Sheriff was an ancient one, of very great importance, and always filled by gentlemen of rank, character, and fortune. In his opinion, if the House were to make those alterations and reformations which the hon. Member seemed to aim at in his speech, the result would be, that the office must fall into the hands of men in a lower and humbler rank of society than those who had hitherto filled it with so much advantage to the country. The Motion of the hon. Member seemed to go to the reformation of points so extremely frivolous, that it would be worse than idle to give it the support of the House.
Motion agreed to. Committee appointed.
STATE OF THE POOR.]
Mr. W. Horton
then rose to make his promised Motion for a Committee of the whole House to inquire into the State of the Poor in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member commenced by observing, that he preferred moving for a Committee of the whole House rather than a Select Committee, because he
27
*
28
*
† ib.703 ‡ib. 704. § ib. 709.
29
*
*
30
31
32
l
33
34
35
36
37
"1. That the sums raised and applied for the relief of the poor in England and Wales, though mainly bearing on one particular class of the community—viz. the landed interest—ought to be considered, after the deduction of that portion which would otherwise be paid as wages, as much in the nature of a tax as any of those taxes which are to be found in the balance-sheet of the Revenue and expenditure of the country.
"2. That if a pauper population, for whose labour there is no real demand, can be prosperously colonized (with their own consent) at a less expense than would be necessary to be incurred for their maintenance in the mother country, a national outlay for the purpose of such colonization ought to be considered as an economy rather than as an expense.
"3. That if a redundant population were removed by a national effort of colonization, there would be but little danger to be apprehended from what is called 'the filling-up of the vacuum.'
"4. That if the United Kingdom were relieved from its redundant labourers—that is, those labourers for whose labour no real and natural demand exists in society; the remaining labourers might permanently remain in a state of comparative comfort and independence.
"5. That it is expedient to effect such reparation and abstraction of forced from unforced labour as would accurately measure the extent of the redundancy.
"6. That to enable parishes to raise money upon mortgage of their poor-rates for a period of years; such capital being specifically applied towards the emigration of voluntary candidates who may prefer independence in the colonies to pauperism at home; would be a measure highly favourable to the landed interest.
"7. That in the event of home colonization, the ratio of danger as to the filling-up of the
38
"8. That if the vacuum were to be filled up, the policy of a measure of colonization must be governed by a comparison of the increment of the expense of maintaining the new pauper population, with the decrement of the expense of maintaining the removed population, supposing them to have remained at home.
"9. That there are no means of producing wealth more effective than the combination of an able-bodied population, with uncultivated land of the first degree of fertility.
"10. That, independently of the special advantage to the landed interest, and to the labouring classes, the expenditure involved in such a measure of colonization would not be, in any degree, prejudicial to other classes possessing property in society.
"11. That, as a pauper, while he continues a pauper, receives necessarily only a bare subsistence, he can neither suffer from taxation, nor be relieved by its remission.
"12. That the application of any portion of surplus revenue for the purpose of raising a capital to be applied in the first instance in the home employment, and secondly, in the colonization of the poor, would be more beneficial to the labouring classes of the community, than if the same sum were applied in the reduction of public debt, or in the remission of any class of taxes to the same amount."
39
Mr. Portman
, in seconding the Motion of his right honourable friend, said, that he considered some plan of this kind of the utmost importance to the labouring classes of the country. He was convinced that the redundancy of the labouring population was the great cause of their distress. That fact was shown in the state of the county of Dorset. In the short time he was in that county during the Easter recess, no less than 370 persons applied to him to procure them the means of going out with their families to the Swan River, for they were all without the means of procuring a passage. The right hon. Gentleman had made four divisions of the poorer classes of this country. He thought he could make two divisions that would be as nearly accurate as those of the right hon. Gentleman. He should, he said, divide them into poor and paupers. Of the whole of this country the portion north of Warwick, or, perhaps, north of the Thames, might be stated to be that in which the majority of the people were poor; while in that portion of the kingdom south of Warwick, or south of the Thames, the majority of the people were paupers. These latter might he sub-divided also into two classes; those who were paupers in consequence of age or infirmity, and those who were reduced to that situation from the want of sufficient wages to maintain their families. Those who were reduced to pauperism by age or infirmity were supported by poor-laws, and with respect to them no alteration was required; but for those who sunk into pauperism either from the want of work, or from want of sufficient wages, it was necessary that something should be done. The House ought not to interfere with the wages of labour. Mr. Burke had truly said, that to attempt to establish a
maximum
minimum
40
l
41
Mr. J. Smith
supported the plan of giving each pauper a small portion of land. He had done so three years ago, to a certain extent, in the eastern division of Sussex, and the result had been most satisfactory. He had allotted to a number of poor persons rather more than one acre each, and not only were they kept from demanding parish assistance, but, beyond his utmost expectations, the result had been most beneficial to himself. A Quaker gentleman, of the name of Allen, who also had property there, adopted the same plan; and he could assure the House that every one of those individuals who took these small portions of land paid their rent regularly; and they procured by their labour on the soil from 3
s.
s.
d.
d.
d.
Mr. Benett
could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to many of the
42
Mr. Courtenay
thought it would be extremely unadvisable to go into a committee, which would only occupy time without the least expectation of coming to any practical result. He had still higher ground on which to object to a committee. It would be an abuse to the country to appoint a committee to take into consideration the state of the labouring poor, unless the House felt confident that that committee would be able to devise something which would administer to the suffering classes extensive relief. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there had been a great redundance of the labouring poor, but he could not bring himself to believe that that redundance
43
44
Mr. Slaney
willingly acknowledged the services rendered by the right hon. Gentleman in bringing the subject before the country, for there never was a period which mere imperatively called upon the House, as a matter of policy and duty, to consider the question of population in relation to the means of employment. There had now been a period of fifteen years of peace; and instead of having improved the condition of the labouring classes of the community, the peasantry of the southern counties of England had decidedly deteriorated. Mansions had been built, and riches spread throughout the land; the higher classes possessed enjoyments which they had not possessed before, and the middle classes had enjoyments which their forefathers had not; but the working classes, by whose labour they attained their enjoyments, instead of advancing with the progress of civilization, had fallen back. No man who looked to the consequences could contemplate the effects of this continual deterioration without alarm. Was not this a case to call on Government, and upon that House, calmly and sedulously, but firmly and steadily, to look at once at the nature and extent of the evil, and at its probable consequences. The great body of the working classes might be divided into two sets perfectly distinct—he meant the agricultural and manufacturing population; but of the latter it was not his intention to say a single word. With reference to the peasantry, they might be divided likewise into two classes, perfectly and clearly distinct from each other. An hon. Member had spoken of the redundancy of the population, which certainly might exist in the south of England, but it could not be said to exist in the northern counties. The greatest distinction existed between the southern and northern parts of the kingdom, as much, indeed, as between the people of any two distinct kingdoms; and it was for the House to trace the causes of the difference. In twenty counties of the north the poor were well off, with plenty of work and good pay for their labour, and the parish rates were lower than in the South; whilst in the South there was an immense body of the poor depressed and degraded, as compared with their brethren of the north. The
45
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
46
Mr. E. Davenport
denied that there was an overpopulation in the country; and he thought it would require great abilities to show that a country, capable of producing subsistence for all its inhabitants, and even capable of producing double what it now produced (were agriculture but improved), could be overpeopled by its present population. The chain which had connected capital and labour had been dissolved; but no person had a right to arraign the wisdom of Providence, until he had found out that he could entirely exculpate the folly of man. Providence
47
Sir F. Burdett
said, if the right hon. Mover had not yet made much way in his project, he had at least succeeded to the extent of persuading the House that the subject was worth consideration. Nevertheless, he could not yet encourage him with the expectation of a beneficial or speedy result. He wished, on that occasion, particularly to avoid inquiring how far the alterations in the currency might have occasioned the redundant population; and he should, therefore, only say, generally, that on this point he was inclined to agree with his right hon. friend. As to filling the vacuum to be occasioned by emigration, it seemed to him that nothing was more easy than to prevent a rapid increase, when once the numbers were thinned. In the same way, it was easy at any time to stimulate population, but not so easy to
revocare gradum,
48
l
l
49
Sir G. Murray
said, he should only offer a few observations, in consequence chiefly of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, to whom he had listened now, as always, with great satisfaction. He concurred entirely with what his right hon. friend (Mr. W. Horton) had said on the subject of emigration to the colonies: that opinion was not new to him, for he had entertained it when he was in the Canadas, and he had stated it in a paper he then drew up, on a means of forming a better defence for those provinces. He thought now, as he had thought then, that the only certain and permanent means of providing for the defence of the Canadas was by directing to them a stream of population from the mother country, attached to her interests, and resolved to maintain her possessions. The difficulty of holding out Much, encouragement on the subject of
50
51
Mr. Baring
had always been of opinion, from the time he was a member of the Committee, that relief might be given by emigration, and it was the interest of parishes in the southern parts of the kingdom, which were suffering so severely from the pressure of the poor-rates, to contribute to this desirable end. With respect to the fact of the redundancy of our population, he wondered how any Gentleman could entertain a doubt upon it. Experience had proved that the theory of Mr. Malthus was correct. Those who in this country were in a state of abject pauperism, in the colonies would be in a condition of comparative comfort. Only two remedies worth consideration had been suggested:—the one was Emigration, and the other was an alteration of the Poor-laws, reverting to what had been properly called a sound interpretation of that system of enactments. An union of these remedies might perhaps be effected. Let relief be refused to the able-bodied, but there must be at the same time the means of conveying them to the colonies. This arrangement would remove all the dangers apprehended from a transition from the present system of parish relief to that of refusing relief to the able-bodied. If the poor-rates were applied only to relieve the aged and infirm, and an opportunity were afforded to the young and able-bodied to proceed to the colonies, much might be accomplished for the benefit of this kingdom. He thought, therefore, that the members of the legislature ought to make up their minds whether they would or would not try the experiment of revising the poor-laws, instead of having every year a debate upon the subject, which debate always ended in nothing. He, for one, was ready to make the experiment; but he should make it with greater confidence if, at the same
52
Colonel O'Grady
denied that in Ireland there was a redundant population, if the waste land were brought into a proper state of tillage; and he maintained that England had no right to complain of what was termed the Irish invasion, because the absentee nobility and gentry spent in this country much more than the Irish peasantry took away.
Lord Althorp
thought a Committee of the whole House—not for the purpose of examining witnesses, for that would be absurd, but for the purposes of discussion—might be attended with very beneficial effects. He thought also that no new measure ought to be introduced affecting the state of the people, or applying to the administration of the poor-laws which would not have the effect of making those who contracted imprudent marriages, at an early period of life, find themselves in a worse situation than if they had exercised a greater degree of foresight and discretion.
Mr. A. Baring
explained, that he was quite averse from returning to the old system.
Mr. Slaney
observed, that the great principle of the old system was to find employment for the able-bodied labourer.
Mr. Hume
said, that he disapproved of charging emigrants any thing for land. The county ought rather to be at some expense to remove the paupers, than to throw impediments in the way, by seizing on the land, and not allowing it to be occupied unless its fees and exactions were paid.
Sir George Murray
said, he had given directions to diminish the fees as much as possible. It was his wish to diminish the impediments to emigration.
Mr. W. Horton
rose to reply. He said it was the duty of the House to assert distinctly whether or not it were prepared to relieve the country from the effects of that redundant population now pressing upon its resources. It was indisputable that the population of Ireland, as compared with the demand for labour, was prodigiously redundant, and he saw no means of relief from that redundancy that could be at all considered effectual except those which he had recommended, and which he should feel it his duty to continue to recommend, notwithstanding the apathy with which they appeared to be received. It was in vain to talk of the Colonial Secretary affording facilities for emigration—
53
l.
WELSH JUDICATURE.—ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.]
The Attorney General
, after adverting to the lateness of the hour, said, he intended as shortly as possible to call the attention of the House to a Motion of his which stood on the paper, the object of which was, to introduce a Bill for the better Administration of Justice in Wales, and which must be accompanied by some further measure, such as that House might deem necessary, in respect of the procedure of the English Courts of Common Law. He also intended to propose some additional regulations in the English Courts, which would certainly not be required by anything necessary to the Welsh Judicature; but which, he conceived, would in itself be found highly expedient and advantageous. Alterations of that nature had been alluded to in the Speech from the Throne; and the present, he had to inform the House, was one of the measures in contem-
54
55
in Banco,
Nisi Prius,
nisi prius
56
in Banco
nisi prius
dies non
mesne process
57
l.,
l.
58
59
60
Tribunaux de Premiére Instance,
Juge d' Instruction
Tribunaux de Premiére Instance
Cours Royales,
Cours Royales
Cour de Cassation,
Conseillers;
Procureur General,
Avocats Generaux,
Greffier,
Cour Royale
Procureurs, Avocats, Greffiers,
Cassation.
Cours Royales,
Cassation,
Juges de Paix,
Tribunaux de Premiere Instance.
Tribunaux de Commerce,
l.
l.
61
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
Tribunaux de Première Instance
Cour de Cassation
l.,
62
l.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he was quite willing to give the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) credit for his intention to ameliorate our law, but he disclaimed having heard a
63
l.
l.
l.,
64
Cour Royale.
l.
Sir J. Owen
protested against the measure from a conviction that, by the abolition of local judicature, the costs of law would be more than doubled to the inhabitants of Wales. He was confident that Government would not so far disregard the feelings of the people as to suffer this Bill to
65
Mr. Wilbraham
had no doubt but it would prove highly advantageous to that part of the country to which he personally belonged. He wished to thank the hon. and learned Member for the bill.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
was of opinion, that the annihilation of the local judicature would confer an important benefit on the Principality; and he was led to form this conclusion after an attentive consideration of the subject, confirmed by his own individual experience of the practice in these courts themselves. There was, to a certain degree, disadvantage in every change, but here the good counterbalanced the evil. He hoped, however, that the Bill would not be allowed to go into a committee before the assizes, in order to give time for examination of its merits.
The Solicitor General
, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Clare, stated that it was a part of the measure in question, so to apportion the business as to provide that the Court of Exchequer should for the future do a fair and reasonable share of the work of the country. It sounded well to propose that they should bring justice to every man's door, but in practical operation it might not be so convenient. The local magistracy would become mixed up with the interests of families, and it was hardly possible to avoid partiality when the same gentlemen were sent again and again to administer justice amidst the same local associations.
Mr. O'Connell
explained, that he had not desired that local tribunals should be composed of persons selected from their respective neighbourhoods.
Mr. Jones
defended the character of the Welsh judges, and observed, that several of the most distinguished ornaments of the judicial bench had previously filled the office of Welsh judge. Whether England would be content with having three additional judges when those at present existing were not all employed, he did not pretend to say, but it was certainly hard that the interests of Wales should be made the ladder by which ambitious barristers were to climb to such preferment as three additional seats on the bench must necessarily induce. It was admitted on all hands that the Welsh were attached to their present institutions; and he could not bring forward a better proof of their feelings, than the fact that the inhabitants
66
Mr. C. W. Wynn
, in explanation, stated, that the Denbigh meeting was not unanimous, and that the measure was opposed by the inhabitants in consequence of their expectation that their interests would be injured should the assizes be occasionally removed.
Sir Christopher Cole
said, he saw no reason why Wales should have a separate judicial system any more than Yorkshire. He was glad that the Ministers had taken the matter in hand, and he hoped that they would successfully carry it through.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, he regretted that the Bill did not provide some remedy for the inequality of business in the dif-
67
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the proposition of his hon. and learned friend had not. been fairly treated. He had proposed to introduce a measure to alter the jurisdiction of the Welsh Courts, and it might have been supposed, as the House had previously been engaged in discussing the twelve propositions of his right hon. friend, that it would, at that late hour, have thought the discussion of one topic at a time enough. The hon. Member for Clare, however, was disappointed that the Bill did not reform the whole practice of all our courts, and he had indulged in many remarks on that subject. He had himself, as a preliminary measure to such a reform, slated his intention to introduce a bill for pulling an end to patent offices, and till that, and the question concerning fees were disposed of, the reform of the courts could not be proceeded with. Measures Were in contemplation, also, for an equal distribution of business among the courts, and he did not expect that subject would have been brought under the notice of the House, when it was only called on to discuss the question of the Welsh
68
Mr. Rice Trevor
wished only to state, that he had presented a petition from the county he represented against the change, and in the sentiments of that petition he fully concurred.
The Attorney General
professed himself disposed to give all the time for delay which could be conceded consistently with his intention to have it passed through both Houses of Parliament before the expiration of the Session. He wished it to be understood that it was no part of his plan to touch the Palatine Courts of Durham, Chester, and Lancaster. As to what had been said of France, he had compared, not the amount of population in the two kingdoms, but the extent of business done by the judges. He had stated that the twelve judges of England decided as
69
Mr. Hume
animadverted on some observations that had fallen from the Attorney General, conveying, as he conceived, a sneer of ridicule, directed against Mr. Bentham and the doctrines advocated by that writer and his followers. Instead of sarcastically reviling such a man as Mr. Bentham, he thought it would be well for the Attorney General if he would cultivate
70
The Attorney General
disavowed having made any disrespectful allusion to Mr. Bentham or his writings, and he could not help thinking that a very insidious application had been made of any expressions he might have uttered. He entertained a high respect for Mr. Bentham, whom he had not the honour to know personally, although he was acquainted with those who were on intimate terms with that gentleman. It did not follow, however, that the respect which he felt for the writer was to extend to an adoption of his opinions. He did speak of a sect, but he had cast no reflections upon its members.
Mr. Hume
regretted that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, and was happy to hear him disclaiming any disrespectful intention.
Motion agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 10, 1830.
MINUTES.] Lord ELLENBOROUGH'S Divorce Bill went through a Committee.—The Transfer of Aids Bill, and the 12,000,000 Exchequer Bills Bill, were brought up from the Commons and read a first time.
A Report was laid on the Table concerning the National Vaccine Establishment, and ordered to be printed.
TAX ON LEATHER.]
The Earl of Rosebery
presented a Petition from the Tanners of Linlithgow, praying for a repeal of the remaining Tax upon Leather. The noble Lord observed, that he entirely concurred in the prayer of the Petition. The remission of the Leather-tax that had already taken place was productive of no benefit to the public, although it took 400,000
l.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he could not concur in the propriety of reimposing the Leather-tax, though he agreed with the noble Earl in stating, that the public had derived no benefit from its having been taken off. When Mr. Pitt gave up the 3
s.
71
s.
s.
The Earl of Rosebery
did not recommend the re-imposition of the Leather-tax; on the contrary, he thought it advisable to repeal the remaining duty, which gave rise to restrictions that prevented the public from enjoying the benefit of the repeal that had already taken place. The public had derived no advantage hitherto; all the benefit fell into the hands of a few great capitalists.
Earl Stanhope
was well aware, that the public did not receive that relief which might reasonably be expected from a reduction of taxation upon the raw material. The evil arose from our want of those municipal regulations which existed on the Continent, and by which corporations and magistrates
72
Petition ordered to be printed
JEWS.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
presented a Petition, signed by all the respectable inhabitants residing in the town of Liverpool, of the Jewish persuasion, for the removal of the disabilities under which they laboured. This being the first opportunity which he had enjoyed of stating his opinion on the subject, he should say that he knew of no reason connected with the faith which these individuals professed, or with their personal conduct, which ought to preclude them from a free admission to those equal advantages of a civil nature that had been so wisely extended to others. This was not. an occasion on which it would be proper to say more on the subject, and he should only add, that he had seen with satisfaction an intimation that a bill for the relief of the Jews was shortly to be brought into the other House of Parliament.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 10, 1830
MINUTES.] Notice was given by Mr. JEPHSON of a Bill to amend the 9th Geo. 4th. c. 83, relating to the selection of Juries in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land:—by Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS, that he would, on April 17th, move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the laws relative to the payment of the Navy.
Accounts were presented of Proclamations issued and expenses incurred by putting into force the Peace Preservation Acts:—of the amount of money paid by ships for Mediterranean Passes.
Accounts were ordered on the motion of Mr. ALDERMAN WAITHMAN of the number of persons discharged by the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors from the 1st January 1814 to December 31st 1829:—of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, of the number of Informations filed in the Court of Chancery since 1818 having for their object to correct abuses in public charities, and of the number of Petitions presented to the Court:—of Mr. HUME, of the number of Writs or Processes issued by the Solicitor of the Board of Taxes against persons in arrear for Assessed Taxes in Middle-
73
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.]
Several Petitions
were presented on this subject by Mr. Burrel, by Mr. Arkwright, and also by Mr. Denison, who observed that the petition he had to present from the inhabitants of Croydon, Surrey, was, though short, full of serious circumstances. The petitioners slated that they could no longer bear to witness the distressed and even starving condition of the destitute labourers, many of whom were out of employment, and must actually die of want, if they were not relieved. They stated that the taxes on beer, malt, and on hops, might be considered as poll-taxes, falling the heaviest on the poor labourers, who were obliged to consume those articles to support their strength, though at present they could get neither this nor any thing else. The want of those necessaries of life was shortening the existence of thousands of labourers. If these taxes were remitted, beer would be reduced from 5
d.
d.
Petitions read and printed.
DUTY ON SPIRITS.]
Mr. W. Smith
, in presenting a Petition from a body of men who were not numerous, but very important, on account of their wealth, and the sums they paid to the revenue, he meant the English Distillers, observed, that the prayer of their petition was, that no alteration might be made in the discriminating duty now levied on rum, and on English corn-spirit. They had been induced to present the petition to the House by observing that a petition had lately been presented to it, praying for a reduction of the duty on rum. When that petition was presented
74
Petition read and printed.
THE STANDARD OF THE CURRENCY.]
Mr. Wodehouse
asked the right hon. the Master of the Mint, whom he saw in his place, why a copy of the evidence of Mr. Baring, and of the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England, relative to the Silver Standard, which the Government had some time back consented to produce, was not laid on the Table. He thought it essential to give the country every possible information on this subject, in order to see if it would afford a means of relieving our distress.
Mr. Herries
said, that as far as he was aware, there was every disposition to lay all the evidence obtained by the Government before the House. The occasion on which this evidence was given was peculiar, and perhaps for that reason it might be produced; but in general cases he thought it would be inconvenient to say that communications thus made to the Privy Council were not privileged. He thought that when the papers were produced it would be seen that the Board of Trade had done what was most conducive to the end in view. On looking into the papers he found them divided into four. The first consisted of the evidence of Mr. Baring; the second was a statement of information privately communicated to him; and the third was a memorandum of a conversation between him and the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England, which, from the very first passage in it, was clearly of a confidential nature. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would readily agree to lay on the Table all the papers that could properly be the means of affording information to the House.
Mr. S. Rice
thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory:
75
Mr. Herries
said, that there were not any means of obtaining accurate information upon that subject.
ROMAN CATHOLICS OF GALWAY.]
Mr. O'Hara,
in presenting two Petitions, one from the Justices of the Peace of the County of Galway, and the other from the Roman Catholic Clergy of the Warden-ship of Galway, praying that Roman Catholics might be admitted to the privileges of the Corporation of the Town of Galway, observed, that the petitioners stated, that formerly Catholics were admitted to all the privileges of the Corporation. Their rights were recognised by the Charter of Charles 2nd, and by the Irish House of Commons in 1715. The Act of 4lh Geo. 1st was intended only to give Protestants a more ready, and secure, and cheap mode of acquiring their freedom. By the late Act of admitting Roman Catholics to the civil offices of the State, they were certainly entitled also to enter the Corporation of the town of Galway; but that was contrary to the words of the Act of George 1st. The petitioners therefore prayed, and he warmly concurred in their prayer, that Parliament would adopt some means of removing all doubt on the subject, and of giving Roman Catholics an equal right with Protestants to share all the privileges of the Corporation of Galway.
Mr. S. Rice
rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the Act of the 4th of George 1st as limits the franchise of this corporation to Protestants only. The hon. Member observed, that it was not his intention to go into any argument on the subject at present, particularly in the absence of those hon. Gentlemen who took a part in the discussion when he presented the Petition. Other opportunities would occur for going more fully into it, should it be necessary. He would confine himself, therefore, at present, to merely stating the grounds on which he asked for leave to bring it in. The Protestant merchants and traders could, by the Act of Geo. 1st. claim their freedom as a matter of right, after a residence in the town, but the claim was confined to them exclusively. The privileges of the corporation were limited to Protestants. It seemed
76
Mr. Trant
did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he wished to guard himself against its being supposed, should he remain silent, that he approved of the measure. What steps he might afterwards take to oppose the bill he did not then know, but he looked with extreme jealousy upon any measures interfering with corporate rights.
Leave given, and Bill ordered to be brought in.
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.]
Viscount Palmerston
rose to submit to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the Affairs of Portugal. His lordship spoke to the following effect:—I feel that I ought, in the first place, to apologise to the House, for having fixed upon a day which, by the general understanding of all sides, is usually devoted to relaxation from Parliamentary duties; but it has been my misfortune, and not my fault. I have already been obliged twice to postpone my Motion. I have failed in an endeavour to make an arrangement with the Government, which would have enabled me to bring it on to-morrow; and I had no alternative, but either to make my Motion to-day, or else to put it off till April; and I did not think, that under all circumstances, I could with propriety, delay it so long. The Motion with which I shall conclude, will be for further information as to the conduct of the Government, with regard to the affairs of Portugal; and I trust I shall be able to establish such grounds for my Motion, that it will be impossible for the House to refuse to accede to it. There may be many
77
78
"—On all sides, from innumerable tongues,
A dismal universal hiss, the sound
Of public scorn."—
79
ultimi Romanorum,
80
81
82
"——How soon
Height will recall high thoughts, how soon unsay
What feigned submission swore; how case recant
Vows made in pain, as violent as void."
83
84
85
86
87
88
l.
89
90
91
92
de Jure
93
94
sine quâ non,
"Ample room, and verge enough,
The characters of Hell to trace."
95
1. The immediate marriage of the Queen of Portugal with the Infant, Don Miguel, who should take the title of King.
2. The conclusion of a family compact, of which the Emperor of Austria should be umpire.
3. That in case of the death of the Queen without issue, before Don Miguel, (
quod Dî prius omen in ipsum convertant
4. That in case of the death of the King Regent, the Queen should reign.
5. That no notice should be taken of the changes, which had happened, in the form of Government in Portugal.
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
1. Extract of so much of the instructions given to Sir W. H. Clinton, on his taking the command of the British Force, sent to Portugal, in December 1826, as relates to the interference of the troops under his command, in suppressing disturbances in Lisbon, and in protecting the persons of the Royal Family of Portugal.
2. Extract of such parts of any communications made to Sir William A' Court, as relate to this interference.
3. Copy of the Protocol of the conference held in London, on the 12th of January 1828,
103
4. Copy of any Document explaining what "had' been settled in England," relative to the course to be pursued by Don Miguel on his arrival in Portugal; as referred to by Sir Frederick Lamb, in his despatch of 1st March 1820, (No. 17, of the Papers presented to Parliament in June 1829.)
5. Copy of the Instructions given to Sir Frederick Lamb, on his proceeding to Portugal, as His Majesty's Ambassador, in 1828.
6. Extracts of such further parts of the despatches from Sir Frederick Lamb, as relate to the proceedings in Portugal, in violation of the engagements entered into by Don Miguel, and to the execution of the instructions given to Sir Frederick Lamb, in consequence thereof.
7. Extracts of such parts of any dispatches addressed to Sir Frederick Lamb, while in Portugal, as relate to the proceedings in Portugal, in violation of the engagements of Don Miguel, and to the earnest and repeated remonstrances made in consequence thereof, in the name of his Majesty, and mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, on 24th July, 1828.
8. Copy of the instructions given in 1828, to Lord Strangford, on his proceeding to the Brazils, and Copies or Extracts of such parts of all despatches to or from him, and to or from the Marquis of Barbacena, as relate to those negotiations for the settlement of the affairs of Portugal, which were announced in the Speech from the Throne, on the 5th of Feb. 1829.
9. Copies of the Correspondence between the Duke of Wellington, and the Marquises of Barbacena and Palmella, regarding the arrival in this country of the Queen, Donna Maria da Gloria, referred to in the Duke of Wellington's Letter to Lord Aberdeen, Jan.1829. (No. 37, of the Papers presented to Parliament in June 1829.)
Mr. Herries
, on the Motion being put, rose and claimed the indulgence of the House while he stated a few objections to the Motion of his noble friend, and a few reasons why the House should not comply with the Motion. He would not pretend to determine the decision of the House, knowing, as he did, that several of his right hon. friends were ready and better able than he was to answer the noble Lord; he would only enforce some points the noble Lord had slurred over, and explain the incorrect view he had taken of others. The noble Lord had already made as serious an attack as he could make if he had all the papers he moved for, and they corresponded entirely to his supposed view of their contents. Though the noble Lord's speech was nominally for the production
104
105
106
107
108
On the Question being put, strange's were ordered to withdraw, but
Lord John Russell
rose and said, he could not allow the Question to go to a division, although reluctant to detain the House, without stating his reasons for supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, when the Speech from the Throne stated, "that the numerous embarrassments arising from the interruption of our diplomatic relations with Portugal increased his Majesty's desire to effect the termination of the evil;" and when they were told that the recognition of Don Miguel was not far distant, he thought there was no to so proper for the production of the papers connected with the negotiations as the present, in order that the House might be able to judge of the propriety of the course of conduct pursued by his Majesty's Ministers. If the papers were not to be produced now, he did not know when they would be. It was now more than two years since the usurpation took place. It was more than one since a motion of a right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Mackintosh) obtained a portion of the papers connected with the negotiations which ensued; although it was now contended that to produce any part of the correspondence would be premature and unjust. Premature information was given twelve months ago, but further information was withheld now, because it was not mature enough for production. This was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling himself unable to answer the noble Lord, had shown a discretion much to be commended, by passing over in silence all the most important topics of his speech. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the Government of this country, as a government, did not give the Constitution to Portugal. But it interfered, as it were individually, and the ambassador of this country, Lord
109
110
111
112
113
Nec victoris heri tétigit captiva cubile!
114
Mr. Calcraft
was not surprised at the natural indignation which had been expressed by the noble Lord against the perfidy and treachery which had placed Portugal in its present situation. But Ministers, whose duty it was to consult the honour and true interests of the country, must not allow themselves to be induced to swerve from the direct path of their duty by any considerations having reference to the personal character of the princes with whom they had to treat. His object in rising, was to refute the imputation that the subversion of the Portugal Constitution had been occasioned by the influence of those Ministers. Any other line of policy than that which they had followed, particularly the line of policy so warmly, he might say passionately, recommended by the noble Lord and his friends, would be immediately followed by war; and war without any adequate reason, which, in their cooler moments, the noble Lord and his friends would condemn. Nothing else could be the result of the present Motion, and of the manner in which it had been brought forward; nothing else could be the result of calling on statesmen to act with a view to the personal character of Sovereigns, than war. War! war! interminable war, without any adequate motive, or any justification, either of interest, or of honour. He recollected that several of his hon. friends, whom he saw sitting on the other side of the House, had deprecated the interference in foreign affairs which had led to the late wars, and been the cause of imposing great burthens on the country; and he hoped they would pause, and not suffer themselves to be carried away by indignation against the personal character of a prince. Whatever indignation, therefore, they might feel at the past conduct of the
115
116
117
Lord Morpeth
said, he was of opinion, that his noble friend had completely established his case, and a painful case it appeared to him to be. Enough had been proved to justify his noble friend in deploring the fallen credit of this country, and arraigning the conduct which had been pursued by her Government. The conduct of England had been such as at first to give hopes to the liberal party in Portugal of support; but that afterwards it had contributed to crush their cause. By this conduct, England had lost one party in Portugal which had always been attached to her without gaining the affections of any other. It had been asked, what were the Government to do? But he would tell them what it ought not to have done. It ought not to have permitted the correspondence of Lord Beresford, boasting of the friendship of his party for Don Miguel; it ought not to have acknowledged with breathless haste, the blockade of Oporto; it ought not to have allowed the occupation of Portugal by our army to appear as the proximate cause of the downfall of the Portuguese Constitution. The right hon. Member for Wareham deprecated any interference in domestic affairs; but how could we interfere more effectually in the domestic affairs of any man than by recommending him a wife? The right hon. Gentleman also talked of the evils of war. Thrice he repeated the words
bella, horrida bella!
118
Colonel Beresford
said, that his noble relation had shown the correspondence to which the noble Lord referred to the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government, who had expressed it as his opinion, that that correspondence was not calculated to compromise his Majesty's Government.
Mr. E. Davenport
said, he gave his cordial thanks to the noble Lord who had introduced the subject to the House, and he congratulated those who had preceded him in the debate on the manly stand, they seemed disposed to make against our disgraceful conduct towards Portugal. Two years ago, when he brought forward a motion on the subject, the House appeared to look with perfect apathy at the matter, though he believed that there was scarcely a period of our history, in which such an appeal as that which had been made continually to the honour and humanity of Englishmen, by the unhappy Portuguese, during the last two years, would have been made in vain. At that time, however, the watchfulness of Parliament over foreign affairs, had gone to sleep. It was first wholly occupied by the Finance Committee, and afterwards by the Catholic Question. If Ministers had taken care of our internal interest, which certainly the present state of the country did not prove, they had been unmindful of the national honour abroad. It was quite evident at that time, that a despotism, founded on treachery and perjury, was to be established in Portugal, under the connivance, if not by the assistance, of England. England, he believed, assisted in establishing that despotism. She had got enshrined in her
119
120
Sir F. Burdett
, after complimenting the noble Viscount upon the eloquent and argumentative manner in which he had introduced this Motion to the House, proceeded to say that he felt that this was a subject in which the character of this country was at stake, and for that reason he wished, as an Englishman deeply concerned for the national honour of his country, to declare his opinions upon the question. As yet, indeed, no answer had been given, nor even an attempt at answer had been made to the able speech with which the question had been introduced. It was not, therefore, necessary to offer any of his sentiments to the House, nor did he mean to do so with any view to make that clearer which was already as clear as the noon-day, but only to make known his own opinions. The national character of this country, he knew from experience, was at present at a very low estimate amongst the people on the continent of Europe, and that was entirely attributable to the foreign policy which had been latterly pursued by our Government. The Motion of the noble Lord, if acceded to, was calculated in some degree to raise our
121
122
—
nam si ego dignus hâc
Sum maxume, at tu indignus qui faceres tamen.
123
Who finds the heifer dead, and bleeding fresh,
And sees, fast by, a butcher with an axe,
But will suspect't was he that made the slaughter?
124
Monstrum nulla virtute redemptum
125
——Doff the lion's hide
And hang a calfskin on those recreant limbs?
Mr. Calcraft
explained. He never meant to say, according to the extravagant misrepresentation of the Member for Westminster, that this country was not able to
126
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that in rising upon this occasion, he felt it necessary to ask for more than the usual indulgent consideration of the House. He could not but regret that it had been deemed advisable by the noble Lord, no doubt for good reasons, though he could not divine their nature, to submit a motion of this important description to the House, upon a day which was usually devoted to relaxation, and upon which there was a distinct arrangement and understanding among men of all parties that no public business whatever of any consequence should ever be brought forward. His own time had been so much and so incessantly occupied, in consequence of the lateness of the debates during the last two days, that he really conceived he had some claim upon the noble Lord's forbearance, and that he had some right to expect that such a motion as this should not have been brought forward upon this day, which was a sort of parliamentary
dies non.
127
128
129
Sir F. Burdett
intimated that he had not said so.
Mr. Peel
understood the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet to have both said, that the circumstances under which the Charter had been carried to Portugal ex-
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
cheers
Mr. Huskisson
said, that he was well aware that that day was not ordinarily devoted to debate a great public question; but it having been admitted that his noble friend had no alternative but to bring forward his Motion on that day, or forego it altogether, that was a full vindication of his course of proceeding. It had always been admitted that one of the highest privileges of that House was to superintend the conduct of the Ministers, and never was there a time, perhaps, in which the exercise of that privilege had been so long suspended. He had reason to fear that ere long the country might regret that the House had, on the subject of our foreign relations, neglected its duty. Perhaps that might be attributed to the satisfaction which the conduct of the Ministers had given when they sacrificed, on a great public question, their individual opinions
142
143
144
145
146
147
noscitur à, sociis
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
Mr. Secretary Peel
explained, that his
155
Mr. Huskisson
explained. What he complained of was, that his right hon. friend quoted despatches of his which he did not produce, and he challenged his right hon. friend to produce the letter signed by him.
Mr. Peel
(with warmth.)—"I deny the charge, [loud cries of 'hear.'] I did not quote the letters of the right hon. Gentleman. There is an end of all discussion, if I cannot refer to facts. I said that an order was given for the recall of the British troops by a Secretary of State, and that Secretary was Mr. Huskisson. I quote no letters: I relate facts."
Viscount Sandon
said, that he did not think an armed interference was required; but Ministers had other means, even stronger than arms: and it would have been sufficient had they expressed their opinion against the usurpation. A foreign Minister of the country had declared that the friends of Don Miguel were the friends of this country; and a few nights after, the same Minister had declared that Don Miguel was cruel because he was cowardly. Both these sentiments were, in his opinion, improper; and he could not give his confidence to a foreign policy so conducted.
156
Viscount Palmerston
replied.—He was not, he said, desirous of occupying the House at that hour, but some observations had fallen from his right hon. friend, to which a reply was necessary. His right hon. friend had complained that he had made choice of his points of attack, but he had forgotten to add, that the Motion was communicated to Government some time before, and it embraced every point on which he had made any observations. His right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) had charged him too with broaching opinions which he had not avowed whilst a member of the Cabinet; but, looking to dates, that reproach would not appear well founded. It was true, that he (Lord Palmerston) made no objection to withdrawing the British troops from Portugal; but he denied that the government of Portugal had then taken a decisive course. He (Lord Palmerston) felt himself in an embarrassing situation, for he did not know whether he was entitled to use, even hypothetically, the expressions in the remonstrances made by the English Government to Don Miguel; but he challenged his right hon. friend to produce them. The order for the recall of the troops was sent on the 6th of March. The arrival of the first communication of any thing like the assumption of royal authority on the part of Don Miguel was on the 7th of May. On the 19th of May, he (Lord Palmerston) attended the last Cabinet Council on this subject. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would produce the answer to that despatch of the 7th of May. It would appear from that despatch what was the tone held by the British Government towards Don Miguel. He challenged his right hon. friend to produce these papers, which would decide the difference between them. If his right hon. friend would produce the others, he would not press for
157
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and a division took place. The numbers were—For the Motion 73: Against it 150:—Majority against the Motion 77.
List of the Minority.
Bankes, Henry
Macdonald, Sir James
Beaumont, T. W.
Macqueen, Potter
Bentinck, Lord G.
Maberly, J.
Bernal, Ralph
Morpeth, Viscount
Blake, Sir F.
Norton, G. C.
Burdett, Sir F.
Nugent, Lord
Canning, Sir Stratford
O'Connell, Daniel
Carter, John B.
Ord, William
Calthorpe, Fred.
Peech, N. W.
Cave, R. Otway
Pendarvis, E.W.W.
Cavendish, Henry
Philips, Sir George
Cavendish, Wm.
Philips, Geo. R.
Chichester, Arthur
Phillimore, Joseph
Davenport, E.
Price, Robert.
Duncombe, hon. W.
Protheroe, E.
Denison, J. E.
Rice, T. S.
Dundas, hon. Thomas
Robinson, Sir H.
Ebrington, Viscount
Rumbold, E. C.
Ellis, hon. Geo. Agar
Russell Lord John
Ellis, hon. Augustus
Sibthorp, Col.
Encombe, Viscount
Smith, W.
Ewart, W.
Stanley, E. G. S.
Fazakerly, John N.
Tennyson, Chas.
Fyler, Thomas B.
Thomson, C. P.
Graham, Sir J.
Townshend, Lord C.
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Grant, R.
Uxbridge, Earl of
Heneage, G. F.
Warrender, Sir G.
Hobhouse, J. Cam
Wetherell, Sir C.
Howick, Viscount
Whitmore, W. W.
Honywood, W. P.
Wood, C.
Horton, rt. hon. R.W.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
TELLERS.
Inglis, Sir Robert
Palmerston, Lord
Jephson, Chas. D. O.
Sandon, Lord
Knight, Robert
Labouchere, Henry
PAIRED OFF.
Lamb, hon. George
Hume, Joseph
Lambert, Jas. S.
Ingilby, Sir W. A.
Lennard, Barrett
Gordon, R.
Littleton, Edw. J.
Wilson, Sir R.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 11, 1830
MINITES.] Returns were laid on the Table, of the quantities of Com, Flour, and Meal imported into the United Kingdom, since July 15th, 1828; and of the weekly average price of Com, since the same period. Several Petitions were presented, complaining of Agricultural Distress, praying that the East-India Company's Charter might not be renewed, and that Suttees might be put a stop to.
COUNTRY BANK NOTES.]
The Duke of Wellington,
in presenting a Petition
158
l.
DUTIES ON CONVEYANCES OF LIFE-HOLD PROPERTY.—FIRE INSURANCES.]
The Earl of Malmesbury
wished to obtain returns of the proceeds of two different descriptions of Stamp-duties, in one of which, he, as a land-owner, felt a particular interest; and the other of which included the interests of many classes of the community. As the day was approaching, on which it was intended to submit to the other House of Parliament the usual annual financial statement, he thought he could not do better than advert to the subject at that moment. He alluded to the Stamp-duties upon Conveyances of Life-hold property, and he wished to call their Lordships' attention, for a short time, to the subject. In some of the western counties in which he possessed landed property, it was usual for cottagers to hold their cottages on lives; and the custom was a good one, as it encouraged the breeding up (if he might use the expression) of a respectable class of cottagers. When these individuals had children, they naturally desired to put their children's lives in their leases as well as their own; and the usual fine for adding one life to two others in such case was (according to his own experience, and he believed, it was the same in the case of other parties) 5
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
159
s.
s.
d.
l.,
l.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.,
s.
160
l.
l.
*
l.
*
s,
l.
STATE OF THE COUNTRY.— RELATION'S WITH PORTUGAL.— TURKEY.]
Lord Holland
said, since he came into the House, he had received a request from his noble friend (the Duke of Richmond), whose Motion for a Committee to inquire into the State of the Country, more particularly as regarded the employment of the labouring classes, originally stood for that day, but which had been put off in consequence of circumstances which must be to their Lordships a source of great regret, to give notice that his noble friend would submit his motion to their Lordships on that day week. Accordingly, he would do so, and would move that the House be summoned for that day.—Ordered. The noble Baron proceeded to say, that, seeing some noble Lords, members of his Majesty's Government, in their places, he wished to put two or three questions to them concerning the relations subsisting between this country and Portugal. He was the rather disposed to do so, as in the several communications made to Parliament, from time to time, respecting those relations, there seemed still to remain (notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject) a considerable degree of ambiguity. In order that noble Lords should fully understand the questions, it might, perhaps, be necessary for him to refer to the communications with which the House had been favoured on the subject. On the 28th of July, 1828, Parliament was informed, in the
161
162
163
de facto
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, that the negotiation to which the noble Lord alluded, as having being entered into by us with Don Pedro, in the summer of 1828, was considered to be brought to such a close as deprived us of all prospect of a successful result with respect to it. In fact, no negotiation, in the proper sense
164
Lord Holland
wished to know concerning the "pending negotiations?"
The Earl of Aberdeen
.—It could hardly be considered as a negotiation—a communication had been made by us, in concert with France and our allies, to Don Pedro—the subject was yet pending: it was impossible to say more on the point. With respect to the subject of the declaration supposed to have been made by some members of the Government to the effect that, in consequence of pending negotiations, certain papers could not be laid before Parliament, he must observe that, assuming this statement to have been made, nothing could be more true than that while negotiations were pending, it must be impossible to produce papers relating to such negotiations; and when the time came for producing them, probably the noble Lord would see very good reasons why they were at the present moment withheld. This he said in reference to the general principle of not disclosing prematurely the subject of negotiations which were in progress; but he did not know that any such declaration as the noble Lord appeared to imagine had, in fact, ever been made in reference to the present proceedings. What he understood was, that the papers in question had been refused on the ground that their production might be injurious to a numerous class of persons about whom every one felt naturally interested. He thought it was more with the view of avoiding the possibility of
165
Lord Holland
said, he was not prepared at that moment with any notice of motion on the subject of our proceedings in reference to Portugal. However, he wished to make one or two observations upon what had fallen from the noble Lord. In answer to the first question proposed to him, the noble Earl stated, that the negotiation entered into between this country and the head of the House of Braganza, took place, not at Rio de Janeiro, but at London. He did not care which way it might be, but as to the fact that "His Majesty has entered into negotiations with the head of the House of Braganza, in the hope of terminating a state of affairs which is incompatible with the permanent tranquillity and welfare of Portugal," as stated in the Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the Session of 1829, his wish had been, to ask the noble Earl whether he considered those negotiations as completed and concluded; and he understood the noble Earl to say, that they were concluded, and that another negotiation, undertaken by us in conjunction with, but not under, France, was to be considered a separate and new negotiation.
166
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, the noble Lord did not appear fully to understand him, and had rather misinterpreted what he had said. The present negotiation, or communication, could hardly be considered as an entirely separate and new one, because it had the same object in view as the original negotiation. What he wished the noble Lord to understand was, that our original negotiation with the Emperor Don Pedro had arrived at such a state that there was little prospect of its successful issue. The present negotiation, which we had undertaken in concert with France, was in continuation of the previous one which we had conducted by ourselves, and could hardly be considered a separate negotiation, although undertaken in direct concert with France and our other allies. It was true that before, although acting with a perfect feeling of unanimity and concert with other powers, we acted by ourselves, and that now we were acting in direct concert with our allies, still it was for the attainment of the same object as we originally had in view.
Lord Holland
said, he was to understand, then, that France was no party to the negotiation originally, and that she was a party to the present negotiation. He would ask, was Spain a party to this negotiation? The noble Earl talked of our having undertaken the negotiation in concert with our other allies. He therefore wished to ask whether Spain was a party?
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, that the Court of Spain was no party to the negotiation. He might also as well observe, that the Court of Austria was a party, and that throughout the whole of the negotiations France had full cognizance of all that had been done by us from the very first, although she had not, until recently, acted prominently in the matter, and in direct concert with this country.
MARRIAGES' VALIDATING ACT.]
The House went into a Committee on this Bill, on the Motion of the Bishop of London.
Lord Holland
wished to return his thanks to the reverend Prelate who had introduced the Bill, the principles and enactments of which, generally speaking, met with his warm approbation. It was very disadvantageous, very galling, particularly where property was concerned, to leave the authority uncertain by which marriages could be rendered valid. He believed that much inconvenience had arisen for want
167
The Bishop of London
said, if the noble Lord's suggestions were acted on, some of the most important clauses of the Marriage Act would be nullified. By that it was provided, that the marriage should take place where the banns were published. It had been his object to provide a remedy for doubts in past cases of inadvertence: but he would not be a party to remove the obstacles to clandestine marriages. The noble Lord was not perhaps aware, that the last clause of the Bill related only to one chapel, and that might be more particularly described. As the law stood, the bishop of a diocese had the power, with the consent of the incumbent, to authorise the publication of banns in any consecrated chapel; but he wished to give the bishop the power independently of the incumbent. He believed that at Macclesfield, which contained from 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, most of them had to go four miles to a chapel because the incumbent refused to allow the banns to be published in any other.
Some verbal amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time on a future day.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 11, 1830
MINUTES.] Mr. NERLE took the Oaths and his Seal, as Member for Gatton. Petitions were presented, praying for
168
Returns were ordered on the Motion of Sir THOMAS FREE-MANTLE of Money demanded at the Exchequer by High Sheriffs of each County of England and Wales, for extra expenses in 1828–1829, and of the sums granted by the Exchequer:—On the Motion of Mr. WODEHOUSE, of the average Prices of Com in England and Wales for the ten years ending with 1829:—On the Motion of Lord F. L. GOWER, of the Expenses of various Public Establishments in Ireland, and of the Miscellaneous Estimates for Ireland.
Returns were presented of the number of Vessels employed in the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1829: Of the money paid for the management of the National Debt: Of balance of Public Money in the hands of the Bank of England at different periods: Of the last report of the National Vaccine Establishment: Of the twenty-second Report on Charities: Of processes issued and the commencement of Writs in the Courts of Great Sessions of Wales during the last ten years.
FORMS AND ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.]
Mr. Lawley,
in presenting three Petitions from individuals against the London and Birmingham Junction Canal Bill, complaining that their names had been improperly inserted in the subscription-list, observed, that so many irregularities had been committed in the management of the Bill, and so many of the Standing Orders of the House had been violated, that he wished these Petitions should be referred to a Committee to examine their allegations.
The Speaker
explained, that the rule of the House was, to give leave to bring in a private bill, after the petition praying for leave to bring it in had been referred to a committee. It was the duty of the committee to ascertain that the Standing Orders had been complied with. A petition against the principle of a bill might be received at any stage, but petitions against its details were always referred to the committee after it had been read a second time. In this case it appeared, as the Bill had been read a first time, that it must have been referred to a committee, which had reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with. If the hon. Member were prepared to show that the committee had been imposed on, the House might reject the Bill.
Mr. Lawley
said, he understood that the petitioners were prepared to prove that the Standing Orders had been evaded.
Mr. Littleton
suggested, that the safer course would be, to adhere to the rules laid down by the House.
The Speaker
stated it to be his opinion, that the case could not be passed over, though there was a difficulty in saying what was to be done, as it could only be
169
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, he had a Petition to present from several individuals, complaining that their names had been inserted in the list of approvers of the Bill without their consent. That appeared to him an unwarrantable infringement on the rules of the House, which could on no account be passed over.
The Speaker
said, as there was no breach of privilege, and no irregularity in the forms which had been followed, he was at a loss to know to what committee it could be referred for investigation.
Mr. Littleton
said, that until last year, when the regulations then made limited the time of presenting petitions complaining of irregularities, with respect to the Standing Orders such a petition might have been presented at any time. If the House were once to open a door to vexatious proceedings, by infringing those regulations, the consequence would be, that attornies in a late stage of the proceedings, point out some irregularity as to the Standing Orders, with a view to stop the progress of a bill to which his clients were opposed. He admitted that the case of the petitioners was a hard one, but he thought it would be still greater hardship, if the rules of the House were departed from.
The Speaker
explained, that up to the Session before last, a petition might be presented against a private bill at any stage of its progress through the House, complaining that the Standing Orders had not been observed. That power, however, was frequently abused, and petitions presented at a late stage of the measure, in order to frighten the party promoting it, or increase his expense. To guard against this, the House ruled that no petition should be received complaining that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, after the first reading of any private bill. This regulation was, however, found to go too far, and in practice, as a private bill was generally brought in when a Committee reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with, to operate as a complete bar against all petitions. To remedy this, the time of petitioning was extended to the second reading of a bill, because that allowed the parties opposing the bill an opportunity of petitioning against it, on account of the Standing Orders not having been complied
170
Mr. Hume,
who said he had proposed the Resolution just referred to, was of opinion that it did prevent vexatious opposition, while it gave a means of redress. If it were made out that names and sums had been put down without any authority, that, by the rules, of the House would justify throwing out the Bill.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that the allegation was, that a false subscription had been deposed at the Private Bill Office, which was a fraud. If it were proved, though he did not accuse Mr. Eyre Lee, or any other gentleman, the Bill ought to be instantly rejected, and an inquiry set on foot as to its author. One of the allegations of the petition was, that the name of a person appeared in the list of subscribers for 1,000
l.
The petitions presented by Mr. Lawley were then orderred to be refered to the Committee on the Petition for the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
then presented a Petition from several persons, complaining that their names had been put down as subscribers to the same Junction Canal Bill, when they had never subscribed a single farthing. The list deposited in the Bill Office, they stated, was false; they therefore prayed that the House would institute an inquiry in order to find out the authors of this subscription-list, and that they might be heard by counsel at the Bar against the Bill. He had seen the subscription-list, and could assure the House, that the names of many persons were down as subscribers for large sums, whom he knew to be quite unable to pay any such amounts.
Mr. Littleton
deprecated the discussion, which was all
ex parte
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, he had no wish to hurry forward an inquiry in the absence of that gentleman. He
171
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that what the petitioners complained of, the House was bound to inquire into. It was of such a nature that it was not to be overlooked. He had no object in pressing the inquiry but to do justice, and he hoped that Mr. Eyre Lee, and the other parties, would be fully heard in their own defence. He could not avoid regretting, however, that the hon. Member for Staffordshire had not evinced the same desire for parties to be heard, when he (Mr. Harvey) presented a petition from an individual against a measure by which his interests were affected.
Mr. Littleton
thought, that his conduct on that occasion needed no justification, and that he was bound to move a resolution, declaring that it was improper for a person to be both judge and attorney in the same cause.
Sir John Wrottesley
knew nothing of the particular case, but he wished that every Englishman, when accused, should have a fair trial.
Mr. Lawley
said, that it was not his intention that the committee should proceed in the investigation till Mr. Eyre Lee was present. He did not implicate Mr. Lec, or any other person, but would leave the matter entirely to the committee.
The petition presented by Mr. Alderman Thompson was also referred to the committee.
Mr. Benson
presented a similar Petition from thirty-six individuals. They had applied for shares in the canal, but had never received any answer. They had never paid any deposit, and many of them said they were unable to pay the large sums placed against their names. He thought these were matters that required serious investigation, and he should move that the petition be referred to a committee. He wished, as well as the hon. Baronet, not to condemn a man unheard, and he should be ready to assist Mr. Eyre Lee in making his defence; but if he could not defend himself, it would be his painful duty to uphold the dignity of Parliament, and bring the offender to account.
Mr. Littleton
said, that the Standing
172
Petition referred to the Committee on the Bill, which was revived.
LICENSED VICTUALLERS.]
Mr. Alderman Thompson
presented a Petition, signed by 1,100 persons engaged in the sale of beer, by retail, in London, praying that the House might not consent to throw open the trade in Beer. He was aware, he said, that the House was disposed to take off the restrictions on trade as much as possible, and in that, as a general principle, he cordially concurred; but he thought the House ought to pause before it took a step which might not benefit the public, but would certainly be a most serious injury to persons carrying on the trade of Licensed Victuallers. The number of persons engaged in the trade of selling beer by retail in the metropolis, meaning-only licensed victuallers, was 4,300, and the houses they occupied, at the lowest average, were worth 250
l.
l.
d.
173
Mr. Alderman Wood
supported the prayer of the petition, and said that it was not an over-value to fix the loss which throwing open the trade in beer would occasion to the publicans of the metropolis at 2,000,000
l.
Sir J. Newport
objected to the practice of urging vested interests against any
174
Mr. G. Dawson
said, that he was disposed to give every consideration to the prayer of the petitioners; but he thought it would be attended with great inconvenience to allow the parties to be heard by themselves or counsel before the committee then sitting to inquire into the regulations under which beer was sold. Such a course would only tend to bring before that committee very exaggerated statements, and would delay its proceeding without contributing to the discovery of truth. It was to be hoped that hon. Members would not be so far carried away by the heat of debate as to enter on a desultory, irregular discussion on the merits of a question, at a time when it could possibly be productive of no eventual good, but would content themselves with, providing' evidence that might be laid before the committee, and reserve their arguments for the proper place, where they could be fairly sifted and turned to account. The committee sitting upon the subject above stairs, he had no doubt would be disposed to pay every attention to the representations of a body so respectable as the petitioners.
Mr. F. Buxton
concurred in thinking' that all exaggerated statements ought to be avoided. He should not have said one word on the subject, had not the hon. Baronet indulged in some remarks which might better have been spared, as they were totally uncalled for. He did not intend to advance any thing in vindication of the monopoly of brewers, although a brewer himself; but he would say, that the present system of excessive taxation bore very hard upon the publican. People did not appear to be aware of the amount to which the beverage of the poor man was
175
s.
s.
Mr. C. Barclay
acknowledged that that was not a proper occasion for entering on the discussion, as all parties would have an opportunity of making their sentiments known to the committee, who, he was sure, would pay due attention to their statements, and act between conflicting interests as justice might dictate. He believed that Ministers meant to act fairly by all parties, but many industrious individuals, he feared, would be overwhelmed with distress, if not with ruin, if the existing system were very considerably and suddenly altered. Why the right hon. baronet
176
Mr. Alderman Thompson
in moving that the Petition be referred to the committee thanked the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. G. Dawson) for his candor on that occasion. When the House recollected the great stake the petitioners had in the inquiry, it would not be surprised that they should be anxious that their interests should receive due consideration.
Petition referred to a committee.
DISTRESS AND REFORM.]
Sir F. Burdett
presented a Petition from the Manufacturers and Shopkeepers of Coventry, complaining of Distress, and praying for a Reform in Parliament. The hon. Baronet said, he perfectly concurred in the sentiments of the petitioners.
Mr. Fyler
declared his conviction, that the parties to this petition were suffering under most overwhelming distress. He did not take offence on account of their not having intrusted it to him, but should have candidly stated, had he been so honoured, how far he agreed with them, and how far he dissented. They prayed, as he was informed, for annual parliaments, election by ballot, and universal suffrage, on none of which points did their opinions coincide with his own. With respect to their desire for introducing ballot, he could never be brought to approve that American, or rather dark Italian system of election, but he could give his hearty support to a temperate and gradual reform. He agreed with that part of the petition which represented the retail dealers as being in extreme distress. He knew they were so generally in the country, whatever they might be in town, and he was amazingly surprised to hear from high authority, that they were flourishing and prosperous. In his opinion, the true and only remedy for distress was relief from taxation, and for that he would vote, though he would not lend his name to swell ministerial majorities, nor to give importance to factious opposition.
The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed.
177
SLAVERY.]
Mr. Jephson
presented a petition from a Mr. Johnston, praying for the abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
Mr. O'Connell,
in seconding the motion of his hon. friend for bringing up the petition, said, he did not think the House was taking all the steps it might for the abolition of Slavery in the West Indies. He was willing to admit that in those colonies which had no legislatures of their own, being under the immediate control of the Crown, something had been done for ameliorating the condition of the slave-population. Where, however, there happened, unfortunately for the poor negroes, to be a colonial legislature, the condition of those unhappy beings remained unchanged. He could not let that opportunity pass without expressing his deep abhorrence of a system which subjected one human being to the lash of another; a system repugnant alike to the best feelings of humanity, and to the dictates of sound policy.
The Petition to lie on the Table.
EAST INDIA COMPANY'S MONOPOLY.]
Mr. Poulett Thomson
said, he had to present a Petition from individuals whose wealth, influence, and respectability placed them on a footing of equality with the highest classes of their fellow-subjects, and entitled their sentiments on all subjects, but more especially on that which was involved in their petition, to the most earnest and respectful attention of the House. It related to the monopoly of the East-India Company, in reference to which they held but one opinion, and that was embodied in the petition which he had the honour to present. It was not necessary for him, on that occasion, to say any thing of his own sentiments, he would merely state the views which were taken by the petitioners. He was gratified in having an opportunity of doing so, as it had been industriously represented that the merchants of London, who were concerned in the East India trade, had separate interests, and entertained separate opinions, quite different from those already so generally expressed by the merchants of the outports. The petition in his hand fully refuted those assertions, and proved that the London merchants made common cause with the parties to former petitions, and perfectly coincided in their sentiments with the merchants and manufacturers at the outports.
178
"That they are deeply interested in the inquiry now pending in your hon. House ' into the state of the Trade between Great Britain, the East Indies, and China,' as connected with a renewal of the Charter to the East-India Company.
"That it is their opinion, from the experience obtained since the opening of the trade to the East Indies, by the 53rd of George 3rd, and subsequent acts, that the manufacturing, shipping, and commercial interests of the United Kingdom have derived very important advantages therefrom.
"That they confidently rely that, in any renewal of the Charter of the East India Company, due provision will be made to allow such free intercourse of British subjects with India, and to give to them such right of settling therein, as shall (consistently with the security of the British Government, and the welfare of the native population) be best calculated to promote the full development of the internal resources of that country, and, by the application of British skill and capital, improve its various products, especially those of sugar, cotton, silk, and tobacco; these being the principal means by which, in the opinion of your petitioners, a further extension of the valuable trade with India, now obstructed by the difficulty of obtaining returns, may be facilitated.
"That, adverting to the fact of the Government of India having recently imposed a heavy and most vexatious burthen on the commerce of that country, through the operation of the 'Stamp Regulation,' it is, in their opinion, due to the commercial interests of India that the trade should be at once relieved from that burthen, and protected against the imposition of any tax whatever by the local government, without a fair opportunity being afforded to all parties affected thereby of canvassing its merits and provisions, and of submitting to the Government such objections as they may entertain to the measure, previously to its acquiring the force of law.
"They further state, that it is their opinion, supported by the personal experience of many of them, that commercial dealings, on the part of the Government of India, whether as merchants or manufacturers, are destructive of fair competition, and arc, in consequence, calculated rather to depress than excite commercial enterprise through the countries subject to their dominion. It is, therefore, most important to the mercantile prosperity of India that the government of that country should be entirely restricted from all commercial dealings, save and except, in reference to the export trade from India to Europe, it be absolutely necessary to buy produce in open market, for the purpose of remittance in aid of the territorial demands on the London treasury,
179
The petitioners add, however, "That, whilst they express this opinion as to the bounds which should be set to the commercial interference of the government of India, they desire to be distinctly understood not to uphold the usefulness or necessity of even such limited transactions, believing as they do, that the condition of India will, under a free and open competition of commerce, afford further proof to the experience furnished by all other countries in the world, that the work of remittance can be best performed by means of the industry, intelligence, and economy of merchants individually interested in the result of their undertakings.
"The petitioners further say, that they refrain, at this time, from making any declaration on the important question of the monopoly in the supply of tea to this country, now vested in the East-India Company, because, in their opinion, that subject is interwoven with various other considerations, besides those purely commercial, which render a full investigation indispensably necessary for establishing a fair and just decision as to the course which it may be wise to pursue in furtherance of the common interests of the country.
"But, pending the consideration which is now giving to this most important object, the petitioners say they cannot withhold the expression of their opinion that the interests of British merchants, ship-owners, and manufacturers, ought not to be any longer disregarded in relation to the commerce of China; nor the expression of their hope, that merchants of this country shall be no longer excluded from the exercise of their skill, and the employment of their capital, in a lucrative branch of the commerce of the world, open to all other nations of Europe and America, whilst the exclusion of the private merchants of the United Kingdom has, without producing any corresponding benefit to the East-India Company, had the direct effect of checking the general commerce of the country, and narrowing the consumption of its manufactures.
"These being the views," said Mr. Thomson in conclusion, "which the petitioners entertain on this important subject, they pray your honourable House will adopt such measures as may afford greater facilities for the extension of the trade with India and China, promote its general prosperity, and conduce to the improvement and welfare of the vast population of the British territories in the East."
Mr. Huskisson
stated, that he was about to present a Petition, very numerously and
180
General Gascoyne
said, he had another Petition of the same sort to present. He hoped that when the question came to be discussed, they would not be met with an argument founded upon the immense capital which the Company invested in their concern and the business of their trade. He was afraid, however, that it would be said—What! do you propose to take away the trade with China, without enabling them to pay their debt? Such an argument might be valid if the Company had paid off any debt while it had the trade all to itself, but it happened that the debt of the Company had increased since 1813, from 7,000,000
l.
l.
Mr. Astell
rebuked the hon. and gallant officer for having indulged in some exaggerated statements. In the committee the question, he hoped, would rest only on its own merits, and be decided on the principle of justice, apart from the consideration of the relative units, whether millions or thousands, on the one side or the other, and without reference to the exaggerated statements which were every now and then made to the House.
The Petition to be printed,
181
Mr. Huskisson
presented a similar Petition from the Liverpool Dock Company.
RADICAL REFORM.]
Mr. O'Connell
said, he had two Petitions to present, praying for a Radical Reform in that House. He feared that the position for which the petitioners contended was likely to meet with but little favour in that House; but, in his opinion, and he had little hesitation in stating that opinion, the reform of the House was a debt due from Parliament to the people—that was an assertion which he advisedly made, and which he felt bound to sustain, as well from a deep conviction of its truth, as from the additional reason for sustaining it, which he derived from the solemn pledge upon the subject which he had given to his constituents, and which formed one of the conditions upon which he had accepted the situation of one of their representatives. One of the petitions which he had to present on this subject, was from certain inhabitants of Ireland; the other emanated from a meeting held in London, where no less than 30,000 individuals were present—it was a meeting at which the utmost order and decorum prevailed—it was conducted in the most regular and peaceable manner—he was sure with the most loyal intentions—he knew with the most perfect unanimity. The Petition prayed for Radical Reform: it came from 30,000 British subjects, who considered that that House of Parliament ought not to be an instalment of the other House—that the people of England ought not to allow themselves to be made the property of an oligarchy. He had the highest respect individually for many of those who commanded seats in that House, but he could not shut his eyes to the usurpation of popular privileges of which they were guilty. The petition which he had to lay before them from Ireland, bore two thousand signatures; and with the permission of the House, he would briefly and rapidly go through the statement and prayer of that petition. It contended, in the first place, that all persons under the degree of a Peer, had a right to be represented in that House; that no Peer was entitled to interfere in elections of Members to serve in that House; that it was robbery to levy taxes upon any class not duly represented there; and that it would be murder to put any man to death under laws enacted by a
182
l
183
The two Petitions to be printed.
THE POOR OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Spring Rice
rose, he said, to bring forward, pursuant to notice, a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the state of the Labouring Poor of Ireland, and the best means to improve their condition. The hon. Member adverted, in the first instance, to the discussion which had taken place upon the subject last Session, when it was brought under the notice of the House by a friend of his, who was no longer a Member— Mr. Villiers Stewart. Though he (Mr. S. Rice) did not fully concur in the resolution submitted on that occasion by his hon. friend, yet he was sure that if Mr. Villiers Stewart had continued a Member of that House to the present time, he would not have objected to the Motion with which he then intended to conclude, namely—"that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Labouring Poor in Ireland." After much regretting the absence of Mr. Villiers Stewart, and pronouncing a warm eulogium upon his character and talents, he went on to say, that though he and that gentleman essentially differed as to the means of effecting an improvement in the state of the labouring poor of Ireland, yet they were animated by the same spirit, and anxious to bring about similar results. They now came to the consideration of the state of the Irish poor, free from one of the great difficulties and impediments which had heretofore interrupted the consideration of any measures for the improvement of Ireland—he alluded to the religious dissensions which had so long distracted that country, and which were now so happily terminated. He had understood from the noble Lord opposite, that no objection would be made to the appointment of a committee, and he should therefore have limited himself to the mere terms of his Motion, had he not been apprehensive that his views and intentions might be mistaken in Ireland; and that in that House persons might support his Motion from misunderstanding the object he meant to keep in view. He desired to entrap no votes and no support on any false views, and therefore he meant, with the permission of the House, to enter into an explanation at considerable length. The first proposition which he meant to establish was, that there existed a case for
184
185
l
l
l
186
187
188
l
189
l
190
191
192
193
194
s.
s.
195
196
197
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
198
"The people, before these improvements took place, had no beneficial object to exercise their industry upon. In the course of opening these roads, and constructing the Caledonian Canal, there have been employed annually about 3,200 men on an average. At first, these men could scarcely work at all; they were totally unacquainted with labour; they could not use the tools; but they have since become excellent labourers. Of that number, by the gradual in flux and departure of the workmen, we consider that one-fourth left us annually, taught to work; so that these works may be considered in the light of a working academy, from which eight hundred have annually departed improved workmen. These men have either returned to their native districts, having had the experience of using the most perfect sort of tools and utensils (which alone cannot be considered less than ten per cent. on any labour), or they have been usefully disseminated throughout the other parts of the country. Since these roads were opened and made accessible to wheel-carriages, wheelwrights and cart wrights have been established in the country; and in different parts the plough has been introduced, and other improved tools and utensils are now used. In the western and more mountainous parts they frequently used crooked sticks, with iron on them, for ploughs; but now the plough is used, and these improvements have also led to the inclosure and cultivation of more land. I also conceive that by this mode of employment, the moral habits of the great mass of the working classes are changed. They see they may depend on their own exertions for support, and this appears to me an object of the first importance; but it goes on silently, and is scarcely perceived until apparent by the results. I consider these improvements one of the greatest blessings ever conferred on any country;" and he declared "they have been the means of advancing the. country one hundred years."
199
l
l
l
200
ad valorem
201
202
General Gascoyne
rose to second the Motion, and observed, that although he had been an advocate for the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, he had never contemplated the probability of the English system being introduced without considerable modifications. No one, surely, could suppose that he would wish to introduce all the abuses which had crept into the laws respecting the poor in this country. His hon. friend had asked what Poor-laws would he introduce? He answered at once, those which were in operation in Scotland. He would divide the poor and the helpless equally among the holders of all the land, absentees as well as residents, and compel them to provide for them; and he would make the absentees pay in the same proportion as in Scotland, where if the resident paid fourpence in the pound, the absentee was called on to pay eight-pence. He thought, however, that great
203
204
Mr. Frankland Lewis
conceived that the hon. Member for Limerick deserved great thanks for the able manner in which he had brought this important subject under the notice of the House. It was almost superfluous for him (Mr. F. Lewis) to say that he entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Limerick in the necessity of the appointment of a committee on this subject. It was due to England no less than to Ireland, that we should inquire into the condition of the Irish poor, with a view to their relief. Since the great measure of last year, almost all the distinctions between the two countries were removed; they were now indissolubly united, and one of the few distinctions that still remained consisted in the laws which existed in this country for a compulsory provision for the poor, while no such laws existed in Ireland. That was an important subject, which deserved to be approached with caution, to be treated with due deliberation. There were two points to be taken into account in reference to this subject. The relief of the suffering poor in Ireland was to be balanced against the consideration, that the forced adoption of a compulsory rate for the relict of indigence and misery there would put into jeopardy every species of property in that country. It should be borne in mind, that in adopting any such measure for their relief, there was a risk of its being followed by such a result. With regard to the tolls at fairs and markets in Ireland, it certainly appeared to be necessary that the House should consider that subject immediately, with a view to devise some measure calculated to remedy that evil, at the same time that due attention ought to be paid to giving a compensation for local vested interests. He would venture to say that, upon inquiry, it would be found that these vexatious imposts and local duties at fairs and markets depressed the value of property to a tenfold greater amount than that of the benefit which they conferred upon the particular individual to whom they happened to belong. His hon. friend had also adverted to the county assessments with some censure, but in his opinion, the improvements resulting from
205
Mr. Spring Rice
intimated, that he did not propose to abolish, but only regulate and restrict these assessments.
Mr. Frankland Lewis
said, as he had misunderstood his hon. friend, inquiry might make their views meet on that as well as on other points. He would next address a few observations to the House, in reference to the propriety of the introduction of the Poor-laws into Ireland. He had heard with great satisfaction from the hon. Member for Limerick, that there already existed, in different parts of Ireland, a great number of charitable institutions for the relief of the poor. He thought his hon. friend had referred to the existence of these institutions to show that there was no necessity for Poor-laws in Ireland: and he had anxiously waited to hear from his hon. friend some practical conclusion on that point, or some proposal for the extension of legislative aid to those institutions. His hon. friend however stated, that there was at present a tendency in Ireland to disparage such institutions, and he afterwards appeared inclined to suggest that Parliament should make grants of the public money for their support. Now he could not well reconcile those two propositions, and he did not very clearly see what good could be effected by public grants to institutions, the utility of which was even at present questioned, and the character of which met with general disparagement in Ireland. His hon. friend had then approached the subject of the Poor-laws, and he had asked, what modification of them it was proposed to introduce into Ireland? Now, whether or not it would be wise to introduce a modification of the English Poor-laws into Ireland was a question which certainly deserved the most serious, cautious, and deliberate consideration. If he might be permitted to offer a suggestion upon the subject, he should rather recommend an imitation of the Scotch system of Poor-laws, for it was only upon such principles as that system was founded, that a proper system of compulsory provision for the poor could be administered in Ireland. The great difficulty in adapting a system of Poor-laws to Ireland would be to find proper persons to administer them, and it appeared to him - that the most proper persons to administer
206
Mr. G. Dawson
commenced his observations by complimenting his hon. friend, the Member for Limerick, on the able and eloquent speech which he had just made, and on the conciliatory manner in which he submitted his motion to the House. He must, however, express a hope that his friend would confine the labours of the committee to one point— namely, the best means of finding employment in Ireland for the poor of that country, who now came over to England, and that he would not extend them over the numerous points which he had mentioned, as such inquiries could lead to no practical ad-
207
l.
208
209
Mr. Brownlow,
after thanking the hon. Member for Limerick for having brought forward the Motion, of which he should have been suspicious had it been in other hands, or had it merely proposed to inquire, without practically relieving the existing distress, proceeded to say, that he was of opinion that his hon. friend, the Member for Limerick, had not stated the case of the existing distress in Ireland so broadly as he might have done. He had frequently described in that House the state of the suffering poor of Ireland; and he had been charged with drawing upon his imagination rather than narrating fact. He wished that he could be convicted of having done so. But of this he was sure, that whatever language he and others might have used, either in the House itself, or before committees, no language could be exaggerated which described the sufferings of the great mass of the labouring population of Ireland. Not only were the Irish people below the general standard of European improvement,
210
211
212
Lord F. L. Gower
said, he heartily concurred with the object of the Motion made by the hon. Member for Limerick, though he differed from that hon. Member as to some of the doctrines he had laid down. Knowing the attention that the hon. Member had paid to the subject of political economy, he was glad to hear that hon. Member declare that he would not be classed with those who maintained absenteeism to be no evil. The process of reasoning by which the gentleman who stood so high in that science had arrived at the conclusion which he had stated before a Committee of the House, and subsequently published, he had always been unable to understand—and he would make the same reply to the fallacy as Johnson made to the philosophy of Berkeley—he would strike his foot upon Besborough and Michelstown, and contrasting them with places to which the landlord never came, the difference would afford a refutation of the doctrine. He did not think that the sudden introduction into Ireland of a system of Poor-laws would check the immigration of Irish poor into this country, or the emigration of Irish gentlemen. It was only by making the country more agreeable that the latter would remain, and the former would come over in great numbers, as they had hitherto done: if they could not find one means of procuring a passage, they would resort to another—they would be like Rabelais, who, when he wanted to go to Paris, and could not afford the means of the journey, wrote on two packets, "poison for the King," and "poison for the Queen," and had his expenses defrayed by the Government, and explained on his arrival the circumstances which had created so much alarm by telling the authorities that he had found that the cheapest and most expeditious method of getting conveyed to Paris. The evils of this system of immigration into this country of the Irish poor had often been referred to, but Members had overlooked the advantage of their coming here at a season when a great degree of labour was required. The only part of the hon. Member's speech that created apprehension in his mind was the last portion, in which he proposed more subjects for consideration than could be advantageously investigated by any committee. He would not say that in any one of the things mentioned by the hon. Member the interests of the poor
213
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, that there had been several definitions given of the Poor-laws that night, which differed materially from each other. The definition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (General Gascoyne) was this—that if Irishmen came to England a second time, they were to be punished,—fined, he believed. [General Gascoyne said "confined."] Well, confined: that would prevent a repetition of the offence. But if he confined all who so offended, Liverpool must be provided with large gaols. The hon. Member had talked of the manufactures which England supplied to Ireland; but the Irish sent their manufactures likewise—their principal manufactures were corn and men. Another definition was given by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlow) which was the adoption of the Act of Elizabeth. But he apprehended that the adoption of the Act of Elizabeth would be pregnant with consequences mischievous to those very persons whom he was desirous of serving. If the principle of a compulsory demand for subsistence by the poor be admitted, all the evils experienced from the Poor-laws in England would afford a very slight notion of the evils which would arise in Ireland. The Poor-laws, it was well known to all who were acquainted with Ireland, were not applicable to that country. The whole pauper-population, instead of being incited to labour, would be encouraged in idleness. He was, however, not disposed to refuse making a safe and proper provision for the poor, he
214
215
216
General Gascoyne
explained: He had only said that a repetition of applications by the same persons for passes into England might be punished by imprisonment, in order to prevent them making a trade of travelling.
Mr. Secretary Peel
was unwilling to permit a question relating so immediately to the domestic policy of one part of the empire, and not very remote from that of the other, to pass without a few observations from him, particularly in consideration of the public situation which he held. He was favourable to the appointment of the Committee; for nothing could be more improper than to attempt to legislate upon the subject of providing for the Irish poor, without very mature preliminary inquiries, and nothing could be so unwise as to reject the proposal to legislate after such inquiries had been made. One great part of the value of the Committee would depend on the mode in which the inquiry should be conducted. If the Committee entered into the general condition of the Irish poor, he would not say that much valuable information would not be collected, but perfectly certain was he that no practical result would ensue. He would advise his hon. friend, who he supposed would sit as chairman of the Committee, to make his report upon the few following points:— First, a clear statement to the House, and to the British public, of the existing enactments in Ireland, with reference to the provisions for the Irish poor; the extent to which the land is subject to any pecuniary levy for the purposes of providing for any classes of the poor, mutilated, diseased, or wanting subsistence; next to inquire, whether it were desirable to extend those enactments, and to describe the measures by which they were to be extended, with the machinery by
217
218
pro tanto
219
General Gascoyne
: I said imprisonment and hard labour.
Mr. Peel continued
Then the passengers would never come again. But it would not be a cheap way of getting rid of Irish labourers, to build a jail and support them at the expense of the rest of the population. The best way would be to find an open market for the poor man's labour, his only commodity; and any laws to prevent the poor man from passing freely from one part of the country to another would be pregnant with injustice. As to large institutions in Ireland, to receive the poor who were unable to provide for themselves, he despaired of any effectual remedy from such a scheme. This was the worst system that could be introduced; for it was providing not only food but lodging, which ought not, he thought, to be done, except in cases of disease, or decrepitude from accident. He much doubted if the introduction of the English Poor-laws into Ireland would relieve the poor of England; for England did not suffer from Irish distress, but from the invasion of Irish labourers. The English fanner had the benefit of cheap labour, by the influx of Irish poor. The Poor-laws in Ireland would increase distress, as they would prevent the building of cottages, and have other injurious effects. They would probably banish from the country a number of persons of small
220
Mr. Slaney
was sorry to observe, that the hon. Mover had taken too partial a view of this subject, his mind being evidently made up before he moved for the committee; and he lamented, too, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) opposite seemed to think that almost no relief by a measure of this nature could be introduced into Ireland. Sure he was, that something must be done to raise the moral character of the Irish peasantry. He saw well the prudence of giving no distinct pledge on this subject, until the labours of the Committee should be concluded. He would not detain the House at that late hour, but reserve to another opportunity the expression of his views. He begged, however, to be allowed to observe, that unless something were done to prevent the influx of Irish peasantry into this country, our own peasantry would soon be as badly off as the Irish: In the last year no less than 50,000 deck passengers came over from Ireland into this country. The injurious effects of this influx must be obvious to every one. He was averse to introduce the English system, with its abuses, into Ireland, but he must say he thought that something might be done by a system like our own, but relieved of the abuses which had grown up here. The Committee, however, would be the place for investigating this question.
Mr. A. Dawson
said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, assumed that these 50,000 persons from Ireland were paupers, and vagrants, and vagabonds. This was not the case; they paid for their passage to this country, and brought with them the gifts which nature had conferred upon them; their strength and their sinews. They asked for employment, and, if they obtained it, they gave, in their labour, a fair recompense for the money they received. He did not mean to say that vagrants and vagabonds did not come from Ireland, or
221
Mr. Slaney
said, that he had applied neither the term vagabond nor vagrant to the Irish who came over here. He had not wished to apply such terms to them, and if he had so wished, still, surrounded as he was by so many sensitive Members from the sister kingdom, his prudence would have got the better of his wish.
Mr. Monck
said, that at that late hour he should detain the House but for a very few moments. He did not think that the influx of the Irish was so great an evil as had been represented, in regard to its effects upon our own peasantry. For, in the first place, the influx was chiefly confined to London and the great towns. In the country it lasted only during harvest-time. Against this evil, however, such as it was, our Poor-laws were our security, and did not, as it had been supposed they did, increase the evil. For, if the Irish offered their labour at fifty per cent under our own labourers, the farmer would not accept the offer, because he knew that if he did, the English labourers would next day come upon him for relief as paupers.
Mr. O'Connell
begged to notice an expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. The expression was calumnious; and although he was sure the hon. Member had not so intended it, yet he felt it necessary to notice and to correct the expression. The hon. Member had talked about raising the moral character of the Irish peasantry. Now he begged leave to tell the hon. Member,
222
Sir C. Cole
said, that with his experience as a magistrate of the mischiefs of the Poor-laws in this country, he could never think of advocating the extension of those laws to the sister kingdom.
Mr. Slaney,
in explanation, said, that he had not used the words "moral character," in the sense in which the hon. Member for Clare had understood them.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.
Mr. Trant
The Speaker
said, that the Committee, from the wording of the Motion, had already power to extend their inquiries to that point; and it was unusual to give an instruction to it to do that which it already had the power to do.
Mr. Hume
said, that if there were no objection, he would move that Mr. Trant's name be added to the Committee, and he might submit his own views to it.
Lord F. L. Gower
could have no personal objection to the hon. Member's name being added to the Committee; but, on general principles, he objected to the proposition, because other hon. Members might make similar ones, and so extend the Committee to the whole House.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE.]
The Lord Advocate
rose for the purpose of bringing forward his Motion regarding the Trial by Jury in Civil Causes, &c. in Scotland.
Mr. Hume and Sir George Warrender
pressed the postponement of the important subject at so late an hour.
The Lord Advocate
consented to defer the subject till to-morrow, taking the chance of being then able to bring it forward.
Mr. R. Gordon
wished to hear from the
223
Mr. Herries
replied, that as the subject was postponed, any statement like that now called for would be premature.
Mr. R. Gordon
added, that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also refused to answer, and his reason was very soon discovered. He wished to augment the salaries of the judges.
COAL TRADE.]
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, it would ill become him, at that late hour of the night, to take up the time of the House. He would therefore merely state, that the corporation of London were anxious for an inquiry on this subject, as well for other reasons as to see if another method of selling coals,—namely, by weight instead of measure—might not be resorted to with advantage to the public. He begged to move that "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Coal Trade at the Port of London,—into the delivery of Coals in London, Westminster, the liberties thereof, and in certain parts of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Essex,—and into the prices of Coals in the Port of London, and in the ports of shipment, with the view of determining whether any and what restrictions should be attached to the supply of Coals."
Sir M. W. Ridley
rose to second the Motion. He assured the House that the Coal-owners were extremely anxious that this inquiry should be instituted, and that they would be happy to render all the assistance, and to give all the information in their power to the Committee.
Mr. Rumbold
proposed, as an Amendment, to add to the Motion, after the words "Port of London," the words, "and other ports."
Mr. F. Lewis
suggested that the Motion already carried the inquiries of the Committee far enough, by including the Port of London and the ports of shipment.
Mr. Alderman Thompson,
in supporting the Motion said, that the chief object of the City of London, in wishing for this Committee was, to relieve Coals brought to the Port of London from any unnecessary charge, and he hoped, indeed he had reason to believe, from what fell from the
224
Mr. S. Wortley
said, that nothing was more accordant with the wishes of the Coal-owners of the North, than to meet the inquiry in the same spirit in which it was proposed. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. The subject it embraced was one of much interest, and an inquiry into it would no doubt be hereafter instituted, but it would extend the labours of the present Committee too much. It would be of sufficient importance to form the subject of a separate inquiry, and he hoped it would be gone into hereafter.
Mr. Rumbold
, said, he had now no wish to press his Amendment.
Mr. Liddell
assured the House that the Coal-owners of the North desired earnestly to advance the objects for which the Committee had been moved.
Sir T. D. Acland
gave his support to the Motion. He was glad that inquiry was about to be instituted, and he hoped it would lead to the total repeal of the unequal and very unjust tax which was levied on Coals.
Mr. Holdsworth
expressed a hope that the other parts of the inquiry would be taken up at a future time.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.
Mr. Herries
was much gratified at the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry upon that subject, and equally so at the selection made.
Mr. Hume
observed, that in the Committee the Coal-owners were represented; the City of London was represented; the owners of the ports were represented. He wished to know what names were put on the Committee on behalf of the public? He therefore proposed the addition of Sir T. D. Acland's name.
Mr. Herries
said, the name of a Member from each of the counties near London, and one of the Members for Westminster, would be extremely desirable. He thought this selection extremely good.
Sir T. D. Acland's
name was added to the Committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 12, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions were presented praying for the Opening of the Trade to India:—against the Truck System:—and
225
IRISH POOR.]
The Earl of Darnley
said, that he had had an opportunity of ascertaining, by the votes on their Lord-ships' Table that a proposition exactly similar to one their Lordships had frequently rejected when he had submitted it to them, had been agreed to the night before by the other House of Parliament. That proposition was for a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of the Irish Poor. It was not his intention then to say any thing on the subject, but he would now give notice, that on Tuesday next he would call the attention of the House to the condition of the Irish Poor, in order to know what were the intentions of Ministers upon the subject.
EAST INDIA CHARTER.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he held in his hand a Petition which, he believed, was the first of that nature that had as yet been decided upon by all the merchants of London engaged in the private trade to India. Many of these individuals had expressed their opinions upon the subject separately, upon various occasions, but this was the first time that they had con-jointly sent forth in a public manner their views and sentiments. It had been stated that the merchants trading privately to India from the Port of London differed in their opinions upon the subject, from the merchants who were engaged in a similar traffic at the out-ports of the United Kingdom. He was, therefore, requested to state, that the petitioners gave it as their opinion, that it was highly desirable that some alteration should be made in the Company's Charter. In this opinion he concurred and recommended the Petition to their Lordships' consideration.
The Petition was read and referred to the Committee upon the East-India trade.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 12, 1830
MINUTES.] Petitions were presented praying against the Return of the Member for Rye:—for the reduction of the duties on Malt and Beer:—for an alteration in the Tythe Laws:—against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—complaining of Distress; and praying for relief. The Mutiny Bill was read a third time. A bill was ordered
226
Returns were ordered, on the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of the names and places of residence of the nominees in the Irish Tontines:—on the motion of Mr. HUME, of number of Midshipmen promoted to be Lieutenants in the Navy between Jan. 1st. 1827, and Jan. 1st. 1830; of the number of Lieutenants promoted to be Commanders during the same period; of the number of Commanders promoted to be Post Captains during the same period: of the whole number of officers in the Royal Navy during the same period, distinguishing those serving afloat; of the number of persons who have received first commissions in the Marines during the same period; of the number of officers on full and half pay, and of the number who have been brought from half pay to full pay, or allowed to dispose of their commissions; of the number of Pursers in the Royal Navy during the same period; and the number of Clerks promoted to be Pursers; of the number of Masters; and of the number of Surgeons, with an account of the Surgeons mates promoted:—of the total number of officers and clerks employed in the Commissariat Establishment since 1822:—and of the number of Distributors of stamps and the rate of per centage allowed them in the United Kingdom;—on the motion of Mr. O. DAWSON, of the quantity of Com, Meat and Flour, exported from Ireland to Great Britain between Jan. 5, l828 and Jan. 5 1830:—on the motion of Mr. Moore of the amount of the Excise duties on leather in Ireland and the convictions for offences against the acts composing those dutiess incc 1821:—of the persons summoned to serve on Grand Juries in Dublin since 1823.
Returns were presented of the sums of money expended for the Relief of the Poor in each county of England and Wales, in 1828–1829.
METROPOLIS TURNPIKE ROADS.]
Mr. Byng
presented a Petition from several inhabitants of the hamlets and places adjoining Kensington, complaining of the New Tolls which had been levied on them under the New Act for Consolidating the Turnpike Trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. By the new regulations a toll was levied on vehicles every time they passed; and as the short stages, with many descriptions of coal and market carts went through these gates several times a day, these new regulations had added considerably to the expenses. The toll had also been raised on other coaches, so as to increase very much the sums taken from all coach proprietors, reducing their profits very much. He should, on some future clay, move that the petition be referred to a committee, to inquire into the facts of the case, unless he learnt in the mean time, that the commissioners appointed to carry the Act into execution had given the petitioners relief.
Lord Lowther
said, that he had very little doubt but that there was some mistake on the subject. It had, however, been settled in a Committee of that House, after hearing much evidence on the subject from many different sorts of persons, that to levy a toll every time a vehicle passed through the gates, would be the
227
d
Mr. E. Davenport
said, that the public was, undoubtedly, much indebted to the noble Lord for the trouble he had taken on the subject, but still, he must say, that the noble Lord had given no answer to the complaint made by his hon. friend, that tolls were taken on carts and coal-waggons every time they passed through the gates. A waggon which formerly paid 6
d
s
Lord Lowther
denied that such an increase as that stated by the hon. Member had actually taken place.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, that many of the regulations adopted by the commissioners, bore hard upon the public; wheels of Clinches paid a double toll, but if they were 65/16 inches, they paid only a single toll.
Mr. Frankland Lewis
said, the evasions were so skilful and numerous, that unless the regulations were very strictly enforced, as well as made with great discrimination, it would be impossible to levy any toll. The law said, that wheels of 6 inches in width should pay one toll, and wheels of 9 inches a less toll, because the narrow wheel does the more injury to the road. To escape the payment of the heavier toll, wheels were so made, that while they were 9 inches in breadth they only brought a surface of 3 or 4 inches into contact with the road, doing it an injury equal to a wheel of that width, and avoiding the friction of the greater surface. This was
228
Petition laid on the Table.
AVON AND GLOUCESTER RAIL-ROAD.]
Mr. Charles Dundas
Mr. Hart Davis
opposed the Motion, on the ground that it had been brought into Parliament by the Kennet and Avon Canal Company, in direct contravention of an agreement which that Company had entered into with the Bristol and Gloucestershire Rail-Road proprietors. He trusted that the House of Commons would not sanction such a violation of a private agreement, that ought to have been binding on both parties. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Dundas
supported the Bill, on the ground that the undertaking would be beneficial to the public, and he denied that any such engagement had been entered into as the hon. Member supposed.
Mr. Bright
opposed the Bill on the same ground as Mr. H. Davis. He said that it was a breach of a solemn engagement.
Mr. Protheroe
supported the Amendment of his hon. friend, the Member for Bristol. The question was one which affected the private business of the House, and the private rights of individuals. If the Bill were to pass, it would give the Avon and Gloucester Rail-Road Company the monopoly of the Coal markets of Bristol, which, instead of being a benefit to the town, would be an injury to all its inhabitants.
Mr. R. Gordon
supported the Bill. The violation of the engagement, he said, which was made the objection to it, was nothing more than a misunderstanding between parties who had different interests. The object contemplated by the Bill was, to supply Bristol with cheap Coals, which, being a public benefit, he should vote for the Bill.
Sir Thomas Lethbridge
denied that the dispute was a mere squabble between Rail-Road Companies. It was, on the contrary, the breach of a most solemn engagement, and thinking that it was his duty, as a Member of that House, to en-
229
Sir William Guise
said, he had heard enough to be convinced that the two parties had entered into an engagement up stairs, of which the Bill was a violation. To that he thought the House ought not to give its sanction.
Mr. Estcourt
said, that he would be the last man in that House to give his sanction to a violation of a solemn engagement; but from the conversation he had had with the parties, he did not think that the Bill was any such violation. There were statements and counter-statements which a committee might examine, and to examine such conflicting statements was the very business of a committee. It was unheard of to oppose the second reading of a bill on such grounds. He would say, let the parties go before a committee, which would ascertain the justice or injustice of the opposition. The House heard a great deal, almost every day, against monopolies, and as far as he saw, the Bill was not intended to give one company, as was said, a monopoly of the Bristol market for Coals, but to throw open that market, which was now monopolized, to competition. The imputation against the Bill was, that it would enable one Company to under-sell another. He should certainly vote against the Amendment.
Mr. Monck
thought, that the engagements between individuals ought not to bind that House. He should vote for the Motion, because a committee was the only place to settle rival claims.
The House then divided—For the second reading 37: Against it 44:—Majority 7.
DISTRESS.]
Mr. Liddell
presented a Petition, agreed to unanimously at a public meeting at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, complaining of the Distress of the Agricultural, Commercial, and Shipping Interests. The hon. Member admitted, that the suffering in the north of England was not as great as in the south, owing principally to the determination of the Coal-owners to continue giving employment to the people, though at a greatly diminished rate of profit. Nevertheless, the state-
230
l
l
231
Mr. Bell
would not enter into all the causes of the distress, but he could not help observing, that they might thank the principles of free trade, as they were called, for much of their sufferings. He admitted that the distress in Northumberland was not so great as in other counties, still it demanded attention. Government, he thought, was surely bound to introduce some measure calculated to relieve the sufferings of the people.
Petition brought up, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Liddell
presented a Petition from Norham, in the county of Durham, complaining of distress—praying for a reduction of Taxation, and an issue of Notes under the value of 5
l
Mr. Alderman Waithman
, in presenting the Petition agreed to at a recent meeting held at the Mansion-house, on the subject of public distress, said, that the petitioners stated most correctly, that the distress had extended itself to all classes of the community. They state, "That, under the present circumstances of the country, your petitioners feel themselves called upon to represent to your honourable House the great depression and consequent distress that now exists in the mercantile, trading, manufacturing, and shipping concerns of this city and the metropolis, and which bears with peculiar severity upon the industrious and labouring classes.
232
233
234
235
Mr. Alderman Thompson
bore testimony to the good order and decorum which prevailed at the meeting in question, and to the total absence of party spirit which seemed to prevail. He also bore testimony to the distressed condition of the retail dealers of London, and having done that, he wished to proceed no further, until he heard the views of his Majesty's Government on the subject of taxation.
Mr. Alderman Wood
would say nothing about free trade, and as to taxation, he hoped that the country might look for considerable reduction. He begged leave to be allowed to state, in reply to an observation from the hon. Member for Clare, made on a former evening, who had censured the Lord Mayor for not allowing the meeting to be held in Guildhall, that this was appropriated to the meetings of the Livery of London, and it could not be used for any other purpose without the leave of the Corporation. The Lord Mayor had only done his duty, and the hon. Member had cast an unjust reflection on a humane and honourable-minded man, who was anxious to do every thing in his power to promote the liberties of the people.
Mr. Ward
said, he was unable to attend the meeting, in consequence of having to be present on a committee of that House, but he had every reason to believe, though many persons of much consideration in the city were absent, that, generally speaking, the meeting was very respectably attended; he, therefore, though not concurring fully in the statements of the petition, thought it his duty to recommend the petition to the serious consideration of the House. He could not agree with the petitioners that any portion of the distress was owing to the malconstruction of the House; and he should always be opposed to parliamentary reform.
236
Mr. Hume
said, he agreed with the petitioners that the House, as at present constituted, was not the actual representation of the public or of its mind; but he should, notwithstanding, be very sorry to let several of their statements go forth to the public as though they were the echo of, or in unison with, the sentiments of that party in the House with whom he generally acted. The burthen of this petition, and the continued burthen of the hon. Alderman's speeches, who, no doubt, had a great hand in the composition of this petition, and a number of others like it, was, that export prices had experienced depreciation sixty or seventy per cent. This was echoed back again from other parts of the kingdom; the hon. Alderman and his supporters all the while forgetting that the raw commodity, out of which these articles were manufactured, had fallen to a third, or even in some instances, to a fourth part of their former prices. The cost of cotton had fallen from 150 to 200 per cent. If only three-fourths, then, of our exports consisted of cotton, the merchant, manufacturer, and exporter, must put the difference between this depreciation and the depreciation of sixty or seventy per cent on the price of the wrought article into their pockets. Thus on one article the total depreciation was accounted for without any loss whatever to the weaver. Taking, however, the average fall of price on all manufactured articles as equal to one half, still the depreciation of price on the raw material was so much greater, that the manufacturer or merchant must always be putting into his pocket a profit on the transactions between this and other countries importing our goods. Besides, when cottons rose, as they did, from 6
d
d
d
s
237
Mr. Robinson
said, that he believed it to be impossible for the present system to go on without such a reduction of taxes as would raise the wages of labour and the profit on capital. He had no doubt the opinion which he had stated would be forced upon the attention of ministers and the legislature. The hon. Member for Montrose had endeavoured to maintain that no actual decrease had taken place in the value of our exports, inasmuch as a greater reduction had taken place as to the cost of the raw materials, which we exported. But he would ask the hon. Member, whether he for one would maintain that the price of exports was a criterion of the real condition of a country, at least, of the profits of the exporter. He could speak from experience, and say it was not; for he had exported commodities which had cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, on which he had not received more than sixty per cent of the value in return. In fact, parties were compelled to export. The manufacturers were compelled to keep their machinery in motion, and producing more than was wanted at home, they were compelled to export. Formerly, the English merchant only exported on order, now he exported on the chance of finding a market.
Mr. Maberly
contended, in opposition to those who condemned free trade, that since its principles had been acted upon, our exports and imports had annually increased; that the commercial interest had been extending their dealings, and, as he took it, their profits. It was now an established maxim, that high duties acted only as a bounty upon smuggling, and so far to the injury of the revenue. The duties now levied were the maximum which
238
On the question that the Petition be brought up—
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he felt considerable surprise at the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, upon the petition he had had the honour to present, especially as in presenting it he had not entered into any arguments upon the matters it contained, but merely stated its allegations and among others, those respecting what was erroneously called free trade; which seemed to have aroused the hon. Member's feelings. Whatever credit he might give to his hon. friend for his public exertions, and however he might yield to him in other matters, he could not on this subject, and he must say, that his hon. friend seemed to understand very little of the principles of trade, and to be bewildered with theories of political economy. Having himself, been connected with trade forty-two years, and having been in the daily intercourse with several of the most intelligent persons in the greatest trading community in the kingdom, it could not be presumption in him in claiming to understand such subjects as well as his hon. friend, indeed it would be highly reproachful to him were it otherwise: with respect to the reiterated assertions, that the prosperity of our foreign trade was to be estimated by the quantity of goods exported and not by the value of those goods, however such assertions might pass in that House, they were so manifestly absurd, as to excite the laughter of every man acquainted with business. According to the wild theories of the political philosophers of the present day, the more of our labour we gave away to foreigners the better it was for the country. He was a friend to free trade, properly so called, he was a friend to trade upon equal terms, but in this manufactur-
239
240
l
l
l
241
242
Mr. Maberly
explained, that his allusion was not made to the value of the exports and imports, but to their quality and quantity.
Mr. O'Connell
thought this an exceedingly proper opportunity to explain, that the worthy Alderman's allusions, strong as they were, could not apply to a re-
243
TREASURER OF THE NAVY.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
[looking at the clock] suggested that it was time to proceed to the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. The Order of the Day was accordingly read, and on the Motion being put,
Sir James Graham
rose to submit the Motion, concerning the office of Treasurer of the Navy, of which he had given notice. A very painful circumstance, he said, of a domestic nature, had almost compelled him to abstain from bringing forward his Motion, and had it not been that it would have seemed disrespectful to the House to postpone his Motion a second time, he should not have undertaken the task, which he felt he should perform imperfectly. He threw himself, however, on the indulgent favour of the House, on which he thought he might calculate, and even on its sympathy. The object of his Motion was of a painful character, and it might seem even invidious to complain of the appointment of his right hon. friend to an office—he said friend, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Treasurer of the Navy, would still allow him to use that name, but when he considered the circumstances and wants of the people, and the professions made by the Government at the opening of the Session—when he considered the calls made by a suffering country, for economy and relief, and the engagements voluntarily entered into by his Majesty's Ministers, that they would make every possible saving which could be effected without detriment to the public service, he was bound to proceed. They had, by filling up the place of Treasurer of the Navy, acted inconsistently with their voluntary engagements. On this point he and his Majesty's Ministers were at issue, and he sought, by his Motion, to obtain the opinion of the House on the subject. He would first disembarrass the question of circumstances which did not belong to it. The right hon. Gentleman would first allow him to assure him that he was not actuated, in bringing forward the question, by any ill-will towards him. In common with every man who knew that right hon. Gentleman, he entertained for him a very great respect; he saw, however, a difference in
244
l
245
l
246
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
particeps criminis,
247
248
249
l
Regum œquabat opes animis
250
251
252
l
253
254
255
256
l
Sir George Clerk
said, that having already, on the occasion of opening the Navy Estimates to the House, entered into an explanation of the reasons which had induced his Majesty's Ministers to fill up, as they had done, the vacancy that had occurred in the office of Treasurer of the Navy, he should not feel it necessary at present to go at any length into that subject. He should endeavour, however, to follow the hon. Baronet through some of
257
258
ex officio
l
l
259
l
260
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that the allusion which the hon. Baronet had made to him was rather flattering to his vanity. All that he had to do to secure the approbation of the hon. Baronet was to reconcile the vote which he intended to give that night with the speech which he made in 1822; a task of by no means difficult performance. The proposition in 1822 was to make the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, then held by his risiht hon. friend the Member for Liverpool, an office of importance, giving its holder a seat in the Cabinet, the salary of which was then only 2,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
261
262
Lord Howick
observed, that any doubt which he might have entertained of the expediency of his hon. friend's Motion would have been entirely removed by what had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clerk). To the question—why not make the Paymaster of the Navy perform the duties of the Treasurer? the answer of the hon. Baronet was, that there were technical difficulties in the way; but surely those might easily be removed by an Act of Parliament. The hon. Baronet said, that it was necessary to have a person of experience in the office of Treasurer of the Navy; the fact being that the hon. Gentleman who had been appointed to that office could not possibly know any thing of its duties. It would have been a much better course, to have made an effective deputy the principal, and have saved the salary of the latter. It was not merely to the expense, however, to which he objected. There was another important point. His hon. friend near him (Sir H. Parnell), in the able work which he had recently published,
263
l
Mr. Croker
called the attention of the House to the very extraordinary difference between the reasoning of the hon. Member for Cumberland and that of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and the still more extraordinary roads by which, though they differed most diametrically in their premises, they had both jumped to the same conclusion. The hon. Member for Cumberland asserted that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was not a sinecure, and that it ought not to be abolished, and he argued that it ought to be annexed to
264
l
265
Sir J. Graham
said, that he could not agree with the Secretary of the Admiralty that Mr. Tierney had treated the assertion in question with derision. He had understood him to admit, that the service was little more than a sinecure.
Mr. Croker
admitted that Mr. Tierney had said that this office did not take up much of his time when he held it. That was undoubtedly true; but the hon. Member for Cumberland should have read Mr. Tierney's speech onwards. "I admit," said Mr. Tierney, "that a short portion of my time every day sufficed for the duties of that office; but," he added, "since my time, other important duties have been added to the office."
Sir J. Graham
again intimated doubts.
Mr. Croker
.—Well, then, to convince the hon. Baronet, he would read the words attributed to Mr. Tierney—"When he held the office the business was not so great as to occupy the whole of his time, though he did attend for some time every day, but since then, the business, he understood, was considerably increased."
*
*
266
l
loud cheers from the Opposition benches
l
267
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
268
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
269
l
ibid. p.
Mr. Hume
, interrupting the right hon. Gentleman said, 'but not by the House.'
Mr. Croker
replied, the inquiry had been made by Government. He did not know what inquiry the Finance Committee might have made into it, because it so happened that he was placed in rather an odd situation as to the proceedings of that Committee. The House had received from that Committee, which was appointed to inquire into, and to state its opinions on, certain matters referred to it, one Report. The world had been told, however, by an hon. Baronet (in a pamphlet) that there was, somewhere, probably in the archives of the House, a body of evidence which he might pick out, to which he might give a tongue, and which he might afterwards call the opinions of the Finance Committee. To such an opinion, however, he would distinctly and explicitly say "No." He denied the right of any hon. Member to assume any thing as the opinion of the Finance Committee but what was contained in its Report; and he would just furnish the House with a proof how necessary it was, that they should attend to the Report of the Finance Committee, and not to the gloss which the hon. Member placed on the evidence taken before it. The hon. Member had quoted the evidence of a gallant officer behind him, as having been given against the office. Now the evidence of his gallant friend was decidedly in favour of the appointment which had been recently made; and he would even go so far as to say, that it was in consequence of that evidence
270
Sir J. Graham
did not say that it was the opinion of the Finance Committee, he only said that the matter came before the Finance Committee. He carefully avoided the line of argument which the right hon. Secretary attributed to him.
Mr. Croker
said, that he was not charging this misrepresentation on the hon. Baronet, but on the hon. Member for Montrose, and his opinion as to the Paymaster of the Navy.
Sir G. Warrender
here rose to Order. The question before the House was not a question as to the abolition of the Paymaster of the Navy—[the cries of "Order" which followed this interruption, prevented the hon. Baronet from completing his sentence, and compelled him to resume his seat.]
Mr. Croker
said, that dining the twenty years in which he had enjoyed the honour of a seat in Parliament, he had never before witnessed so admirable a specimen of a disorderly call to Order. He thought that his right hon. friend and himself had sat together in Parliament for nearly the same time; and he would appeal to his right hon. friend's calmer judgment, to say whether he deserved the interruption which he had just received. He had paid every attention to the course which this debate had taken, and he was at a loss to conceive why he was to be prevented from speaking of the office of Paymaster of the Navy, in reply to the proposition of the hon. Member for Cumberland, who wished to annex it to that of Treasurer.
[Sir G. Warrendar again said, he wished to explain, but he was not heard.]
Mr. Croker
was now sure that his right hon. friend's feeling of the force of his argument had got the better of his personal regard, otherwise he was quite confident that his right hon. friend would not have interrupted him. To return, however, to his argument. He had shown, first of all, that it had never been recommended by any Finance Committee to abolish this office; and secondly, that if it was abolished, it would be a tedious and a difficult task to consign the duties of it to a subordinate officer, who was at present unacquainted with them. He did not, however, lay any weight upon that point, except as an answer to what had been called
271
"dum tacet clamat,"
Lord Howick
stated, in explanation, that he had never proposed to abolish the office of Treasurer of the Navy; he had only proposed to consolidate it with that of the Paymaster, and to make that saving immediately which the Government pro-
272
l
l
Mr. Croker
was glad to hear the noble Lord put his argument upon that footing; but he certainly had not so understood it before.
Mr. Keith Douglas
said, that either of the plans proposed would be injudicious. The Treasurership of the Navy was such an important office, that it required the undivided attention of one person, and it had so much responsibility, that its duties could not be performed by the Paymaster. He should oppose the Motion, which could not be carried into effect without detriment to the public service.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he felt called upon to make a few observations on this subject, the more especially as he was the only Member of the House now present, who had held, for any considerable time, the office of Treasurer of the Navy jointly with that of President of the Board of Trade. He owned that he should have been glad to have been spared this discussion, for he did not feel much taste for any question in which the discussion of a public matter was mixed up with considerations of a private nature. The present was a discussion of that mixed description; but if it had been purely a question of a personal kind, he should have been the first to do justice to the ability, zeal, and industry, of the present Treasurer of the Navy; he should have been anxious to acknowledge that that right honourable Gentleman was not only competent to perform the duties of the office, but that he was also fully competent to the performance of duties of a much higher kind. But the House could not look at this question with reference to individual claims or individual merits—it was a public question, and only as a public question should he treat it. His Majesty's Ministers had unfortunately placed the House under the necessity of deciding on it as a public question, and he regretted that it was so, considering it to be imprudent in the Government to compel the House to come to any decision on the subject. The Members of that House had no alternative. If they wished to protect them-selves in public opinion—if they did not wish that the resolution they had adopted, and that Government themselves had recommended for their adoption, should be
273
ibid. p
274
ex officio
275
276
l
l
277
ibid. p
278
279
"How happy could I be with either,
Were t'other dear charmer away."
280
l
281
Sir George Cockburn
said, that attaching the office of President of the Navy with that of the Board of Trade had always, in his opinion, been improper, and he was now confirmed in that opinion by all that had fallen from his right hon. friend who had just sat down. His right honourable friend's talents were universally acknowledged, and it was equally well known that he was accustomed to business; and, therefore, it might be reasonably supposed that he was likely to have looked into details, and to have made himself well acquainted with the office of which he had just been speaking; but, so far from this, the right hon. Gentleman had clearly shown that he knew nothing whatever of the subject. Hon. Members might laugh if they pleased; but he would prove that his right hon. friend was totally unacquainted with the details and the duties of the office upon which he had been making an attempt to enlighten the House. When his hon. friend said, that he was the only person then in that House who had ever filled the office of Treasurer of the Navy, the House would learn greatly to its surprise, that his right hon. friend knew nothing of the subject. First his right honourable friend had told the House, that the Paymaster of the Navy was obliged to attend constantly at his office; that he was a responsible person, and that he had the checks to sign for many millions that passed through his hands. Would the House believe it possible, that the Paymaster of the Navy never had been allowed to draw one single check? The Paymaster could not draw one single shilling out of the Bank of England in virtue of his office.
Mr. Huskisson
here interrupted the gallant officer. He stated, that the gallant officer was either totally mistaken, or
282
hear
Sir George Cockburn
.—The Paymaster never drew a single shilling—he found no security—he was no public accountant. He had no command of the public money, except the power of making these Writes-off, to pay perhaps 20,000
l
l
hear, hear
a groan
l
283
Mr. Huskisson
hoped, that he might be allowed to offer himself in explanation to the House, after such very great ignorance had been imputed to him by the gallant officer. He might at least be allowed to show, that he really did know the ABC of the office he had filled. He had been charged with talking of checks, when, in point of fact, the Paymaster had not the power to draw checks. The balance in the Bank of England stood in the names of the Treasurer and Paymaster of the Navy. The Paymaster, under the power of attorney from the Treasurer, was authorized to draw out all that balance, and which, in fact, he did. These drafts were not in the common form of a banker's check, but they were drawn in the following words:—" From the balance standing in the name of the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy, write off (so many thousand pounds) to the Cashier of the Allotments, to the Cashier of the Pay Branch, or to the Cashier of the Victualling Branch," and so on. This "Write-off" was as much an imperative command to pay the money as if it were a common banker's check, only he had not before made the distinction between them, because he had no wish to trouble the House with a technical explanation. But it had been said, that the Paymaster might go away from his office for a week.
Sir George Cockburn
.—I never said any such a thing.
Mr. Huskisson
.—Well, the gallant officer, at least, said for two or three days. Documents came every day for the Paymaster to examine and sign. To-day there might be an account of 100,000
l
l
l
284
Mr. Hume
said, that Gentlemen who were not present at the commencement of the debate might be led away from the right question, so much had it been departed from in the course of the discussion. Government, on the 12th of February, had voluntarily submitted to the House the following Resolution, "that it is the opinion of this House, that, in all the establishments of the country, every saving ought to be made which can be made without violation of existing engagements, or injury to the public service." Three days afterwards the present Treasurer of the Navy vacated his seat in that House, having then been appointed to that situation. The hon. Baronet had brought forward this Motion in consequence of that appointment, for it was an open violation of the resolution which the Ministers had proposed, and to which they had made the House pledge its faith to the country. Had the Finance Committee come to any resolution upon the Pay Office, it would have been impossible, from the evidence before it, that it could have done otherwise than recommend the consolidation of all the Pay Offices; to affect ignorance of what would have been the Resolution of that Committee, when the whole of the evidence was on the Table of the House, was either hypocrisy, or it was sneering at the House. The question, however, before the House was, had Ministers, in this appointment, acted with due attention to the economy which they acknowledged to be essential, and which they had pledged themselves, and made the King pledge himself, to observe? The country had now to pay a charge of 2,920
l
l
l
l
l
285
l
l
l
l
286
Mr. Peel
said, before the House disposed of the proposition now submitted to its consideration, it would not be immaterial distinctly to recall to its recollection the character and principle of that proposition. It was not a Motion to reduce an excessive estimate, nor to diminish an extravagant vote, but to visit those who had made this appointment with condemnation and censure. Thus a question of justice was inseparably interwoven with a matter of policy. The House was called upon to pronounce a verdict; it was sitting, not merely in its political, but in its judicial character; and, however highly excited party feelings might be, he was certain there were few Members who would consent to pronounce that verdict without listening to the evidence, and paying due regard to the intentions of the accused. The
animus
287
l
l
288
l
l
à fortiori,
289
l
l
l
l
290
"How happy could I be with either—"
"Were t'other dear charmer away;"
*
*
291
l
292
293
294
295
Sir George Warrender
said, that he would support the Motion, because he considered it acting up to the resolution lately adopted by the House.
Mr. Labouchere
said, that after having heard the whole case, he could not support a motion which implied a censure upon Ministers who, he admitted, had done much in the way of reduction; at the same time he admitted that a more economical course might be adopted. They were going on in extravagance which ought to be checked, and he would state his opinions on the subject when they came to discuss the Navy Estimates.
The House then divided, when there appeared;—For the Resolution 90; against it 188.—Majority 98.
List of the Minority
Astley, Sir J.
Ebrington, Lord
Baring, Sir T.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Bernal, R.
Fane, J.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Fyler, T. B.
Birch, J.
Gordon, R.
Brownlow, C.
Grant, R.
Burdett, Sir F.
Harvey, D. W.
Bright, H.
Heron, Sir R.
Buxton, J. J.
Heneage, G. F.
Burrell, Sir C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Buck, L. W.
Hume, J.
Cave, R. O.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Cavendish, W.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Colborne, R.
Keck, G.
Clifton, Lord
Kemp, T. R.
Carew, R.
King, hon. General
Carter, J.
Lamb, hon. G.
Calvert, C.
Leonard, T. B.
Cavendish, H.
Lester, B.
Davenport, E. D.
Littleton, E.
Dawson, A.
Lygon, hon. Colonel
Dawson, E. J.
Maberly, J.
Dundas, hon. T.
Martin, J.
Dundas, hon. G.
Marshall, W.
Dundas, Sir R. A.
Morpeth, Lord
Duncombe, hon. W.
M'Donald, Sir J. Bart.
Dick, H.
Marryat, J.
Euston, Lord
Malcolm, N.
Encombe, Lord
Macqueen, T.
296
O'Connell, D.
Wall, C. B.
Ord, W.
Warburton, H.
Palmerston, Lord
Warrender, Sir G.
Parnell, Sir H.
Webb, Colonel E.
Phillips, G. R.
Wilson, Sir R.
Phillips, Sir G.
Wilbraham, G.
Power, R.
Westenra, hon. H.
Rice, T. S.
Wood, Ald.
Robarts, A. W.
Wood, C.
Robinson, Sir G.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Rumbold, C. E.
Whitbread, W.
Russell, Lord J.
TELLERS.
Rowley, Sir W. Bart.
Graham, Sir J.
Rickford, W.
Howick, Lord
Sefton, Lord
PAIRED OFF.
Stanley, E. G.
Sykes, D.
Scott, hon. W. H.
Denison, W. J.
Thomson, C. P.
Slaney, R.
Townshend, Lord C.
Liddell, hon. H.
Trant, W.H.
Du Cane, P.
Uxbridge, Lord
Winnington, Sir T.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Lambert, Colonel
LONDON AND EDINBURGH ROADS.]
On the Motion of Lord Viscount Morpeth, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the Roads between London and Edinburgh, and London and Portpatrick.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 15, 1830
MINUTES.] Petitions praying that the Trade with India might be opened were presented—by Lord KINNOUL, from the Corporation of Perth:—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from the Chamber of Commerce of Kirkaldy, and from the Town and Council of Kirkaldy:—By Earl STANHOPE, from the Trinity-House of Kingston-upon-Hull:—By the Marquis of BUTE, from the Corporation of Greenock:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol:—And by the Earl of DUDLEY, from certain persons in Staffordshire and Worcestershire. Complaining of the Distress of the Country, and praying for Reduction of Taxation, were presented—by the Earl of HARDWICKE, from the occupiers and owners of land in the county of Cambridge, and from the hundred of Ely:—By Lord KINO, from a parish in Gloucestershire:—By Earl STANHOPE, from the Clergymen, Freeholders, and Inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull:—By Earl BEAUCHAMP, from the Grand Jury of Worcester:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Inhabitants of the county of Ross. Against the Payment of wages in Goods were presented—by the Duke of WELLINGTON, from a place in Gloucestershire:—And by the Earl of DUDLEY, from Wolverhampton, from Dudley, and from the neighbourhood of the same place:—Against the Punishment of Death in certain cases, by Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE, from a place in Cornwall:—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the town and neighbourhood of Southampton:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN from the Quakers of Ireland. Praying for an alteration of the Corn Laws:-By Lord-KING, from the inhabitants of Uley:—Against the Truck System by the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the inhabitants of Stroud. Praying for the removal of the Duty on Coals, by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from Galway:—And praying or the repeal of the Subletting Act, by the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from the inhabitants of Belfast.
The Transferor Aids Bill, the Exchequer-Bills (12,000,000
l
COAL TRADE.]
The Marquis of Lon-
297
, in presenting a Petition from the Coal-whippers of London, praying their Lordships to remedy certain abuses in the Coal-trade, observed, that the Committee sitting up-stairs was likely to throw much light on the monstrous frauds committed in the port of London with respect to the article of Coals. He was happy also to say, that he believed the Corporation of the City of London would come forward and remedy these evils. He had observed, indeed, that a measure was in progress in another place, to substitute the practice of selling coals by weight, for selling them by measure, which would tend greatly to remove the abuses.
SHIPPING INTEREST.]
Earl Stanhope
, in presenting a Petition from the Shipowners of Kingston-upon-Hull, praying that a reduction of the expenses in every department of the Government might be effected, and that means might be taken to produce a more equal distribution of the burthens of the people, observed, that it was no answer to the complaints of the Ship-owners, to show that a large amount of tonnage was employed, for he could prove, that in that respect, the greatest possible fallacies existed; for though the amount of tonnage was considerable, the freights were very low. He wished to ask the noble Duke at the head of the Government, whether he had any objection to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the state of the Shipping Interest?
The Duke of Wellington
replied, that he did not understand the noble Earl to have shewn any ground for appointing such a Committee. If the noble Earl made a motion upon the subject, he should be better able to give it a direct answer.
Earl Stanhope
said, he was quite ready to make such a motion; but he begged to remind the noble Duke, that this was by no means the first petition which had been presented on the subject, so that it could hardly be new to the Government. The noble Duke called himself (as no doubt he was) a friend to the Shipping Interests; but he declined to take any means for in-creasing the freights of the Ship-owners. He would give notice of his motion on a future day.
The Duke of Wellington
said, he had not declined to do any thing that would assist the Shipping Interest. All he had said was, that he could not adopt means to benefit them, by raising their freights,
298
SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]
The Lord Chancellor
, in giving notice, that he would, on Friday next, move the second reading of two Bills, one relating to the Property of Lunatics, and the other to Contempt of the Court of Chancery, informed their Lordships, that his Majesty had been graciously pleased to issue two commissions; one authorising Lord Tenterden to act as Speaker to their Lordships' House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor; and the other authorising Lord Wynford to act as Speaker in the absence of Lord Tenterden and the Lord Chancellor. The two Commissions were, on the Motion of the Lord Chancellor, read by the clerk.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 15, 1830
MINUTES.] THOMAS GARDINER BRAMSTON, Esq. look the Oaths and his Seat as Member for the County of Essex. A Report of the Committee on the Wexford Election was submitted to the House to the following effect:
"That the right of election for the Borough of Wexford, was not in the description of persons that was set forth in the Petition, but that it consisted in such persons as had served an apprenticeship of seven years to freemen, or had resided in the Borough of Wexford at the period of their admission to the freedom, or had carried on business for six years in Wexford, pursuant to statute 14 and 15 Charles 2nd, and the new rules for the better encouragement of Protestants to take up their residence in different towns in Ireland:
"That Sir ROBERT WIGRAM, Knt., was not duly elected at the last election; but that Sir EDWARD CHOLNE-LEY DKRINO, Bart., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned:
"That neither the Petition against the return, nor the opposition to it, was frivolous or vexatious:
"That from certain facts which had been disclosed in the proceedings before the Committee, they deemed it expedient that the Evidence should be printed and laid before the House."—Ordered.
The Galway Franchise Bill was brought in and read a first lime; and the Pensions and Duties Bill was read a third time and passed.
Petition from the Tradesmen of Merthyr Tidvill, against any alteration in the laws relative to the Payment of Wages; presented by Sir CHARLES MORGAN.—From the Iron-Masters of Merthyr Tidvill, and from the Tradesmen of Bedwelty; by Sir CHRISTOPHER COLE.—From the Tradesmen in Dudley; by Sir THOMAS WINNINGTON; ALL complaining of great Distress.
Petitions against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, from the inhabitants of Pontefract; by Mr. HOULDSWORTH:—from Darlington, and Stockton-upon-Tees; by Lord WILLIAM POWLETT:—from Bur)-; by Lord STANLEY:—from the Corporations of Perth and Dumbarton; by Mr. A. CAMPBELL. Petition, praying for the repeal of the Duty on Hops, from Ewhurst, Burwash, and Etchingham; by Mr. BERNAL. Petition, praying for the repeal of the Malt Duty, from the Hundred of Taverham (Norfolk); by Mr. WODEHOUSE. Petitions, complaining of Distress from the inhabitants of the Hundred of Hoxne; by Sir EDWARD KERRISON. From the Shipowners of Scarborough; by Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE. From the inhabitants of Cripplegate Without; by Mr. ALDERMAN WOOD. From the inhabitants of the county of Flint and Holywell; by Sir EDWARD LORD,
299
Returns were presented of the number of Inquests held by Commissioners of Wide Streets in Dublin, and the sums paid to the Jurors:—Of the amount of First Fruits received during the last ten years:—Of the memorial of Francis M'Bryan and others to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, relative to the Sub-Sheriff of Fermanagh:—Of the number of causes set down in the Court of Session of Scotland, for the first time, in each year since 1811, and of other matters relating to this Court.
Returns were ordered, on the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, of all Sums of Money voted by the House of Assembly in the island of Jamaica, in 1825, 1820, and 1827, describing in what manner it was appropriated:—Of the number of the King's troops in that island in those years:—On the Motion of Mr. WARBURTON, of the number of the Commissioners of Bankrupts in London, distinguishing whether they are Barristers or not, and whether they hold any office.
TANJORE AND CARNATIC COMMISSIONS.
A Bill to continue the Tanjore Commission for a limited time having been read a second lime, and a Motion made to commit it,
Mr. Hume
inquired whether the Bill would cost the country any additional expense, and whether it was to be expected that the affairs into which these Commissions were instituted to inquire, would over be arranged. In particular he wished to observe, that the Carnatic Commissioners had sat during two or three generations, and it was high time that their inquiries, unless the Commission were to be eternal, should be brought to a close.
Mr. Astell
, in reply, stated, the Bill would cause no additional expense. It was only to enable the Tanjore Commissioners to examine witnesses on oath, and continue that Commission for a further period. He could inform the hon. Member, that the Carnatic Commissioners had presented their last report, and that the whole business of that Commission was about to be brought to a close.
SMUGGLING TOBACCO.]
Mr. H. Davis
, in presenting a Petition from persons dealing in Tobacco in Bristol, praying for the reduction of the duties on Tobacco, observed that he could not avoid expressing his surprise, that these duties should have been suffered to continue so long. The evils they inflicted on the community were of great magnitude, for which the revenue derived from them was no compensation. The illicit trade carried on in Tobacco was enormous. No vigilance could guard against the temptation afforded by a duty that in amount was nine times the value of the article. Tobacco formed the bulk of every illicit cargo. Smuggling was almost as bad as stealing, to which it frequently led, and therefore, if it were only
300
s
d
DISTRESS IN SCOTLAND—TAXATION.]
Mr. John Campbell
presented a Petition from the noblemen, freeholders, &c. of Dumbartonshire, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief by reduction of Taxation. The hon. Member said, that though he did not admit the country to be in that state of distress which some hon. Members thought, and in this he agreed with the petitioners, yet it undoubtedly was suffering to a considerable extent. He would not inquire into the causes of that distress, but much of it he thought was to be attributed to the alteration in the currency. He did not wish to have another alteration, but if Parliament were to institute an inquiry, it would at least learn to what extent its own measures had caused the evils, and it might find some means of alleviating them. This was the view of the petitioners, who also expressed their confidence in the Government. Ministers had already evinced a disposition to afford relief: and he had every hope that the statement which they were about to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would prove that still more effectual measures of relief were in contemplation.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, that though the distress in Scotland was not as great as that in England, yet there was great suffering amongst the agricultural classes there. The price of cattle was so low,—he spoke chiefly of the county of Kircud-bright,—that people could not get the price for them which they themselves gave last year, and he believed the same might be said of other counties. The result was, that the farmers could not pay their rents except out of their capital, and the distress of the lower classes, though they had hitherto done pretty well, were now suffering extremely. The only remedy
301
Sir G. Murray
was surprised and sorry to hear such a statement as that of the hon. Gentleman. He could state, however, that in other counties a different state of things existed, and that in the county which he had the honour to represent (Perthshire) no such distress was known. He had received an account that day from one of the greatest landed proprietors in that county, who stated that his rents were never more regularly paid than at present. From what he had heard, he should be disposed to form a different opinion from that just expressed by the hon. Member for Kircudbright.
Sir G. Warrender
said, that he could state as a landed proprietor of that county to which the gallant officer had alluded, that he could not get a farthing of rent, and he believed other counties in Scotland were in no better situation, though the rents had been reduced forty per cent since 1814.
Mr. W. Dundas
denied altogether that Scotland was in the distress which the hon. Member described. If wages had fallen, so had the price of the necessaries of life—if the prices of cattle had fallen, it was a relief to the farmer that wages had fallen also, and that rents had been lowered. From what he knew of Scotland he could not concur in the opinion that the agriculturists and the labourers were suffering in any extreme degree.
Mr. E. Davenport
said, it was a proof of the distress of the country when a Minister of the Crown made a boast of one landholder in Perth receiving his rents.
The Petition to lie on the Table.
FINANCES OF THE COUNTRY.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
having moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the several Acts relating to the Excise, and the Speaker having accordingly left the Chair, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to address the Committee as follows:—I avail myself of the opportunity afforded on the present occasion, of bringing thus early before the House the views of his Majesty's Government respecting the financial concerns of the country, and I do so, not more in deference to the wishes expressed by this House, than in compliance with my own sense of what is due in justice and in pro-
302
303
304
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
305
l
ad valorem
l
l
l
l
306
l
l
l
307
308
309
cheers
310
311
312
313
l
l
314
l
315
l
l
l
l
l
l
316
l
l
l
l
317
l
l
l
l
l
318
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
319
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
320
l
321
s
d
s
s
s
s
322
l
l
l
323
l
324
325
326
327
Mr. Alexander Baring
said, that no Minister ever came down to that House to declare his intention to relieve the burthens of the people under circumstances which required such an announcement more strongly than those which attended the right hon. Gentleman, and that no Chancellor ever did so without being hailed by the applause of the House and the people. He was sorry to say, however, that he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his opinion, that the distress was much diminished; and although he rejoiced, in common with the House, at the prospect of a reduction of taxation, he could not give his unqualified assent to some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, nor to the course which he intimated his intention to adopt with reference to the public funds. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated very clearly the supplies from which he intended to draw the means of these reductions, nor the situation of the public income on which he proposed that his reductions should operate. The right hon. Gentleman proposed reductions of taxation to the extent of 3,400,000
l
l
328
l
l
l
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
hoped the Committee and the hon. Member would pardon him for offering a very few words in explanation of this part of his statement. He did not quite agree in the calculation put forth by the hon. Member for Callington as the result of his statements. When the hon. Gentleman said that he calculated the Spirit Duties at 330,000
l
l
l
l
Mr. Baring
said, they were then come to this, that, after all that had been said of a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure, in order to supply the demands of the Sinking Fund, all surplus for that purpose was now disposed of, and it was reserved for the right hon. Gentleman to undo all
329
*
330
*
† lb, 1322.
331
l
l
332
l
l
l
333
*
l
*
† lb. p. 1315.
334
l
‡ Ib, p. 1295. §Ib.
335
336
Lord Althorp
said, he took a very different view of the subject indeed from that which had been taken by his hon. friend the Member for Callington, not thinking with him that it was necessary to devote so much of our revenue to such a sinking-fund as he had described in the greater part of his speech, and rather concurring with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his present view of the subject, which certainly did not deserve to be called a breach of faith with the public creditor. The greater part of his hon. friend's observations had been directed against the reduction of the four per cents. He was sure, however, that the stockholders generally would not be at all alarmed at what had fallen from his hon. friend; and that they would not think their property rendered in the slightest degree insecure. Their condition was not in the least degree altered by the proposed arrangement, because their property was quite as secure, and as much at their command, as before, and he was at a loss to see how his hon. friend could establish the suspicions which he had cast upon the stability of the public security. It was impossible, in this free country—it was impossible in any free country, that any breach of faith, such as that of which his hon. friend appeared to entertain some apprehensions, could be effected. He did not think, therefore, that the circumstances to which his hon. friend alluded would have the effect which he anticipated from them. With respect to the rest of the propositions of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Lord Althorp) entirely approved of them as far as they went. He highly approved of the reduction of the taxes, and especially of the reduction of the tax on Beer; which was, in his opinion, a very wise proceeding. And moreover, he would say,
337
338
Mr. Robinson
followed; but all that we were able to collect of the hon. Gentleman's observations was, that nothing which he had heard from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the effect of inducing him to relinquish his intended proposition, on Friday next, to make a more extensive reduction of those taxes, such as those on Soap, Candles, and Hides, which pressed on the productive industry of the country, and to supply any deficiency which might thereby be occasioned in the Revenue by an equitable assessment on property.
Mr. Hume
was anxious to say a few words, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Callington, because he thought that that hon. Gentleman had taken a very unfair view of the statement of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and had expressed fears with respect to the injury that statement was calculated to effect on public credit, which fears existed, he believed, in no other mind but that of the hon. Gentleman. If there were any subject which less than any other he should have expected to be agitated that evening, it was the Sinking Fund; a topic which had long been dead and buried.
339
l
l
l
l
340
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
341
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
342
Mr. C. Barclay
rose to confirm the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the saving to be effected to the public by the reduction of the Beer-tax. He was quite satisfied that not only would the country receive the benefit of a remission of 3,000,000
l
l
343
Mr. Maberly
said, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated to the House that there had been a surplus revenue of 2,700,000
l,
l
l
l
bona fide
344
Mr. Bernal
could repose, he said, some confidence in the promises held out to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, because he had not, like his predecessors, attempted to mystify the subject, and he was not ashamed of acknowledging the situation of the country, when he held out the hope of affording it relief. He well knew that the right hon. Gentleman had a great many conflicting interests to satisfy, but considering all parts of the subject, he must be excused for saying, that he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to afford some little relief to the most suffering of all interests—the West-India interests,
345
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
d
l
l
346
Mr. Alderman Thompson
agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that no interest required relief more than the West-India proprietors. However, he did not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could well carry reduction of taxation farther than he proposed at present, consistently with maintaining our existing establishments. He concurred with the hon. Member for Aberdeen in recommending to Government and the House to consider those taxes which pressed most heavily on the labouring, agricultural, and manufacturing classes. The time was arrived when we must alter our system of taxation; and he was glad to hear that the Government had not entirely lost sight of the possibility of doing so. He was aware that many objections were entertained against a Property-tax, but believed it would be soon thought that a tax upon capital was the only effectual way of meeting the emergency. The labouring classes were the great consumers, and we must enable them to consume more largely than they did at present. The reasons why they were not able to consume more at present were obvious, they were placed in competition with the cheap labour of foreign countries, with steam and machinery. Notwithstanding the ridicule attached to the declaration of an illustrious person in another place, he must say, he connected the pressure upon the working classes in a great degree with the improvements in machinery. He knew the value of machinery practically, and was satisfied that the more we applied it the more should we increase the wealth and resources of the country; but we ought to enable the labouring classes to compete with machinery, by finding them adequate employment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expected a considerable increase to the Revenue, in consequence of a consolidation and equalization of the Stampacts. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be borne out in his anticipation. He might here allude to the stamp duties on policies of marine assurances. Upon an insurance which cost 5
s
s
d
347
s
s
Mr. Huskisson
was not going into the subject of the state of the country at that moment, as there was a notice of motion for to-morrow which would afford a better opportunity for entering upon such a discussion, and he intended to avail himself of it. If he rose upon this occasion, it was because he could not deny himself the gratification of expressing his approbation of the statement made by his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He admitted, however, that the gratification which he felt at that statement was not wholly unalloyed by considerations such as those alluded to by the hon. Member for Callington. Not, however, that he thought it possible for any one to doubt, under whatever circumstances of trial or difficulty which might arise, that we should be enabled to maintain the public faith and the credit of the country untarnished. He thought, under all the existing circumstances, that the
348
349
bona fide
350
Sir C. Burrell
expressed himself dissatisfied with the reduction of the Beer-tax, which might benefit a few places but would give no general relief to the country. He considered that much more general benefit would accrue from a diminution of the duty on Malt, which would be equally an advantage to the agriculturist and the consumer of Beer.
Sir T. Acland
, on the part of the Western Counties, and of himself, begged to express entire satisfaction at one portion of the relief granted. He was happy to think that the satisfaction which he saw sparkling in the countenances of all around him would be soon shared by a large and worthy part of the community. The reduction was one fraught with comfort and convenience to a numerous class, and would occasion but small loss to the Revenue. The tax was one which, from his own knowledge, he could state, had caused much inconvenience and vexation in the western counties, and he was heartily glad it was removed. He also approved of the selection of the Beer and Leather Duties for reduction. The first had pressed very heavily on the lower classes; and the second had been a tax of the most vexatious and oppressive nature. He knew an instance in which a very worthy man was brought within the power of the Excise regulations, and put to considerable expense and inconvenience, in consequence of two labourers of his having, without his knowledge, tanned for themselves two aprons, value one shilling. It had been observed, that when half this tax upon leather was taken off', little benefit had resulted from it. There was an old proverb. "you should do nothing by halves;" on the faith of which he would venture to hope, that though the first experiment had been unsuccessful, the total removal of the duties would be attended with the best results.
Lord Milton
said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet, in thinking that the selection of the duties on Beer was not the most beneficial which could have been made. In his opinion, it would have been better to have reduced the duties on Malt; and that this would have been the most beneficial reduction for the land-owners and cultivators of the soil, no doubt could be entertained. The Beer-tax, it should be considered, was one affecting a particular class and particular districts. There were many districts (as for instance, the
351
Mr. Liddel
objected to the additional duty on Whiskey. He thought it would hold out an inducement to illicit distillation in the Highlands and in Ireland. It would also encourage smuggling on the borders of England and Scotland. The Government could not lay an additional shilling duty on Corn-spirits in Ireland and Scotland, and leaving, as it did, a great difference between the duties levied in the different countries, it encouraged smuggling. If the additional duty on Spirits were necessary to prevent the people drinking so much, why should it not be extended to spirits made in Scotland?
Lord Howick
was of the same opinion as the last speaker. He stated, that smuggled whiskey was consumed to a great amount in Northumberland and Cumberland. He thought it would be better to raise the duty in Scotland. This would, perhaps, increase in some degree illicit distillation in the Highlands, but the Revenue would still be collected in the Lowlands; so that on the whole, the mischief would not be so great as the increase of smuggling in
352
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
begged leave to say one word in explanation of a point which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Callington, and subsequently by the right hon. Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member seemed to intimate to the House, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) contemplated that in 1831 he should have no surplus of income over expenditure. He must have expressed himself very differently to what he had intended, if he had said any thing to warrant such an inference. His line of argument was, that though he could not predict that that surplus would be 3,000,000
l
bona fide
l
353
Mr. Baring
was sorry if he had misconceived the expression of the right hon. Gentleman to the degree he had stated, and should feel much obliged to him, as he was sure would the House at large, if he would show, by way of figures, how far he was misrepresented, and how far he should be borne out in his then explanation of the drift of his meaning. Did the right hon. Gentleman found his anticipation of the amount, 1,500,000
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the hon. Gentleman was putting the matter in a form in which it. was not fair to represent it to the House. He only chose to take the figures on one side, while he forbade him to take those on the oilier. The Estimate of the Revenue for 1831 was a matter of fair calculation, and it might be expected would yield as much, or more, than that of preceding years.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
begged leave, as one who was, in the best sense of the term, a representative of the people, to express on their part his satisfaction at the proposed abolition of duty on three of the articles of life which were chiefly consumed by the industrious poor. He could not augur the extensive benefits which some hon. Members seemed to expect would follow from those reductions, nor from the giving up 3,000,000
l
354
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
355
EAST RETFORD.]
Mr. N. Calvert
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that he should take the sense of the House upon the question whether it was fit that such a deception should be practised as this Bill endeavoured to accomplish. He moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time on this day six months.
Mr. Hume
said, that he should vote against the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
gave notice, as he saw the Attorney General in his place, that, on a future day, he would move for copies of the Judge's Notes, and of the indictment, on a trial for perjury and bribery at the election for Stock-bridge.
Sir R. Wilson
thought half a loaf better than no bread, and therefore should support the Bill by his vote, as he could obtain nothing more.
Mr. Tennyson
reminded the honourable and gallant Member for Southwark, that if this Bill were defeated another trial might yet be made to transfer the franchise to Birmingham.
The House then divided. For the Amendment 83; Against it 164; Majority, 81.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Davies, Colonel
Blake, Sir F.
Duncombe, T.
Brownlow, C.
Dundas, hon. T.
Buxton, T. F.
Dundas Sir R.
Bernal, R.
Denison, W. J.
Baring, A.
Dawson, A.
Baring, B.
Ebrington, Lord
Batley, C. H.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Burdett, Sir F.
Fyler, T. B.
Clive, E.
Fergusson, C.
Calvert, C.
Ferguson, Sir R.
Cholmeley, M.
Fortescue, hon. G.
Clifton, Lord
Greene, T. W.
Cole, Sir C.
Howick, Viscount
Cavendish, W.
Honywood, W. P.
Cavendish, C.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Cradock, Colonel
Kekewich, S. T.
356
Knight, R.
Robinson, Sir G.
Kemp, T. R.
Robarts, A. W.
Lamb, hon. G.
Rumbold, Sir E.
Lambert, Colonel
Sefton, Lord
Labouchere, H.
Stanley, E.
Langston,' J. R.
Sykes, D.
Lester, B.
Smith, V.
Lloyd, Sir C.
Tennyson, C.
Martin, J.
Thomson, C. P.
Marshall, W.
Uxbridge, Earl of
Maberley, J.
Ward, J.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Warburton, H.
Maitland, Lord
Webb, Colonel
Marjoribanks, S.
Wells, J.
Monck, J. B.
Wilbraham, G.
Morpeth, Viscount
Whitbread, S.
Nugent, Lord
Wood, C.
O'Connell, D.
Wood, Alderman
Palmer, C. F.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Poyntz, W. J.
Winnigton, Sir T.
Pusey, P.
Whitmore, W.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Protheroe, E. E.
TELLERS.
Rice, T. S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Robinson, G. R.
Hume, J.
Mr. O'Connell
, on the question that the Bill do pass, rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move an additional clause to the Bill. His object, he said, was to secure to the Hundred of Bassetlaw the power to vote for Representatives by ballot, and he felt so strongly the vast importance and inherent value of the plan, that he feared its loss would be attributable chiefly to the want of talent in its advocate. Whatever might be the fate of his Amendment this night, he had so much reliance on the plain common sense and strong understanding of the people of this country, that he was satisfied every fresh discussion would be followed by fresh proselytes, until at length the conviction out of doors would make its due impression within. The avowed ostensible object of this Bill was to prevent bribery and corruption in the borough of East Retford, and the way in which that was proposed to be effected was, by in-creasing the number of voters. He did not see how such a remedy would cure the acknowledged evil which existed in this instance, and if such a remedy were efficient, he should certainly like to see the standard ascertained as to the given number of voters which would prevent bribery and corruption in boroughs of this description. Now he (Mr. O'Connell) would propose a really efficient measure for preventing bribery and corruption for the future in this borough. He should propose that the poll be taken by ballot,
357
358
359
Question was here called
360
Mr. Hume
said, that he seconded the Motion with great pleasure, because no questions had occupied more time, nor any more uselessly, than those in which the House endeavoured to punish individuals for corrupt practices at elections. He therefore conceived that any mode which enabled a man to give a vote free from the influence of a superior, or from direct bribery, was very desirable. He thought the plan now proposed would be more likely than any other to effect what he had heard Members in that House again and again desire to see, namely, every voter able to vote as he pleased. It would effect that which repeated Acts of Parliament had been unequal to achieve. Since he had had a seat in that House, he had seen frequent instances of vote by ballot, and what was that done for, except to put an end to influence? but unfortunately from the state of that House it did not answer the end proposed; for lists were prepared and put into the hands of individuals who were obliged to give the names on those lists as of their own choice. In large bodies of voters there would be a different result. The plan of voting by ballot was now almost universal. In the United States 250,000 people voted by ballot, without the slightest confusion, and every officer in the State was elected by ballot. It was said that ballot was a sneaking mode of expressing a man's opinions; but he would ask, whether there was anything in the character of the people of the United States that shewed ballot to be the proof of a sneaking or cowardly spirit? He would say exactly the reverse. Neither did he think that the charge of hypocrisy could be truly brought against this mode of voting, for in that respect the other was much worse. The practice of voting by ballot was adopted by all clubs. If what had been stated by the opponents of the measure was true, it would be more manly in the clubs to vote openly, but they did not; and it should be recollected that the members of the clubs were gentlemen, while electors, in general, were in a different situation, and were by no means so independent in their circumstances. No
361
Sir R. Wilson
observed, that every one who looked to the signs of the times must see that the cause of reform had assumed a different aspect from heretofore. The opinion that reform was necessary was no longer a clamour occasioned by temporary distress—it was the settled conviction of intelligent men. The subject deserved, therefore, to be fairly examined by the House. He gave the hon. and learned Member for Clare full credit for sincerity in bringing forward his proposition; and he hoped that hon. Member would give him the same credit for sincere motives in opposing it. The proposition was of a most extensive character. The hon. and learned Member admitted that it was an innovation, and intended as an initiative of a total change in the elective franchise: but there was something in the concealment and muffling up, which the system of ballot proposed, repulsive to his feelings, contrary to the English character, and to that publicity which every elector ought to be desirous of seeking. It was a system suited to a peculiar class of people, and to juniors in the representative system; and an experiment to try how far a nation was adapted to receive such a system. We talked of the march of intellect, but this was a retrograde march,—we were going backward; and any foreigner who heard such a proposition would consider that its adoption would be a proof of our degradation. The circumstances of France and of America were totally different from ours; but he had conversed with North Americans, persons whoso opinions were entitled
362
viva voce
Mr. Warburton
observed, that all political measures should lead to good Government, and the question was, whether this measure would or would not lead to such an object. If he had any objection to the adoption of the ballot in Bassetlaw, it was because the number of voters was not so great as might be wished; for the fittest places for this measure were those where there were great numbers of voters. There was no place where intimidation and influence were carried to a greater pitch than in London; and there the ballot would be beneficial. There were some places, therefore, where the ballot would be proper,—others where it would be improper. He meant, however, to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Clare. ["
Question," "Question."
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he could assure the tempestuous part of the House, that he would agitate them but for a very few moments. His opinion was generally in favour of reform; and before he voted, he wished to explain the reasons why he did not support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Clare. He had listened to the hon. Member, and understood the object of his proposition to be, to check and stifle corruption in individuals. Then was this the best mode? He thought not. He thought that the best and only effectual mode of preventing corruption was, to place the representative in the same situation in that House as the electors at the hustings, and oblige Members to swear at the bar that they had not offered a bribe. This was the only effectual remedy; though he was the only Member the other night who divided with the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Stewart) on a Motion for this object. The hon. and learned Member had said
363
Mr. Jephson
said, that he should vote for the Motion of his hon. and learned! friend the Member for Clare, but for reasons diametrically opposite to those he had assigned.
Mr. W. Smith
said, he should vote for the election by ballot, as it appeared to him to be the only course by which they could secure free election in the borough of East Retford, now that it was joined with the hundred of Bassetlaw.
The House then divided on the question that Mr. O'Connell's clause be brought up, when there appeared—
Ayes 21, Noes 179; majority against the introduction of ballot 158.—Bill passed.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Monck, J. B.
Blandford, Lord
Nugent, Lord
Burdett, Sir F.
Palmer, C. F.
Cholmeley, M.
Protheroe, E.
Davies, Colonel
Smith, W.
Dawson, A.
Waithman, Alderman
Ebrington, Lord
Warburton, H.
Gordon, R.
Wells, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Whitbread, S.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Tellers.
Maberly, J.
O'Connell, D.
Marshall, W.
Hume, J.
POOR LAWS.]
Mr. Slaney
Mr. Benett
thought that the present was not a fit time for interfering with the
364
Lord Althorp
recommended that the Bill should be then read a second time,
pro forma,
Bill read a second time.
HAYMARKET.—ST. JAMES'S PARK.]
Lord Lowther
Mr. W. Smith
remarked, that no opposition on any side would be offered to the removal of the market; but he apprehended that the place to which it was intended to remove it would be found inconvenient to numbers, and the Bill might, on that account, create some dissatisfaction.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he should take the present opportunity to ask two questions of the noble Lord who presided over the department of Woods and Forests. The first related to the proposed carriage-road which it was expected would have been opened in St. James's Park from Pimlico to Storey's Gate. The improvement was generally understood to have been agreed upon and arranged, when the ground was taken in for the erection of the new palace; but there was at present no appearance of any preparation for opening such a road. He therefore wished to know, whether the design had been abandoned. The second question was on a subject no less interesting to many of his constituents, and likewise related to another improvement in the same Park, which there was hitherto no prospect of being carried into effect. It had been understood, that after the pulling down of Carlton-house a communication would have been made from Waterloo Place into St. James's Park by means of two openings through the newly-erected terrace; but if he might judge from the progress which the work had already made towards completion, that expectation was not destined to be realized. He wished, however, to learn from the noble Lord whether it were determined that any such openings should be made.
365
Lord Lowther
regretted he could not gratify the hon. Member by his answer concerning the passage which he had just mentioned, as no public communication into the Park would be made through the terrace at the end of Waterloo Place; nor would such a measure be authorized by the Minutes already submitted to the House on the 18th of January 1827. With respect to the road alluded to, he was happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that it would be opened very soon, and he would have the satisfaction, in a very short time, of seeing it ready for the accommodation of the inhabitants.
Bill read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 16,1830.
MINUTES] The Twelve Millions Exchequer Bills' Bill and the Transfer in Aids' Bill were read a third time and passed.
The Mutiny Bills, and Personal Estates Duties' Bill, were brought up from the Commons by Sir ALEXANDER GRANT and others—Read a first time.
Petitions were presented against the East India Company's Charter:—by the Duke of GORDON, from the Merchants, Manufacturers, and other Inhabitants of Aberdeen:—by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Beeston and Churwell in Yorkshire. Complaining of Distress and praying for relief:—by the Earl of LIMERICK, from the Weavers of Limerick:—by Earl RADNOR, from Dunsley (Gloucestershire), and from certain Merchants, Manufacturers, and Tradesmen of London:—by Earl STANHOPE, from the Hundred of Launditch, Norfolk. Against the Bread and Beer Tax:—by Lord KING, from a district in Gloucestershire. Against the extension of Poor-laws to Ireland:—by the Earl of GLENGALL. from a place in Cavan. Against the Truck System:—by Lord CALTHOEPE, from the inhabitants of Darlaston; and against the Punishment of Death for Forgery:—by Earl BATHURST, from Cirencester.
COAL, TAX.
Lord Wharncliffe
, in presenting a Petition from the Dyers and Manufacturers of Norwich against the Tax on Sea-borne Coals, said, that this was a most unjust tax, and when so many taxes were taken off it was most unfortunate that this was not among the number. It was a direct tax on productive labour, and fell particularly heavy on the petitioners, as coals were essential to the use of the machinery by which their trade was carried on. To shew their Lordships the effects of this tax he would mention one curious fact. The people of Norwich were actually obliged to send their wool to Yorkshire to be spun, and after being spun, it was sent back to Norwich to be manufactured into camlets and other stuff's. This was entirely owing to the cheapness of fuel in Yorkshire, which enabled the people there to apply the steam-engine to the purpose of spin-
366
IRISH POOR LAWS.
Earl Darnley
rose, according to notice, to call the attention of their Lordships, as he had frequently done before, to the most important subject of the adoption of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland. The poor in England, it was well known, were entitled to relief, and he would certainly recommend that some law should be adopted to afford a compulsory relief to the sick, the aged, and the infirm in Ireland. He saw that his noble friend (the Earl of Limerick) on the other side was already prepared to take the alarm, and to give his decided opposition to any project of the kind, as he had done before, when he took occasion to call the attention of their Lordships to this subject. He must admit, that on that occasion, his proposition was not particularly well received. But since that time, a considerable change had taken place in public opinion with respect to the Poor-laws; and political economists in England, Scotland, and Ireland, as well as others, had come over to his opinion. He was far, however, from meaning to advocate the introduction into Ireland of the same system of Poor-laws as prevailed in England; but when he could prove, as he had offered to do on a former occasion, that people in Ireland had died of want in the streets and highways, it was high, time to adopt some method of compulsory relief for the aged, the sick, and the helpless. How far the compulsory relief should go, he was not then prepared to say. It might, perhaps, be asked, why he did not move for a Committee of In-
367
The Duke of Wellington
, in compliance with the desire of the noble Earl, stated that the Ministers had it not in contemplation to introduce at present anything like a general system of Poor-laws into Ireland. But at the same time he had to state to their Lordships that the state of Ireland had engaged the particular attention of his Majesty's Government, and several measures were in contemplation, which either directly or indirectly had for their object, and he trusted would have the effect, of affording relief to the aged and infirm, and the sick, and of giving work to the able-bodied poor. In the first place, there was a measure for the relief of the labouring poor, by having them employed by the Grand Juries. Again, there was a measure for the care of natural children, although that was one which would require a great deal of revision and caution before it was passed into a law. Another measure went to provide the City of Dublin with the means of creating an hospital for the distressed, in the same manner as means were provided for that object in the counties in Ireland, by the
368
The Earl of Limerick
said, that as his noble friend opposite had not made any motion, nor proposed any specific measure, he would not at present waste their Lordships' time by entering at length into the discussion. His noble friend had alluded to the information which the Representatives of the Irish Peerage might give the House on this subject. As for himself, labouring as he was under severe indisposition, he could not pretend to give their Lordships much information, but any that he could give would not be in favour of the establishment of the Poor-laws in Ireland. His noble friend had truly stated that he had started the subject some years ago in this House, on which occasion he was supported by the petition of one man, who, having nothing else to do, thought proper to turn his attention to the state of Ireland; and he recollected that the petition was received with a loud laugh. But now his noble friend said, that the political economists and others had come over to his opinion. This was owing to the march of intellect, he supposed; but neither by march of intellect, nor by political economists, nor by any other influence, would he be persuaded to support any wild schemes of innovation. There were too many of them afloat already; and whether the line of conduct which he should feel it his duty to pursue should be palateable or unpalateable, he would oppose them. If his noble friend had proposed to appoint a committee, he should certainly have opposed the motion; for if that course were adopted, it would excite undue expectations on the one hand, and great alarm on the other. It would be a most alarming step to the gentlemen of landed property in Ireland. Their Lordships had only to look at the effects of the Poor-laws in some parts of England to form some idea of what would be the consequences of the system in Ireland. He particularly alluded to the county of Buckingham, where the Poor-rates had reached to the exorbitant height of 20s. in the pound, and where the system was most oppressive to the property of the place, without affording adequate relief to the indigent and
369
The Earl of Malmesbury
was desirous to say a few words on the subject, which he considered as one of considerable importance. His noble friend near him (the Earl of Limerick) had said, that the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry would have been attended with mischievous effects, by exciting unreasonable expectations on one hand, and creating great alarm on the other. But if so, the mischief was already done; for the appointment of the committee by the other House would have the same effect. He really thought that his noble friend should have moved for a committee. He did not think that it was always the best way for their Lordships to take their information from the other House, and sometimes the information could not be had in time. For instance, when the New Police measure came before the House—a most important measure, even in a Constitutional point of view, but a good one as it had turned out—he had moved that a message should be sent to the Commons to desire that they would send up the evidence taken on the subject before their Committee, but it did not come till the second reading of the Bill. His noble friend had said that there were other committees, particularly the East-India Committee, now sitting, which occupied the attention of many of their Lordships. But there were surely sufficient numbers among their Lordships for a Committee on this subject also. And if it should be desirable that those who sat on the East-India Committee should sit on this Committee also, why should they not sit on alternate days. He had no doubt but the Members of the Committee in the other House would do their duty, but at the same time
370
The Earl of Limerick
said, he would tell the noble Earl why the committee appointed by the other House would not give rise to the mischief's which he apprehended from the appointment of a committee of their Lordships on the same subject, if it took place at the suggestion of the noble Earl. The committee of the other House was moved for by a near relative of his, whose views on this subject were too well known, and too clearly stated, to be misunderstood, or to cause apprehension. As to the advantage of examining upon oath, on such a subject, he really did not see it, because an opinion could not be increased in value by the sanction of an oath. It might prove the sincerity, but could not prove the correctness, of the opinion. For instance, in the case of Irish vagrants, and the importation of black cattle, both of which had been complained of as hard-
371
The Earl of Malmesbury
did not mean to flatter the wit of his noble friend, but certainly passing these Irish travelling gentlemen was a heavy expense, and the Irish landlords should defray it.
The Duke of Buckingham
said, that nothing could be more satisfactory than what had fallen from the noble Duke (Wellington) on this subject. He was glad that the laws relative to grand-juries in Ireland were to be amended; for he would venture to say, that under the present system, sources of more iniquitous jobs than the means of employing the poor by the grand-juries were no where to be met with. With respect to the introduction of the English system of Poor-laws in Ireland, he wished to express no opinion; but it seemed as if some change were necessary. Whenever a noble Lord or hon. Gentleman thought he had discovered a grievance in the administration of the Poor-laws, he immediately proposed to introduce a new law to be added to the heap of regulations already in existence, which was but too large and complicated without further additions. No necessity whatever had been made out for an inquiry before a committee of their Lordships' House, or for a new law on the subject. He spoke this of the Poor-laws generally. In the county with which he was more intimately connected, there were many defects in the operation of the Poor-laws, and much pressure was occasioned by them, principally owing to a mistaken administration of the present law. By recurring to the original principles of the law of Elizabeth, Poor-rates might be made, not the reward of idleness, but the safe-guard of illness, age, and infancy. We should not then be aiding those who preferred doing nothing, and receiving a small pittance from the parish, to working in order to obtain the full wages of labour, which it was once the pride of the people of this country to do.
372
The Earl of Wicklow
agreed with his noble relative as to the general inexpediency of appointing a committee on this subject, but there were reasons which induced him to think a committee ought to be appointed. One of these was, that a committee was already formed in the House of Commons; but whether the House granted a committee or not, he trusted, that if any measure should be proposed to Parliament, as the result of the labours of the committee in the House of Commons, their Lordships would meet it with a fair, a deliberate, and unprejudiced consideration. He wished especially that some measure should be adopted to remove from the mind of the English agriculturalist the belief that the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into Ireland would prevent the immigration of the labourers from that country to this. He doubted much whether that immigration was an evil; but even if it were so, it was, like many other evils now the subject of complaint, much exaggerated. Considering the period at which Irish labourers came into this country, he did not think the fanners would be much obliged to Parliament for putting an end to their immigration, which occasioned a beneficial competition for labour at a time when labour was most in demand; and, above all, that their Lordships, as landlords, would not be inclined to put an end to the system. Supposing, however, that the system was an evil, he would ask whether the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland was likely to prevent these immigrations? He must say that he was far from anticipating that such would be the result. He had not heard any one but the noble Duke who sat near him even suggest the notion of transplanting into that country the abused and vicious system of the Poor-laws of England.
The Duke of Buckingham
assured the noble Earl, he had not recommended any such thing; for he had not yet made up his mind on the subject.
The Earl of Wicklow
observed, that to attempt such a measure would be like attempting to transplant the forest of Hampshire into the rocks, bogs, and wilds of Connemara. There was another objection to the system of the Poor-laws. They tended to seal up the sources of private benevolence, and he was sure that in that respect they would be mischievous in their effects in Ireland. Such was now the
373
The Marquis of Salisbury
observed, that there would be no possibility of recurring to the system of Elizabeth, as the noble Duke (Buckingham) desired, without a parliamentary inquiry, for many parts of the law, as it might be supposed to have existed at that period, were exceedingly vague and undefined. If the House agreed to the appointment of a committee to investigate the state of the Poor-laws in this country, we might have an opportunity of recurring to the sound system of relieving the poor who deserved relief, instead of empowering every overseer who pleased, to pay a portion of the wages of labour out of the Poor-rates. This practice prevailed in Dorsetshire. He could not agree with those noble Lords who thought that the immigrations of Irish labourers were not a grievance; he thought them a very great grievance. These people came over and worked at very low wages, and in a great measure took the bread out of the mouths of the English labourers, and that at a time when the English labourers would otherwise be able to make enough money to save themselves during the worst parts of the year, from applying for parochial relief. At such times these Irish labourers came over, subsisted for a few weeks before the busy time came on, either by beggary or petty robbery, and afterwards threw themselves on the parish to be passed back again to Ireland. Was it fit that so many persons should regularly leave their own country, to come here on foraging expeditions? He thought not, and that the fact that they did so was a sufficient ground for the House to interfere on the subject. He
374
The Earl of Limerick
could not sit quietly in his place and listen to the imputations thrown out by the noble Marquis upon the conduct of the Irish labourers who visited this country. What! was it owing to the hoards of Cossacks—the invasion of savages, who robbed, plundered, begged, and carried away, truly, the wages which ought to be devoted to the support of English labourers, that we had this stir made about providing for the Irish poor? This was the boasted philanthropy and regard which noble Peers expressed for the aged, the impotent, the sick and blind. It was a selfish feeling then that was at the bottom of all this outcry about humanity and religion: they wanted to deprive their own people, who were united to them by the closest ties, who bled and died for them, of common international advantages. Good God! what, were the men who defended the country with their blood, and expended their labour in its cultivation, to be denied the privilege of bringing that labour to the best market, at the time when they could dispose of it to the greatest advantage? When the Irish labourers came to this country to work, they were to be branded as beggars, plunderers, and vagabonds! He denied the statement
in toto,
The Marquis of Salisbury
did not mean to offend the noble Earl, or the people of Ireland, but he supposed the noble Earl would hardly take on himself to answer for the honesty of every Irish labourer that came over to this country; and the Quarter Sessions attested the fact, that just about the time of their immigrations, the numbers of petty robberies were considerably increased.
The Marquis of Clanricarde
thought, no case had been made out for a committee with reference to Ireland, though there were certainly strong grounds for a committee with reference to England, both as to the Poor-laws themselves, and their administration. He trusted our abominable system would never be introduced into Ireland, where, in fact, the machinery of that system would not work; but if it could, the effect must be most injurious to the country. He wished, in common
375
Earl Stanhope
could not lose that opportunity of protesting against the opinions now expressed, particularly by the noble Duke (Buckingham), as to the abuses of the administration of the Poor-laws. The real cause of the present high amount of Poor-rates was not the abuses of their administration, but the want of employment for the poor, occasioned by our mistaken policy. The noble Duke ought to be better acquainted with his own county, where this was the obvious cause of the sufferings of the poor. It was impossible that, any mal-administration of the Poor-rates should have increased them 20s. or 30
s.
Earl Darnley
said, that however they might differ among themselves as to the means, the object of all was to provide relief for the aged, and the infirm, and the needy part of the population of Ireland.
376
The Duke of Buckingham
, in reply to the charge of giving an opinion upon a subject of which he had been stated to be perfectly ignorant, and in answer to the accusation of not being acquainted with the condition of the county which his Majesty had intrusted to his care, declared, that all his experience proved—and he had studied the subject with some attention—that the pressure of the Poor-rates in his county was caused by the overseers applying them in part payment of the wages of labour. In this opinion he was supported by the magistrates of the county, and he assured the noble Earl, that he had not expressed an opinion without having made himself master of the subject.
Earl Stanhope
admitted, that the maladministration of the Poor-laws might have some effect in producing the evils complained of; but contended, that the policy lately adopted had still more powerful effects. To say that English labourers considered the Poor-rates as a means of escaping from work, was a libel on one of the most useful classes of men in the country.
COUKT OF CHANCERY.
The Lord Chancellor
gave notice, that on Monday next he should submit a Motion to their Lordships upon the business of the Court of Chancery, and that he should take that opportunity of explaining the measures now in progress, relative to the amendment of the general administration of the laws of the country.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 16, 1830
MINUTES.] The Deputy Clerk of the Crown attended, to amend the Return for Wexford, inserting, instead of the name of Sir ROBERT WIGRAM, that of Sir EDWARD DESRING,—The Annual Indemnity Bill was read a First time.
377
Returns were presented, of the several Informations filed by the Attorney General, against Mr. ALEXANDER, the Editor of the Morning Journal:—And of all Suits commenced in the Court of King's Bench, Westminster; wherein the venue was laid in Wales.
Returns were ordered, on the Motion of MR. HUME, of the Sums received, on account of the Fee Fund in the Court of Session in Scotland, and how appropriated.
Petitions were presented, against the renewal of the East-India Company's Charter—by Mr. BATLRY, from the inhabitants of Beverley:—By Mr. HUME, from the Merchants and others of Aberdeen:—By Lord MILTON*, from the Merchants and Manufacturers of Huddersfield, Halifax, and Bradford, Yorkshire:—By Mr. MARSHALL, from Selby, Yorkshire:—by MR. W. DUNCOMBE, from the inhabitants of Churwell and Beeston:—By Lord STANLRY, from Rochdale:—Ami by MR. DICKENSON, from Frome, in Somersetshire. Praying for the Repeal of the Sub-letting Acts in Ireland, for a Composition of Tythes, and for a Repeal of the Vestry Act—by Mr. O'CONNELI, from several Parishes in Ireland:—By Mr. OTWAY CAVE, from Carrick-on-Suir. Praying for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes—by Mr. SYKES, from the inhabitants of Kings-ton-upon-Hull:—By the same Gentleman, from the same place, praying for measures to enable Creditors more effectually to recover Small Debts. Against the Duty on Coals carried Coastwise—by Mr. HOLDSWORTH, from the inhabitants of Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness: — By Colonel CRADOCK, from the inhabitants of Camelford. Praying for an Alteration of the Corn Laws—by Mr. SADLER, from JOHN WRIGHT, of Lenton-House, Nottingham. Praying for assistance to Emigrate—by Mr. W. HORTON, from the Emigration Society of Lanarkshire. Praying that the Poor-law Amendment Bill might not pass into a Law—by Sir M. W. RIDLKY, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne:—By Mr. SYKES, from the Guardians of the Poor at Hull. Against the Removal of the Hay-market Bill—by Mr. BYNG, from the Farmers and Hay-Salesmen, residing near the Metropolis: And from the Licensed Victuallers, residing in the Hay-market. Against throwing open the Retail Trade in Beer—By Lord EASTNOR. from the inhabitants of the City of Hereford. Praying for the Repeal of Capital Punishment in cases of Forgery—By Mr. PENDARVIS, from the inhabitants of Falmouth; And by Mr. CRIPPS, from the inhabitants of Cirencester. Praying for the Abolition of the plan of Paying Wages in Goods—By Sir CHRISTOPHER COLE, from certain Iron-Masters in Glamorgan:—By Mr. WILMOT HORTON, from New castle-under-Lyne: And by Mr. W. SMITH, from the Ministers of the Wesleyan Persuasion, in the neighbourhood of Dudley, Complaining of Distress, and Praying for Relief—By Mr. FOUNTAYNE WILSON, from the inhabitants of Marrick, in the County of York:—By sir W. HEATHCOTE, from the Freeholders of Hampshire, and from the inhabitants of several parishes in Hampshire: By Colonel LYGON', from the Grand Jury of Worcester; and by Mr. W. DUNCOMBR, from the Agricultural Society of Holderness:— By Mr. ESTCOURT, from Dunsley. Praying for the Continuance of the Bounties on Fishing.—by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Fishermen of Belfast. Praying for a Re-peal of the Duty on Malt, Hops, and Beer: And for a Reform in Parliament, by Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT, from the Freeholders of the County of Hereford:—By Lord Viscount MANDEVILLE, from persons in the neighbourhood of Huntingdon:—By Lord ALTHORP, from the Hundred of Humbleyard:—And by Mr. W. SMITH, from the Justices and others of the Comity of Ross: And praying for the Repeal of the Leather Tax, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Kilkenny and Wexford.
CALL OF THE HOUSE.
A Motion for calling the House over having been fixed for to-day, the attendance of Members at four o'clock was unusually great; and the call was, therefore, not enforced.
Sir R. Vyvyan
, who had given the notice of moving that the House be called
378
ST. GILES'S AND ST. GEORGE'S
Mr. Hobhouse
presented a Petition signed by 2,000 most respectable inhabitants of the parishes of St. Giles and St. George Bloomsbury, against the Bill' now in the House for establishing a Select Vestry in those parishes. The meeting at which this petition had been agreed to was one of the most numerous and respectable he had ever seen, and the opinions there expressed showed that the Bill did not express the sentiments of the majority of the parish. He was surprised that any hon. Member could press a bill which was so much against the feelings of the great mass of the parishioners.
The Speaker
informed the hon. Member, that the petition being against the principle of the Bill, it could not be referred, as he moved that it should, to the Committee; for this principle of the Bill had been already agreed to on the second reading. If the petitioners prayed against parts of the Bill, the petition might be sent to the committee.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the petitioners prayed against certain clauses of the Bill as well as against the principle, and on that ground, he thought, with all deference to the authority of Mr. Speaker, that the petition might be so referred.
The Speaker
said, if the hon. Member stated that those clauses did not embrace the principle of the Bill, the petition might be referred to the committee.
Petition referred accordingly.
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.
Colonel Sibthorp
presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Spilsby, in Lincolnshire,
379
Parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus.
Petition read and laid on the Table.
Mr. Hume
presented a Petition from Irvine, representing the severe suffering of the hand-loom weavers, who, by labour of sixteen hours per day, were only able to earn on an average 3
s.
d.
380
Mr. W. Horton
said, that he had been intrusted with a similar Petition; and as it seemed not at all likely that Government would aid the petitioners in emigrating to Nova Scotia or Canada, he had recommended them to rest satisfied, and to hope all kinds of relief from the proposed abandonment of the duty on Beer.
Lord Nugent
presented a Petition, with the same prayer, from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, which also prayed for Parliamentary Reform. He would say nothing of distress in other places, but he could venture to assert that in Buckinghamshire it was very severe. The graziers and dairy farmers there were almost ruined, and if they paid rent at all, it was really paid out of their capital, for they were making no profit. The price at which they could sell their commodities did not pay for the expense of producing them. The petitioners did not pretend to assign the cause for their distress, they left that to the House, and they looked to its wisdom to obtain relief. The noble Lord expressed his confidence that the remission of taxes announced last night would be received with the greatest joy in the country, and that the people would feel grateful for the manner in which Parliament began to sympathise with their distresses The petitioners did not desire to see a return of famine prices, but they desired a further reduction of taxation. He did not think that could take place without also reducing our establishments, and it became with him a serious question how long they could be maintained at their present extent. The petitioners also prayed for a reform in Parliament on the fair principle, that as the House held the purse of the people, its Members ought to be chosen by them.
Mr. Slaney
observed, that Aylesbury, which ought to be one of the richest and most flourishing places in the southern parts of England, was suffering, at present, distress which had but few precedents at former periods. This, as well here as elsewhere, was, in his opinion, in a great degree attributable to the improper administration of the Poor-laws.
Lord Nugent
ascribed the existing distress to the improvidence which had been manifested at the time of high prices, during which the labourers were not given wages in just proportion to the price of the produce received by their employers. Some hon. Members had expressed an
381
Sir M. W. Ridley
, in observing on the Petition, took occasion to remark, that the noble Lord ought to have commenced by recommending" reform to his own constituents before he came down and recommended reforms in Parliament.
Lord Nugent
replied, that such a suggestion would have come with a better grace from any other hon. Member than from him.
The Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. Sadler
presented a similar Petition complaining of distress from Leeds, signed by 1500 persons, many of whom, he said, were heads of families. He observed, that to those the remark of the hon. Member opposite, respecting the abuse of the Poor-laws, did not apply. They had nothing to do with the administration of the Poor-laws though they profited by them, for he did not know how they could have subsisted without the relief given them by the Poor-laws.
Mr. slancy
said, his remark was applied to the agricultural, not the manufacturing districts.—To be printed.
Mr. Cartwright
rose, to present a Petition from the county of Northampton, complaining of general distress, and praying for general relief. The petition bore the signature of the High Sheriff; and as his, of course it must be received; but it certainly proceeded from a county meeting. At that meeting another petition was proposed, which included a prayer for parliamentary reform. The two petitions were put to the meeting; and the High Sheriff, upon a show of hands, decided that the majority was in favour of that now in his hand. He would not conceal that a strong feeling existed that the decision on the show of hands was erroneous. He would not say whether the High Sheriff was right or wrong; but this he would say, that he never saw more good feeling or good temper than prevailed during that meeting; and he had no doubt that those who attended would receive the-announcement recently made by the Government on the subject of taxation most gratefully; for the relief
382
Lord Althorp
said, no doubt the petition was the petition of the High Sheriff. The High Sheriff persuaded himself that it was the petition of the meeting; but there were not two persons present who agreed with him in that opinion. Some of those immediately near the High Sheriff might have held up their hands in favour of the petition; but the great mass of those in the hall were against it; amongst whom were one banker, several clergymen, and others of much respectability. He had great satisfaction in thinking that so respectable a meeting of his constituents had declared in favour of parliamentary reform.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Otway Cave
, in presenting a Petition from Liecester, signed by 1500 persons complaining of distress, observed, that the proposed reduction of the Beer-duties would only be prospectively beneficial, while the distress of which the petitioners complained was presently urgent, and demanded instant relief. To shew how necessary it was that the House should do something to maintain its reputation among the people, he would mention one fact, which he lately witnessed. At a public meeting, held at Leicester, and presided over by a gentleman who was formerly its representative, it was debated whether a petition should be sent to the House of Commons, and it was argued that it was of no use to present petitions to the House, that it had not the will, if it had the power, to relieve the people, and that it had of late betrayed such a total disregard of the people's petitions that it was only a waste of time to appeal to it, which were the sentiments of a great many persons, and by that the House might see how fast it was sinking in public estimation. He did not mean to say that he shared those sentiments, but he could assure the House, that if it did not attend to the wishes and prayers of the people, they would put themselves under leaders who at least would have the appearance of attending to their wants.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Heathcote
, in presenting a Petition from Boston, Lincolnshire, also complaining of distress, and signed by nearly 700 persons, stated, that since the alteration of the tax on wool, land in that neigh-
383
Mr. Irving
said, he believed that the distress, of which so many petitions complained, was fast disappearing. Indeed he knew, from excellent authority, that at present there was more work at Leeds than there had been for many years. Never was trade there more active, and he did not believe there was one man who might not find employment. Orders, too, had lately been received there, which would keep the people continually employed for some time. He wished, distinctly and positively to state, because a different representation had lately been given by the hon. Member for Newark, that the trade of Leeds was now brisker than it had been for many years. For some of our manufactures there was at present a greater demand than there had been at any former period.
Lord Rancliffe
said, he was sorry that he could not corroborate the pleasing statements of the last speaker, but on the contrary, as far as Nottinghamshire was concerned, he must bear his testimony to the existence of great distress; but he must, at the same time, express his thankfulness to the Government for what it had done, adding, that the people relied on his Majesty's Government, and on the wisdom of Parliament.
Mr. Heatkcote
said, he also regretted that he could not confirm the hon. Member's statement. At Boston there was not employment for one-third of the population, and the distress was unexampled.
PUBLIC DISTRESS.— THE MALT
Lord John Russell
presented a Petition from Dursley, complaining of great distress, and asking for relief. Of 4,000 inhabitants, 1,500 were receiving support from the parish. The noble Lord stated his concurrence with what had fallen last night from the hon. Member for Northampton, as to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He admitted that the reduction of taxation had been judicious; but he would recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to revise
384
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had received, during last year, a number of communications from gentlemen to whom the Maltsters had intrusted their interests. He had consented that those gentlemen should have an interview with the Commissioners of the Excise, with the intention of providing such regulations as, without injuring the Revenue, would give relief to the trade. They had come to an agreement, and a bill had been prepared accordingly, which he had not yet been able to introduce into Parliament, from the pressure of business. He would, however, lose no time in giving effect to those arrangements which, he understood, would be satisfactory to the parties concerned.
Mr. Portman
, as a party to the arrangement, hoped that the Bill would soon be introduced. He had lately seen several Maltsters on the subject, who complained very much of these restrictions, but though he wished the Bill to pass as soon as possible, he hoped that it would be printed and circulated some time before it was passed through that House. He wished that the parties interested in it should have an opportunity of examining it before it became a law.
Mr. Brownlow
took that opportunity of reminding the Chancellor of the Exchequer of petitions he had frequently presented, praying that the duties on Irish and Scotch Malt might be equalized.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was understood to assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Slaney
wished that the opportunity might be taken to revise the whole of the laws regulating the Maltster's business.
Mr. Bransby Cooper
said, that he hoped, if these laws were to be altered, that they would be arranged to the satisfaction of all parties. He would take that opportunity of expressing his conviction, that the measures last night proposed by the Chan-
385
Mr. Estcourt
, having also a Petition to present from Dursley, took that opportunity of confirming the statement con-corning the distress in that town made by the noble Lord. Besides the 1,500 persons mentioned as receiving relief, 1,000 others were unable to contribute to their support. Of seven factories, three were entirely shut up, and two were only working one day in three. There was another town in the neighbourhood equally distressed; he doubted if there were that prosperity in the woollen manufacture mentioned by the hon. Member for Bramber, and heartily wished it were true of the distressed people of Gloucestershire. It certainly was not the case among the petitioners; for, of a population of 5,000, 3,500 were receiving relief.
Mr. Irving
said, he could not, of course, deny the hon. Member's statements, but he was disposed to think that the cause of distress in Gloucestershire was, that the manufacture of woollen cloth was migrating from thence, and from the west of ling-land, into Yorkshire, principally on account of the cheapness of coal in the latter. In the same manner, the silk manufacture was emigrating from Spitalfields to the country. For this cause of distress he did not think there was any relief; at the same time, he repeated that the manufacture of cloth at Leeds was very brisk, and gave employment to a great many persons.
Mr. Dickenson
knew that the reverse was the case in the west of England, where trade was as bad as possible. He had received, that clay, a letter from a manufacturer, stating, that it was of no use embarking capita! in business, and that he meant to withdraw from the trade as soon as he could.
Mr. Cripps
said, that the information he had received was of the same character; and repeated, that many parishes were in such a state that they could not possibly support their own poor, and must be assisted. He was aware that the manufactures of the country were travelling to the north, and he should be glad to learn that the workmen went with them; and that they could anywhere find employment. Whatever might be said of the improvement of trade elsewhere, he knew that there was no improvement in Gloucestershire. It was impossible that
386
Mr. Slaney
was prepared to answer the statements of the hon. Member, but he would delay doing so till the proper period.
Mr. Cutlar
Fergusson thought it would be more satisfactory to the I louse if the hon. Member for Bramber also stated that the manufacturers who were doing so much work were making adequate profits, and that the men were obtaining good wages. He knew, from a very correct source, that the wages of the manufacturer in England were not above 4
s.
d.
s.
Mr. W. Whitmore
deprecated such desultory remarks on presenting a petition, when there was a motion on the subject to be brought forward that evening.
General Gascoyne
thought the hon. Member for Bramber's statements were contradicted by the Petitions of the people then lying on the Table of the House. The hon. Member being without constituents, took it on himself to represent an unrepresented place. He had always a letter or two in his pocket from some town which had no representative to contradict his allegations. Whatever that hon. Member might say, he knew that turn which way he would, he heard complaints of distress sufficient to warrant him in saying, that the hon. Member's statements were not correct as a representation of the general state of the country.
Mr. Irving
explained, and reiterated his statements, affirming that his information was as good as that of any other hon. Member.
387
M. Fynes Clinton
asserted, that there never was a period when the distress of the manufacturers was so great as at present.
The Petition from Dursley, presented by Lord J. Russell, was then brought up and read, and ordered to be printed.
TRUCK SYSTEM.
Mr. W. Smith
, in presenting a Petition from the Clergymen of the Wesleyan persuasion, near Dudley, praying for the abolition of the plan of paying wages in goods, observed, that the petitioners stated, that extreme distress existed in their neighbourhood, which they attributed, in a great measure, to that system, which they prayed the House to abolish. He supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Hume
said, he could not avoid entering his protest against the ministers of any persuasion whatever inflaming the passions and fostering the ignorance of the poorer classes. It was a departure from their sacred functions which ought not to he tolerated. The Truck System, so far from being injurious to the workmen, was one of the means by which the masters were able to employ them; and if they were not to adopt it, they could give them no wages at all. The sufferings of the poor, of which he was as sensible as any man, did not arise from the Truck System, but in a great measure from causes beyond the control of that House; and the petitioners would act more consistently with their sacred character if they were to make themselves masters of the subject, and in spreading sound information among the people, remove the causes of discord instead of promoting them. To-morrow, he hoped, the subject would be fully discussed, but he must, in the mean time, protest against clergymen going out of their way to petition that House on a subject of which it was plain they were very ignorant,
Mr. W. Smith
said, the observations of the hon. Member were so much at variance with the spirit in which the petitioner; came before the House, that he could no! avoid saying one word in their defence They expressly state in their petition, the they are much disinclined to meddle in political matters, but being continually made sensible of the distress arising from the system, they thought themselves: bound to lay their petition before the House. He was afraid it was rather the hon. Member who was ignorant of the
388
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Littleton
presented a Petition from Ampney, Staffordshire, against paying Labourers' Wages in Goods instead of Money. The petition was agreed to at a large public meeting, and signed by 9,000 persons, and among them there was not one mark's-man.
Sir John Wrottesley
supported the prayer of the petition, and bore his testimony to the good behaviour of the petitioners.
Mr. Hume
wished the House not to believe, that the Truck System was the cause of the distress; it was the consequence of it. He would not, however, then raise a debate on the question, as it would be discussed to-morrow.
Mr. Littleton
in presenting similar Petitions from certain Colliers in Staffordshire, from Wolverhampton, and from Uley, Gloucestershire, said, to-morrow, he had no doubt, he should be able to refute the opinion of the hon. Member for Mont-rose. The hon. Member also presented a Petition from the Liberties of Lington and Lane-end. The petitioners complained of Distress, and prayed for Relief. There was, however, one thing in their petition which he could not pass over in silence. The petitioners expressed their high sense of the patriotism and virtue of the Marquis Camden, in devoting so large a portion of the emoluments of his office to the public services, and regretted that an example so noble and so beneficial had not been generally followed. It formed, in their opinion, as it must, indeed, in the opinion of all who considered its importance, and the time in which it was offered, a rare tribute of public spirit and private virtue. The hon. Member added, that he would, at the same time, express the satisfaction he felt at the statements made last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By removing the tax on beer, which was, in fact, a tax on barley, the agriculturist would be relieved.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
CORN TRADE.
Sir F. Burdett
, in presenting a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Parish of Uley, in Gloucestershire, complaining of distress, and praying for a free trade in Corn, took the opportunity of stating, that he cordially concurred in the
389
The Petitions to be printed.
WOOL DUTIES.]
Mr. Denison
presented a Petition from the Woollen Manufacturers of the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, one of the most populous in the county of Surrey, and once the scat of the wool trade, complaining- of the duty on Wool, and praying for its reduction. The hon. Member, after expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would pursue the course he had begun, and reduce more taxes next year, presented petitions from the agriculturists of several parishes, praying a reduction of the duty on Malt.
POOR LAWS—IRELAND.]
Mr. O'Connell
in presenting a Petition from the Weavers of King's County, Dublin, complaining of Distress, and praying that the importation of English goods into Ireland might be charged with a duty, and either to abrogate the Poor-laws in England, or introduce them into Ireland, observed, that he could not concur in the prayer of the petition. He was an advocate for free trade, and could not, therefore, ask for a tax on English goods to prevent them being imported into Ireland; nor could he, while he heard Gentlemen around him complaining so much of the Poor-laws in England, wish that they might, be introduced into Ireland. That country had miseries enough of its own without adding to them the degradation of making the whole labouring population dependent on parish overseers.
Petition referred to the Committee on the state of the Irish Poor.
LICENSING SYSTEM.]
Lord Nugent
presented a Petition from John Goodwin, of St. Ives, in the county of Huntingdon, complaining that he had been refused a license for the retail of exciseable liquors, and that his appeal to the Quarter Sessions had given him no redress; he therefore prayed against the continuance of a monopoly in the sale of Beer, and also against the existence of this arbitrary power. The hon. Member said, he would only observe, that the mode of appeal was little better than a mockery; being an appeal from the magistrates at their own
390
Mr. Fellowes
read a letter in justification of the refusal, on the ground that, there was already a sufficient number of public-houses in proportion to the population of St. Ives. It only amounted to 2,800, and there were already thirty-eight public houses in the place. Moreover, the house the petitioner wished to have licensed was situated in the Market-place, where there were already no less than six public-houses. These appeared to the magistrates justifiable grounds for the refusal.
SUTTEES.]
Mr. F. Buxton
, in presenting Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters assembling in Eagle-street, Red-lion-square, and two other places, against Suttees, wished to know from the noble Lord opposite if there were any foundation for the report that the British Government in India had prohibited the practice of burning widows? It had been asked of him how it happened that the subject had been allowed so long to sleep in Parliament? He replied, that from the time he heard that Lord William Bentinck was appointed to the government of India, he entertained no doubt that whatever could be safely done towards the abolition of the practice the noble Lord would endeavour to effect. This confidence had not been misplaced. It would not become him to pronounce a panegyric on that noble person, but he was sure, if any man possessed the moral courage to achieve so great a victory over prejudices, in the cause of humanity, it was Lord W. Bentinck. What he now wished to know was, whether the report alluded to was well founded?
Lord Ashley
, in the absence of official documents, could say nothing definitely, but he thought the report might be well founded.
SELECT VESTRY ACT—IRELAND.]
Lord Althorp
presented a Petition from the Catholic inhabitants of a parish (New Ross, as we understood the noble lord) in the county of Wexford, against the Select Vestry Act. The noble Lord con-
391
Sir J. Newport
agreed with the noble Lord that the case of the petitioners was one of great hardship; one, indeed, of the, he feared, too many abuses of the Church establishment in Ireland. He had wished to relieve the inhabitants of this parish, but he found, as he had stated the other evening, that the law would not allow him.
Mr. O'Connell
had a motion on the list for a future evening on the subject of the abuses under the Select Vestry Act, on the discussion of which he would endeavour to demonstrate to the House the necessity to repeal that act, and to revise the present oppressive system, as far at least as the Catholics and Protestant Dissenters were concerned, of Church-rates.
Mr. G. Moore
considered the case of the present petitioners to be one without a parallel in Ireland, and therefore as one which should not be made the occasion of a sweeping censure on the church establishment of Ireland.
Mr. O'Connell
would, on the occasion to which he had just alluded, quote at least thirty similar cases, and at least fifty parishes in which the Protestants were not to the Catholic population as ten to twenty, but sometimes as six to 3,000 or 4,000, and yet the latter were compelled to support the Church establishment of the small minority.
The Petitions to be printed.
STATE OF THE NATION.]
Mr. Edward D. Davenport
, in bringing under the consideration of the House a motion for a Committee to inquire into the Distressed State of the Country at the present moment, expressed a determination not to shrink from the task he had imposed on himself, although the statement elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer
392
393
hear
394
a laugh
395
a laugh
396
397
l.
l.
398
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
399
s.
s.
s.
l.
400
401
d.
d.
d.
402
Colonel Sibthorp
seconded the Motion.
Mr. Irving
expressed his surprise, that the hon. Mover had not proposed some remedy for the distress which he alleged to exist to such an extraordinary extent. He trusted that he should be enabled before he sat down to show that the hon. Member had somewhat overcharged the colouring of the picture which he had drawn. He collected from the hon. Member's observations, that in his opinion, the general cause of the distressed condition of the country was, the change which had taken place in the currency. At the time that change was proposed, he (Mr. Irving) opposed it, because he foresaw the evils that would result form it;
403
l.
404
l.
405
406
Mr. Ward
said, he would take that opportunity of explaining the opinion which he had expressed on the first night of their meeting in the present session, because that opinion appeared to have been misunderstood. On that night he had stated, that he was called on to perform a public duty at a period of great difficulty and distress. He did not then say that distress was found only in some places, neither had he asserted that it was universal. He left Gentlemen themselves to decide as to the degree and extent of the distress. He asserted that the distress was of a most extraordinary character—an assertion by which he would still abide; and, if the House would give him leave, he could make it appear plainly why it was, in fact, of an extraordinary character. In 1810 the Berlin and Milan decrees took place, and the distress which followed evidently arose from them. In 1816, the transition from war to peace occasioned distress. In 1819 distress was caused by the alteration in the currency. And the distress of 1826 was created by the panic which preceded it. He had therefore stated that the existing distress was one
407
408
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
409
s.
d.
410
Mr. Sadler
said, he could not avoid alluding to the statement made that evening with respect to the Town of Leeds, by the hon. Member for Bramber. He trusted the House would not be guided by private communications in preference to the statements contained in the document he had that night laid on its Table—a document which had been signed by 1,500 individuals, for the most part heads of families, who complained that they were in a situation of unparalleled distress. He asked the House if they would credit information derived from private sources, declaring that the country was prosperous, when they had daily laid before them petitions from every quarter of the United Kingdom praying for relief from the pressure of misery no longer tolerable? [During the time the hon. Member was speaking considerable confusion prevailed. Mr. Irving stood up, and appeared anxious to speak. The Speaker at length succeeded in restoring order.] Mr. Sadler proceeded. He had said nothing offensive to the hon. Gentleman. He had not impeached his veracity. [Mr. Irving again rose amidst cries of Order!] He was not conscious of having uttered anything offensive to any individual. He thought that private documents ought not to be placed in competition with public petitions. If private communications were to be entitled to such authority, he could draw a letter from his pocket, written by a person for whose respectability he had no doubt the County Members would vouch; and from this letter it would appear, that, in this very Leeds, men were supplying the place of animals, by carrying coals to the towns. He did say, that the statements of individuals should not be suffered to out-face the petitions of the people. It would be most mischievous and most insulting to the petitioners who humbly
411
412
413
414
415
416
l.
d.
417
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
418
Mr. Irving
explained, that the letter he had read was not from Leeds, but from Manchester. He had to complain, in the first place, of the rather severe language which the hon. Mover had used towards those who differed from him in opinion. He was a party to no conspiracy to resist the line of policy the hon. Member recommended, or in any manner to oppose inquiry. That line of policy, could he separate his own interests from that of the country, would be to his advantage.
419
Lord Howick
wished to explain his reasons for resisting the Motion. He had alluded to cloth manufacture when he said it was brisk at Leeds. The hon. Member, he believed, alluded to manufacturers of stuffs when he said the trade was dull. That was the amount of the difference between them. He did not oppose the Motion because he was insensible to distress, or because he wished to blink inquiry, but because the form of proceeding recommended would be found most inconvenient and ill calculated for the object in view. It was proposed that a Committee of the whole House should enter into all the wide matters connected with agriculture, manufactures, taxation, commerce, and the currency. Great benefit might result from particular investigations before Select Committees, but not from such general examinations before the whole body of the House. Great benefits might result, too, from such inquiries if prosecuted by his Majesty's Ministers, or by individual Members, who might afterwards submit their views to the House. With respect to the policy of his Majesty's Ministers, he thought that their internal policy, and the principles they had adopted in regard to trade, in spite of occasional errors, were entitled to the thanks and approbation of the House. He, therefore, would join in no attempt to cast general censure on them, or to convey an opinion, by a vote of the House, that they were unworthy of confidence. He had a still stronger objection to the manner in which the proposition was brought forward; for, although the hon. Mover had said, that he would recommend no measure, yet currency was the beginning, middle, and end of his speech, and a change in the existing state of things in this respect, was in fact inferred as the remedy for all evils. He (Lord Howick) was of opinion that no change in the currency could now be made without a. breach of national faith, and great injury to all classes. Amongst the errors and fallacies in the hon. Mover's speech, there was, however, he must admit, a mixture of truth and sense. He agreed with him, and with the hon. Member for Newark, in thinking that our circulation was not securely fixed. He agreed, too, with the hon. Member for Liverpool, that there was a great difference between the diminution of the value of the currency and depreciation. He begged, therefore, to throw out to Ministers, as a suggestion
420
Mr. Herries
said, he was rejoiced to find, that by the turn the Debate had taken, he was relieved from a great part of the task he had thought he should have been required to go through; the hon. Mover had advanced but few arguments, and fewer facts of importance, and little, therefore, remained for him but to point out the litter inapplicability of the mode of inquiry suggested. The hon. Mover had refrained from informing any member of the King's Government of the course he intended to pursue, and he had prepared himself for topics he expected to be touched, but to which the hon. Mover had not adverted. It was proposed to institute an inquiry before a Committee of the whole House, into some of the most extended and difficult questions that could be imagined, including the whole policy of the Corn-laws. Such an investigation must be endless, excepting as far as it must end in disappointment. At the same time, he was extremely anxious to avoid any appearance of unwillingness to inquire into the distresses of the country, as far as they really prevailed. If the House were disposed to listen to the minute details which would be necessary for the purpose of establishing the positions for which he felt himself warranted in contending, he was prepared to show that the variations in the currency did by no means suffice to account for the present state of the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial classes of the country. In order to es-
421
422
423
424
425
s.
s.;
s.;
s.
s.;
s.
s.
s.
426
427
428
429
hear, hear
Sir C. Burrell
was anxious that an inquiry should be instituted into the causes and probable remedies of the present condition of the country, but should prefer an impartial select committee to one of the whole House, as proposed by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury. With the view of obtaining a select committee, he should propose, as an Amendment to the hon. Member's Motion, that a "Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the
430
Alderman Waithman
seconded the Amendment.
On the question, upon the Amendment being put,
Mr. Fergusson
rose, to suggest to the House the expediency of not coining to a conclusion on a question of such importance without further discussion. Many hon. Members were, as he knew, anxious to express their opinions on it; but the lateness of the hour precluded them on that occasion, and the subject was, to all intents and purposes, as yet almost untouched. He therefore should propose, "That the further consideration of the Motion before the House be adjourned till Thursday."
The further Debate was accordingly fixed for Thursday next.
EXCISE ACTS.
The Resolutions
1st, "That from the 15th day of March, 1830, there shall be raised, levied, and collected, and paid for, upon every Gallon of Spirits which shall be distilled in England, or which shall on, or after, that day, be found in the stock, or possession, of any distiller in England, or which shall be brought from Scotland, or Ireland, into England, an additional duty of one shilling.
2nd, "That from and after the 15th day of March, 1830, there shall be raised, levied, paid, and collected, upon every Gallon of Spirits which shall be distilled in Scotland or Ireland, or shall, on or after that clay, be found in the stock, or possession, of any distiller, or which shall be taken out of warehouse for consumption in Scotland or Ireland respectively, an additional duty of two-pence.
3rd, "That from and after the 5th day of July, 1830, all Duties of Excise on Leather shall cease and determine."
The Resolutions were agreed to, and Bills ordered to be brought in to carry them into effect.
STAMP DUTIES.]
Mr. Bright
wished to know from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intended to submit to the House his statement of the tendency and details of his intended bill respecting Stamps. He hoped that time would be afforded between the delivery of that state-
431
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the object of his intended bill was merely to simplify what was intricate and obscure in the present Stamp-acts. The hon. Member would therefore, he was sure, at once see the inexpediency of departing from the usual practice of the House, by his making a statement like that which the hon. Gentleman had just asked for. He should probably move for a Committee of the whole House, and place a copy of the act in the hands of the Members, as he did not think much information could be obtained by his reading the schedule of Stamp duties.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 17, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns were presented, of the per centage at which the several branches of Revenue in India are levied:—Of the Arrears and Balances left annually due, on the laud revenue of India: and returns were ordered, on the Motion of the Earl of ROSEEERY, of the amount of duty paid on each sort of foreign Corn, Flour and Meal, entered for home consumption, since July 5th, 1828. The Mutiny Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, and the Pensions Bill were read a second time.
Petitions were presented:—By Lord GRANVILLE, from Newcastle under Lyne, against the Truck System:—By the Earl of CLARK from several parishes in Monmouthshire, praying for a revision of the Tithe-laws:—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE from Swaindale, Yorkshire, praying that a duty might be imposed on Foreign Lead imported into this country.
ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL.]
The Earl of Rosslyn
moved that this Bill be read a third time.
The Earl of Radnor
rose for the purpose of explaining to their Lordships the reasons why he was obliged, but with feelings of pain and regret, to dissent from the Motion. Perhaps he owed some apology to their Lordships for having taken up this business at so late a period, and he should be extremely sorry if inconvenience resulted to any of their Lordships by the course he had felt it his duty to adopt.
432
433
bonâ fide
434
bonâ fide
bonâ fide
435
436
437
*
*
438
*
*
† Archbishop of Canterbury, (Sutton) ibid. p. 1710.
‡ Ibid. p. 1712.
439
440
a vinculo matrimonii,
441
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that he rose, with the utmost reluctance, to support the view which his noble friend, if he would allow him to call him so, had taken of this subject. He felt, however, as he trusted all their Lordships felt, that in the discharge of a public duty they must lay aside all feelings of personal consideration, and take with firmness and with impartiality that course which was consistent with equity and justice. He had attended personally during the examination of the witnesses called in support of this Bill, but all their Lordships might be as well acquainted with the evidence as he was, as it had since been printed. With the manner, however, in which the case had been conducted, none but those who had been present could be acquainted. It was true, as the noble Lord had stated, that the case failing as to the identity of the parties, new evidence had been adduced on that point. That new evidence had, he confessed, made a very strong impression on his mind. Let him remind their Lordships that the Bill before them was something more than a divorce, and that, in passing such a bill, their Lordships exercised a dispensing power, placing the applicant in the same state in which he had been before marriage, and absolving parties from the most solemn engagement into which mankind could enter. Deeply impressed with the importance of such measures as these, he had made it his business to inquire how many such Divorce Bills had been passed by their Lordships during the last ten years. And allow him here to observe, that he could not help feeling that nothing was more calculated to injure the morals of that class to which he had the honour to belong, than the belief that Divorce bills were to be procured with anything like facility. Let him beg of their Lordships to recollect that the middle and lower classes were excluded from this species of relief from matrimonial engagements. The expense consequent on the proceeding in such cases shut out all but persons of fortune from the means of instituting them. This of itself formed a distinction not very desirable, between the rich man and the man of no fortune. It was a distinction which ought not to exist. If certain grounds were sufficient for separation a
vinculo matrimonii,
442
443
444
445
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that he begged leave, in the first place, to say, that if any one insinuated that there had been collusion in the present case, he should most unequivocally repel such insinuation. The principal objection of the two noble Lords was, that the evidence was insufficient with respect to the terms on which Lord and Lady Ellen-borough lived. Upon that point he was totally at issue with the noble Lords; and when they objected that a relative of Lord Ellenborough was called, they seemed to forget that the relatives of the parties were almost always called, both in cases there and in cases before juries, to prove the terms on which the parties lived. But the noble Lords had also very strangely forgotten, that besides the evidence of Mr. Law and of Miss Steele, there were the letters of Lady Ellenborough herself, which were worth a hundred witnesses upon such a point. He would beg leave to read them to their Lordships; they were sent by Lady Ellenborough to Lord Ellenborough after the separation:—
"R—[Roehampton], Saturday night.
"Forgive me if I do wrong in writing to you. A note just received from Lady Anson seems to imply that you have expected it. I had begun a letter to yon this morning, thanking you from the bottom of my soul for your unbounded kindness in act and manner: it was far more than I deserved, and I am deeply grateful. I again renew all the assurances I gave you last night, that in act I am innocent. I hardly know what or how to write to you. I dare not use the language of affection: you would think it hypocrisy. But though my family naturally wish all should be again as it once was between us, those feelings of honour which I still retain towards you make me still acquiesce in your decision. I continue to think it just and right. I have not been able to speak to them on the subject I confessed to you last night. I have spoken little to-day, but have never for an instant swerved from my own original opinion. I write this to you. If it is possible, for you to keep what I have said from them, do; as they would only set it down as another proof of unkindness on my part. Could you write me a line, through Henry, were it only to tell me your opinion, be assured I should think it right. But, oh! Edward, dear, dear Edward! ought not time, solitude, and change of scene, to be tried by me, to conquer or obliterate sentiments so inimical to our mutual peace? Pray write to me all you think upon the subject—all you wish me to do. I will now answer you candidly, and without a shade of deception. God bless you, dearest Edward. JANET."
"If my aunt has misunderstood any expres-
446
[Envelop subscribed.]
"To the Lord Ellenborough, &c., Connaught Place."
"My dearest Edward,—I know you will believe me when I say I feel myself utterly unequal in writing to you to-day. I cannot thank you for your kindness, but entreat you will not think of making me such an allowance; indeed it is more than I can possibly want. I will send back the green box to-morrow morning.—Ever, ever yours, JANET."
The Earl of Malmesbury.
There is no precedent for receiving such evidence.
The Earl of Rosslyn,
in continuation, contended that there were innumerable
447
448
The Earl of Malmesbury
wished to explain. He had never said that he disbelieved Mr. Law's evidence. What he said was, that twenty persons might have been selected who could have spoken of the terms on which Lord and Lady Ellenborough lived much better than Mr. Law. That gentleman left England on the 3rd of March, 1827, and did not return till the 29th of March, 1829. Therefore he, for one, did not think that Mr. Law was so competent a witness as many other persons who might have been brought forward. With respect to the letter which had been read, he begged leave to say, that he was present when counsel opened this case; and what did he say with respect to that letter? Why, he stated, that there was a manifest contradiction between it and her subsequent confession. In the letter she declared that she was not criminal to the extent imputed to her; but, in her confession to Miss Steele, she fully admitted her guilt. Now, when he found one fallacy in that letter, why might he not suppose that other parts of it were drawn up to meet a particular purpose? He therefore placed no reliance on that letter.
Lord Wharncliffe
said, he had paid the utmost attention to the evidence in this case, and it appeared to him that a stronger
449
450
451
The Lord Chancellor
felt himself called on to trespass on their Lordships very shortly, while he made a few observations in reply to the objections urged against the Bill by the noble Earl near him, and by the noble Earl opposite. This bill was founded on an allegation of adultery—and it was brought in, in consequence of the fact of adultery having been sufficiently substantiated. That adultery, as had been justly slated by the noble Baron who had just addressed their Lordships, was proved so clearly and unimpeachably, that nobody who had heard the evidence could for a moment doubt the fact. But then it was stated, that it was necessary that the preamble should be proved, or, in other words, that evidence should be given that the adultery had been committed with a particular individual. The noble Lord who spoke early in the debate said, that though he felt no doubt in his mind as to the fact of the adultery having been committed, yet there were points of a doubtful nature connected with the case which ought to have been cleared up. He, however, thought that quite sufficient had been proved to authorize their Lordships to proceed. That which occurred at Brighton had been most clearly and unequivocally established; and he thought, independently of Lady Ellenborough's confidential communication to Miss Steele on that subject, that it was proved, and even beyond a doubt that it was Prince Schwartzenberg who slept with Lady Ellenborough at Brighton: though that fact was confirmed by the private and confidential communication of Lady Ellen-borough herself. But he did not wish to rest on that evidence, as to the proof of adultery, particularly as other facts were stated by counsel at their Lordships' bar. Their lordships, he was sure, would agree with him, that the adulterous transactions which took place in Harley-street and Holies-street were distinctly and clearly proved; and on these occasions the identity of the lady, not of Prince Schwartzenberg, was unequivocally substantiated. The evidence placed that matter beyond a doubt, if their Lordships believed' the witnesses. Those witnesses spoke of seeing the same lady driven by a particular individual to Prince Schwartzenberg's. That individual was called to their Lordships' bar, and he stated, that he had
452
453
454
hear
hear
The Earl of Radnor
said, that it was in vain to hope for a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill; for he certainly should oppose it on the grounds he had stated. He wished to state that he had formed his opinion of the measures solely by the evidence he had heard in that House, and knew nothing of the reports prevailing out of doors. He denied that he had imputed collusion to Lord and Lady Ellenborough; what he said was, that if the parties wished for collusion, they could not have acted in a way more fit for their purpose than they, had done. If their Lordships' passed that bill, they would preclude themselves from ever again rejecting similar bills; and he was sure that principle would be contrary to their Lordships' usual course of proceeding. He did not look to have that kind of affection proved at their Lordships' bar which was necessary to entitle a man to relief in a court of justice; but he expected that parties coming there to ask for a divorce should be able to prove that they had done nothing to cause the injury of which they complained. To have that justification of such a demand, a man should at least be able to shew that he had treated his wife with affection, and kindness, and attention. But could there be any affection in the case, when, for twelve months before the parties separated, Lady Ellenborough was in the habit of going two or three times a week to the lodgings of Prince Schwartzenberg, for the purpose of prostituting herself, doing it even in the most indecent manner, often
455
The Lord Chancellor
then put the question, "that the Bill be read a third time." There were some cries of "Not Content," but the Lord Chancellor declared that the Contents had it. No division took place, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, March 17, 1830.
MINUTES.] Sir EDWARD C. DEERING took the Oaths and his Seat for the town of Wexford in Ireland.
PETITIONS were presented, praying for a Revision of the Criminal Code:—By Mr. EGERTON, from the Town Council and inhabitant's of Poole:—By Sir BYAM MARTIN, from Plymouth:—By Mr. SYKES, from Kingston-upon-Hull:—By Mr. RAMSDEN, from the Borough of Maldon:—By Mr. William SMITH, from Norwich:—By Mr. SAUNDKRSON, from Colchester, against the Game-laws:—By Mr. BIRCH, from John Jepson, of Nottingham, against
456
The Galway Franchise Bill was read a second time.
Returns were presented of all Suits commenced in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster, from 1825 to 1829, wherein the venue was laid in Wales:—Of the average price of Com in England and Wales, during the last six years.
Returns were ordered, On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICK, of the amount of Duty received on Coals, each year during the last ten years:—Of the number of gallons of Spirits, which had paid duty in Ireland during the last ten yean:—On the Motion of Mr. JOKES, of all Suits commenced in the Courts at Westminster, within the last ten years, of which the venue was laid in Wales, and which were sent for trial to Shrewsbury or Hereford:—On the Motion of Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, of all sums paid into the Stamp Office for Hut)' on Insurance against Fire during the last year:—and of the sums received for Stamps on Marine Policies during the last six years;—And on the Motion of Mr. SLANEY of the number of passengers to and from Ireland by the Liverpool government packets, between l820 and 1830.
DISTRESS.]
Mr. Sykes
said, he rose to present a Petition from the Gentry, Clergy, Merchants, Bankers, and other inhabitants of Kingston-upon-Hull. The petitioners complained, he said, of the great distress, which they felt most heavily in common with many other parts of the country; and they earnestly prayed the House to institute an inquiry into its causes, with a view of giving them relief. They prayed, and in this part of their prayer he cordially concurred with them, thinking it the only effectual method of giving relief, for a large reduction of taxation. He was convinced that the state of the country made it necessary that the House should attend to this part of their prayer. He felt much indebted to the Government for the reduction already made, but he was convinced that greater reductions must be made, to meet the situation of the country. The petitioners also prayed for a revision of the laws respecting the currency, and in this part of their prayer he could not concur. He believed that the alterations which had been already made had caused a great deal of mischief, but further changes would, in his opinion, be still more detrimental. Looking at what had already taken place,
457
Petition read, and to be printed.
Mr. Lockhart,
in presenting a similar Petition from the inhabitants of a parish in the City of Oxford, observed, that in his opinion, much of the distress complained of by the petitioners, and by per-sons in all parts of the country, arose from a contraction of the currency, which had reduced the value of every species of property. Unfortunately, the contraction caused by the return to a metallic standard had been greatly aggravated by putting down the small notes issued by private bankers. The Government had, perhaps, a right to interfere with a corporation to which it guaranteed exclusive privileges, but it had no right to prohibit the circulation of any private securities which men in business were willing to accept. In his opinion, the putting down of the small notes was as gross a violation of the principles of free trade as any Minister could be guilty of, and the consequences of that measure had been, as he had before predicted, most disastrous. The widespread distress which had overwhelmed the land was one of its results. A better system of banking ought to have been introduced at the time, but nothing was done, except to make a slight alteration in the law relative to the Bank of England. At present, a solid system of banking was the great tiling that was wanted. We had gone abroad seeking connection and trade, and had so impoverished our own people that they had no longer the means to consume the commodities they were compelled to make. Perhaps it was impossible to go back to the war currency, but to persevere in our present line of conduct was, in the language of Mr. Burke, to be guilty of a most gigantic swindling transaction.
Petition to be printed.
COALS AND TAXATION.]
Mr. Spring Rice,
in rising to move that certain accounts relative to Coals and Spirits be laid on the Table, said, he would take the opportunity, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, of recommending to such of his official colleagues as were, the propriety of abolishing the duty on Coals carried to Ireland. He did not object to the increased tax he proposed to levy on that country, because he admitted that
458
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that he knew no tax which pressed so unequally on the public as the Coal-tax, nor could he conceive on what principle the consumer of Coals in London was taxed at the rate of 6
s.
s.
d.,
s.,
Sir Christopher Cole
took the same opportunity to express his dislike to the tax, which, as the preceding Members had stated, pressed very unequally on different persons. He thought it extremely unfair, that sea-borne Coals should be subject to this duty, while all Coals carried by land were exempt from it. That occasioned a great hardship in many cases to the poor man, whom the House ought to bear on as lightly as possible. He would, therefore, request that the hon. Member for Limerick would bring the subject under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Wodehouse
also expressed his satisfaction to find this subject taken up warmly by hon. Members, for there was no tax that was more oppressive than the tax on Coals.
Sir Thomas D. Acland
concurred with other hon. Members, in thinking that this tax ought to be repealed. He knew no
459
Mr. Liddel
said, that he, too, was determined to unite himself with those who should propose to have this tax repealed. To abolish it, would confer considerable benefit on several classes of the community.
General Gascoyne
was also of opinion, that no tax was so oppressive as the tax on Coals. It was extremely unjust that a difference of a few miles should make such a difference in this tax; that one man might have his Coals without paying any tax, while the other would have to pay 6
s.
Sir John Newport
said, he was glad to see so strong a feeling manifested against the Coal-tax, because he was persuaded that to give it up would be of no importance to the Government, on the score of revenue, while the gain to the public would be immense. He had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Monday with great pleasure, because he was convinced that the abolition of the duty on Beer would be a great benefit to the labouring classes; but since England was to obtain so much relief, and a little additional burthen was to be thrown on Ireland, he should have been happy if the abolition of the Coal-tax in Ireland, which did not yield above 50,000
l.,
460
Mr. Heathcote
was of opinion, that Ireland, since she was placed on a footing with England as to civil and religious rights, ought to bear her equal burthen of the public expenses. She had no Assessed Taxes to pay, nor any Land-tax, both of which fell heavy on England; and he therefore thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done quite right in in-creasing, to a small extent, the share Ireland contributed to the general revenue.
Mr. O'Connell
said, the hon. Member forgot one material circumstance, which made a great difference between the two countries. Ireland paid from 4,000,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
Colonel Davies
said, he, like the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Newport), would not assimilate the taxes of the two countries, by raising those of Ireland, but by lowering the taxes of England. If there was a large portion of rent from Ireland spent in this country, let it also be recollected, that England afforded, at all times, a ready market for the produce of Ireland. If it were possible that the ports of the two countries should be hermetically sealed against each other, Ireland would be a great deal worse off than at present.
Motion agreed to.
SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS.]
Mr. Littleton,
in presenting a Petition from the Grand Jury of the County of Stafford, complaining of the heavy charge incurred by passing Scotch and Irish Poor, said, that the charge had increased from 454
l.
l.
l.
461
TRUCK SYSTEM.]
Petitions, praying that the legislature would take means to put an end to the practice of paying-Wages in Goods, were presented by Lord Robert Manners, from Sheepshead, Leicestershire; by Mr. Birch, from certain Mechanics of Nottingham; by Mr. Cripps, from Kingstanley, Gloucestershire; by-Lord Sandon, from the Workmen of Burslem; by Mr. Huskisson, from Little Bilton; by Mr. Littleton, from the Magistrates and Master Manufacturers of Dudley, from the Workmen of Dudley; from the Nail-makers and Manufacturers of Hailes-Owen, and from the acting Magistrates of Staffordshire.
Petitions laid on the Table.
Mr. Littleton
then rose, to make the Motion of which he had given notice, for leave to bring in a Bill, to prohibit the payment of Wages in Goods. He stated, it was the wish of a great number of his constituents that the Truck System should be abolished; but though he was desirous of attending to those wishes, he was so convinced of the evils of this System, that had they not pressed the matter on him he should have been ready to take it up; and representing, as he did, a large manufacturing country, he should have been greatly wanting in his duty had he not endeavoured to find a remedy for evils of which he had been a witness, and of which the whole of the manufacturing districts complained. He believed that upwards of sixty petitions bad been presented against the practice of paying wages in goods instead of money, and he had no doubt that before the end of the Session the House would receive a great many more such petitions; they had come from all parts of the country, and he had presented, last night, petitions signed by at least 20,000 persons. These petitions did not come from theorists, but from practical administrators of the law, and merchants engaged in business, who daily
462
463
Tommy-shop
Market-prices
Flour, per peck
2
s.
6
d.
2
s.
4
d.
Bacon, 4lbs.
3
0
2
0
Mutton, 2lbs.
1
0
2
10
Beef, 2lbs.
1
11
2
8
Sugar, 1lb.
1
9
2
8
Butter, 1lb.
1
0
2
9
Tea, 2 ounces
1
0
2
8
Cheese, 2lbs.
1
6
1
0
Amount
11
8
8
11
d.
d.
d.
d.
s.
s.
d.
d.
464
s.
s.
d.
465
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
d.
d,
d.
d.
d.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
d.
d.
d.
d.
466
d.
"We, the Assistant Overseers of the poor of the parish, do severally make oath, and say, that there are workmen in the Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent whose masters pay their servants in goods instead of money, who make frequent applications to us for parochial relief; such persons alleging, that it is utterly out of their power to maintain themselves and families without such assistance, in consequence of being paid in the manner aforesaid. And further,—we do make oath and say, that we have had goods produced to us, which have been taken in lieu of money by such workmen, and that such goods have been charged from 100 to 200 per cent above the market price, as we have been informed, and believe."
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
v.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
467
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
468
469
470
l.
471
472
Sir Christopher Cole
seconded the Motion. He thought, he said, that it was their duty to put an end to the truck, and he entirely concurred in all the remarks made by his hon. friend. He spoke, he said, the sentiments of the county which he represented, and which stood high and justly as a manufacturing county. He had already presented a pe-
473
Mr. Huskisson
complimented the hon. Member for Staffordshire on the good feeling which prevailed in every part of his speech. With him he agreed, that the House ought to legislate on this subject, but he was not quite prepared to say that the Bill of his hon. friend came fully up to his views. He admitted that the Truck System was a great evil, which ought to be abated, but the interference involved other principles and other considerations which his hon. friend had not taken sufficiently into the account. He would not then argue the question, as his hon. friend, to his regret, had selected a day for introducing the subject which was generally understood not to be a day for debating any question; he would recommend that some more convenient opportunity should be taken to discuss the measure. It involved the contentment and well-being of a portion of the community well entitled to the consideration of the House. He knew that the suffering of those who already endured a great deal would be much aggravated, were the House to allow the value of their labour
474
Mr. Herries
concurred with his right hon. friend, both as to the importance of the subject, and the impropriety of then discussing it; he would recommend that the Bill should be brought in, and the amendment which the hon. Member for Aberdeen meant to propose, might be brought forward on the second reading, which would be a better time for discussing it than this evening. The House had heard from the hon. Gentleman what his object was—that he did not mean to prevent a
bona fide
Mr. Littleton, Mr. Hume, and Colonel Davies,
each made a few observations on the course of proceeding, when it was agreed that the debate should stand adjourned to the next day.
Mr. Davies Gilbert
said, he agreed with Mr. Hume in his opposition to the Bill, which he thought instead of being an advantage would be sure to operate to the prejudice of the workmen. Wishing as well to them as any Gentleman of that House, he should, on that account, feel it his duty to oppose the Bill, because he thought it would militate against the object the hon. Member had in view.
The further debate on the subject was then adjourned till the next day.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, March 18, 1830
MINUTES.] Returns presented. Accounts of the Profit or Loss on the Trade of the East India Company between Europe and India, &c. during the last ten years:—Of the Sales of the East India Company from the year 1822, describing the Quantities and Qualities of the Teas:—Of the Rate of Freight per Ton paid by the Company from China, on the average, since 1822:—Of the Quantity of Tea exported by the Company from Canton since 1822:—and of the Expense of the Company's Establishment at Canton since 1822:—Of the Quantities of Wheat entered for Home Consumption under the Act Geo. IV. c. 60, with the amount of Duty.
Petitions we represented—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the Counties of Chester and Lancaster, against the East India Monopoly:—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from the Borough of Malton, Yorkshire, praying for a revision of the Criminal Code:—By the Earl of FALMOUTH, from Truro, against inflicting the punishment of Death for Forgery:—By Lord KING, from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the infliction of Capital Punishment for offences against Property:—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Selby, Yorkshire, against the East India Monopoly:—By the Earl of MORLEY from Plymouth, praying for a revision of the Criminal Code:—
475
The Mutiny Bills, and the Pensions' Duties, &c. Bill, went through a Committee.
NATIONAL DISTRESS.]
The Duke of Richmond
presented Petitions from Barnes, and two other places in Surrey, praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax; from three hundreds of Newport, Bucks, complaining: of Distress, and praying for relief; and from Spilsby, Lincolnshire, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and particularly of the Wool Laws.
The Marquis of Lansdown
presented a Petition from Dursley, Gloucestershire, complaining of Distress, and praying for relief. Also a similar Petition from Frome, Somersetshire, pointing out the opening of the trade with India as one of the means of relief.
The Earl of Caernarvon
presented a Petition to the same effect from the merchants and manufacturers of Manchester, assembled at a public meeting. This Petition was signed by 10,000 persons; and the reason the number of signatures was so limited was, that the petitioners were anxious to send it up in time to be presented before the Noble Duke (Richmond) made the Motion, the notice of which stood on their Lordships' Table for discussion this night. It was placed in his hands the day before the first notice of this Motion was given. The petitioners set forth what they conceived to be the causes of the present distresses of the country, and also suggested what appeared to them to be the most appropriate remedies. Two remedies had been suggested—one was the opening of the trade to China, and another was the reduction of taxation to that state in which it stood in the year 1791. They complained of the keeping up an enormous standing army, which swallowed up so much of the revenue of the country, and prayed for a reduction of the taxes in that respect, and also for a reduction in the salaries and allowances of public officers, and generally in the amount of expenditure of every description. The great, enormous, and unnecessary load of taxation they represented as the main cause of their grievances, and they contended, that after all the reductions which had been made, there were many articles in which a great reduction of duties might still be made, and great relief given; and they instanced particularly those cases in which the
476
STATE OF THE LABOURING CLASSES.]
The Duke of Richmond
said, that he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of their Lordships to a Motion of which he had given notice. In doing so, he must confess that he could not avoid looking with great apprehension at the task he had undertaken,—not because he entertained any doubt of the propriety, nay, of the absolute necessity of the inquiry he meant to propose, but because he was fully sensible of his own want of ability, of his own want of experience, and of his own want of information, to cope with a question of so much importance, and of so great extent,—a question worthy to engage the splendid talents and the great acquirements of many of the noble Lords whom he saw around him, and whose assistance and support he trusted he should receive on the present occasion. The Motion he should have the honour to submit to their Lordships was, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the internal state of the country, so far as it related to the condition of the working classes, and to the effect of taxation on productive industry." In order to entitle himself to call upon their Lordships to give their support to this Motion, it would be necessary that he should prove that there was something peculiar,—something which, while it was productive of present mischief, was pregnant also with future calamity, in the condition of that portion of his Majesty's subjects to which his Motion related. Many cases of severe dis-
477
l
l
478
l
l
1826.
1830.
In the workhouse
95
140
Out-door paupers
326
400
Casually relieved
170
226
In the workhouse
171
458
Out-door paupers
605
620
Casually relieved
446
1,395
Not before included
40
160
In the workhouse
41
62
Out-door paupers
125
158
Casually relieved
150
179
*
1826.
1830.
In the workhouse
156
220
Out-door paupers
900
1,010
Casually relieved
700
1,230
479
1826.
1830.
In the workhouse
547
598
Casually relieved
2,706
3,359
•
A Comparative Summary of the Average Number of Poor weekly relieved in the two periods 1826 and 1830, in the Towns of Andover, Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Congleton, Huddersfield, Leeds, Manchester, Mangotsfield, near Bristol, the City of Norwich, Portsea, the Parish of St. Nicholas (Nottingham), St. Martin's (Leicester), the two Townships of Sutton and Hurdsfield, near Macclesfield, and Wigan. N. B. The year 1828 is substituted for 1826 in the particular case of Norwich, in consequence of no earlier return than that of 1828 having been received.
——
Paupers in the House.
Paupers out of the House.
Poor casually relieved.
Paupers not herein before included.
1826.
1830.
1826.
1830.
1826.
1830.
1826.
1830.
Andover
62
70
310
430
40
117
5
112
Birmingham
443
569
2,748
3,876
Bradford
95
140
3,000
4,000
170
250
Coventry
171
458
605
620
446
1,395
40
160
Congleton
41
62
125
158
150
179
Huddersfield
66
128
164
209
36
137
Leeds
156
220
910
1,010
700
1,230
Manchester
547
598
2,706
3,359
Mangotsfield
18
40
126
13
30
40
10
30
Norwich
555
383
3,776
5,928
6
8
Portsea
544
638
710
734
St. Nicholas (Nottingham)
40
80
96
120
5
St. Martin's (Leicester)
50
70
660
706
20
40
12
16
Sutton and Hurdsfield
7
48
81
222
13
47
40
37
Wigan
118
152
400
880
6
250
Total
2,906
3,656
10,963
15,155
6,958
10,678
325
610
Showing a Weekly Increase
740
4,192
3,720
285
480
ships by reading all the returns he had before him, he would content himself with stating, that the total weekly average of poor relieved in all these towns amounted to 2,906 in 1826, and to 3,656 in 1830. He would beg leave, however, to refer their Lordships to another return concerning the township of Hurdsfield, adjoining Macclesfield, in the county of Chester, in which the Poor-rates collected in the year ending March 1821, amounted to 140
l
l
481
and that in 1830 it was no less than 45,219.
*
*
482
l
s
d
l
s
483
l
l
l
l
l
d
d
s
484
s
s
485
Earl Bathurst
said, if his noble relation had moved for a Select Committee to ex-
486
l
l
487
488
489
l
l
490
l
l
l
l
The Earl of Mansfield
expressed his entire concurrence in the Motion of his noble friend, whose arguments, he hoped, when their Lordships came to vote upon the question, would be found to have made as great an impression on the minds of other noble Lords, as they made on his own. They appeared to him so convincing, that he thought the noble Karl's objections to the proposition entitled to but little consideration. His noble friend's proposed inquiry divided itself into two branches—first an investigation of the internal state of the country, with reference to the condition of the working classes; and secondly, an examination of the effect of taxation upon productive industry. He thought that no valid objections could be taken, either to the subject or the manner of the inquiry. The subject he had just stated, and as to the manner of the
491
492
493
494
495
496
The Earl of Eldon
rose, with great regret, he said, to address their Lordships for a short time. But, however painful the subject was, he could not avoid delivering his sentiments on it, as he felt a most sincere desire to make one struggle more for the relief of his country. If their Lordships wished to preserve the link which connected the highest and the lowest class in the empire, they must investigate the distress which now existed, and they must make plain and intelligible what the causes of it were, and point out the remedy by which it might be alleviated. They ought to prove to the people that they entertained a real desire to remove their evils. The great peculiarity of this country, beyond all others, was this—that we were, from the lowest of us to the highest, dove-tailed into one common connexion with each other, and one class could not suffer without affecting the others. He did most sincerely hope and trust that their Lordships would endeavour to satisfy the people that they would do their utmost to ascertain the cause of the distress, and that they would, after mature deliberation, declare whether some mode of relief could or could not be devised. He should support the present Motion, remembering the
497
498
s
d
s
a laugh
a laugh
499
The Earl of Rosebery
observed, that the noble Earl (Bathurst) who had alluded to what fell from him on a former night, relative to the silver standard of coinage, had not met his argument fairly. It was very true, as the noble Earl said, that in 1717, when Sir Isaac Newton settled the currency, gold was made the standard. He had not disputed that fact. But the noble Earl must know, that the current gold coin was made conformably to the price of silver. The noble Earl stated what was perfectly correct, when he said, that in 1774 an Act of Parliament was brought in, limiting to the sum of 25
l
500
l
l
l
501
The Marquis Camden
said, that after the best consideration which he had been able to give to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the distress of the country was by no means so general as it was attempted to be made out. He felt it due to those who framed the Speech which was delivered from the Throne at the opening of the Session, to state that the nature of the existing distress was, in his opinion, correctly described in that document. If he were to contrast the present situation of the country with what it was in the year 1822, he should say that the comparison was in favour of the present period. In 1822, the complaints pf distress amongst the farmers were much
502
The Earl of Winchilsea
expressed his cordial satisfaction at the able and feeling manner in which his noble friend had brought under the consideration of their Lordships the faithful picture of the distress which pervaded the great body of
503
l
504
505
The Duke of Buckingham
said, that no one could join more cordially than he did in the sentiment of satisfaction expressed by the noble Earl, at the manner in which the noble Duke had been enabled to perform his duties, after the indisposition which he regretted, both on public and private grounds. The noble Duke's proposition was divided into two parts—one embraced the consideration of the labouring poor, the other an inquiry into the state of taxation, and its effects on the productive industry of the country. His objection to the Motion was, that it was too comprehensive. If either of the two questions had been proposed, the House might have
506
quo animo
507
508
509
s
510
The Marquis of Salisbury
observed, that it was a good system of parliamentary tactics to endeavour to draw away the attention of the House from the subject of debate; which had been done by the noble President of the Council and the last speaker. The question had nothing to do with currency or free trade; even these and several other topics had been debated. He had nothing to do with the question of a constitutional or an unconstitutional state of parties, but was willing to give Government his support where he could. He felt some difficulty in forming his judgment so as to guide his vote on a motion for an inquiry into the state of the poor, after a debate on taxation, paper currency, manufactures, and the various subjects which had been brought before the House. With respect to the distress of the country, he had heard, with surprise, from the noble Duke (Buckingham), that the labouring classes felt less distress than any others; that as long as the Poor-rates existed they had no reason to complain, for as long as any thing could be got from
511
The Duke of Buckingham
explained. He had stated that the labouring poor considered and believed that they had a claim upon the land,—not that they had really a right to the land.
The Marquis of Salisbury
continued. The explanation did not much alter the state of the ease, because it did not touch upon the important point whether the poor were in a state of distress or not. He contended that there was no period in which the poorer class had suffered so much. No parliamentary return indeed had been made to show the extent of the distress; but when he heard the notice of the noble Duke's Motion, he took measures to inform himself on the subject, and he had applied to every parish in the county in which he lived (Hertford) in order to obtain the number of persons unemployed. He would state to the House the result. Out of the whole population of the county, which, by the population register of 1811, was 62,920, the number of males between fifteen and seventy was 34,874, and the number of the working classes out of employ in the county amounted to the alarming sum of 2,200 persons, being six and a quarter per cent on the males, or three and a half per cent on the whole population. Taking this to be a fair criterion of the state of the country, and the Poor-rates were far less in Hertford than in several other counties, being 5
s
d
The Earl of Rosslyn
inquired to what period this account was made up.
The Marquis of Salisbury
replied, to the 1st of March: and if that number were unemployed on the 1st of March, the number during the winter,—inclement as it was,—must have been more considerable. But even if it was anything approaching to this number,—one-half or one-third,—there never was a subject which called more for parliamentary inquiry. With respect to taxation, the country, as far as he could judge, was grateful for the relief which his Majesty's Ministers had afforded it; but in his opinion, a parliamentary inquiry into the state and nature of the existing distress was, nevertheless, necessary.
512
The Earl of Wicklow
wished for an opportunity to explain why he had supported a Motion of his noble relative, for a Committee to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland while he meant to oppose the present. The Motion of his noble relative was for an inquiry into an evil which was permanent in its nature and duration; the noble Duke, however, wished to inquire into an evil which was new and temporary. With respect to the existing distress, great difference of opinion prevailed as to its causes, extent, and duration. Though several causes had been assigned, yet there was one which appeared to have been generally overlooked. This was the peculiar circumstances attending the last harvest, which had been gathered in, owing to the state of the weather, at a far greater expense than usual. Perhaps this had not been sufficiently considered by landlords when the rents became due, after paying which, the farmers were so exhausted, that they were compelled to dismiss their labourers. This accounted in a great measure, for the increased number of paupers. As to the extent of the distress, a great deal of severe remark had been made on the word
partial
513
The Earl of Radnor
observed, that he rose principally to make some remarks on what had fallen from the noble Duke opposite (Buckingham). He had objected to the Motion because it was proposed in an unwholesome and unconstitutional state of parties. He (Lord Radnor) could not understand what this meant. The noble Duke said, that such was the state of parties, that a moderate Whig agreed with a true-blue Tory, and therefore the Motion was an unconstitutional thing; but this rather appeared an argument in its favour, and showed that it was so just and proper, that persons who differed upon all other subjects agreed upon this. If the noble Duke's statement respecting the improvement in the manufacturing districts, were correct, and there was really no distress, he wished that the noble Duke would go into the committee, if it were only to show how greatly the people were mistaken. Their Lordships had had a voluminous Petition laid upon their Table that night, signed by 10,000 persons, from no unimportant place—Manchester,—which proved that this great town had not yet discovered that improvement in the stale of their business which the noble Duke had announced. The noble Duke had said, that the class who suffered the least from the distress was the poor. The noble Duke was, he believed, an active magistrate; but he must say that in his magisterial capacity be found the case to be very different, and that the distresses of the poor were increasing. It was not long before the time when he began to act as a magistrate that the plan was introduced into his neighbourhood, by a benevolent individual in
514
l
l
d
d
s
d
d
d
515
d
Earl Bathurst
.—I never used the word "compel."
The Earl of Radnor
did not mean to lay any stress on that word: but allow him to express his opinion, that the noble Lord
516
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that the noble Earl had misrepresented his noble friend in the greatest possible manner, when he said that his (Earl Bathurst's) speech went to support the present Motion. His noble friend had complained, and very properly, that the terms of the Motion embraced every possible subject of inquiry, and had said that consequently the inquiry would be interminable. The Motion extended to an inquiry into the condition of labourers of all classes, whether in agriculture or in commerce: it extended to artisans of all descriptions; and in order to make the inquiry at all satisfactory, the nature of the employment of such labourers must be examined. Again, the inquiry, by embracing the operation of taxation on productive industry, involved that which was confessedly the most difficult question in the whole range of political economy. This was his noble friend's objection to the committee, and in that objection he fully concurred. The noble and learned Lord at the Table had said, that he should be happy to vote for an inquiry limited in its nature and duration; and they had also heard admissions from other noble Lords, that the various subjects included in the proposed inquiry, ought to be investigated separately. These seemed to be so many reasons against the Motion. But the real question was,—would this inquiry prove satisfactory to the country, or beneficial to the labouring classes? He had no hesitation in saying it would not. Suppose it should be granted, and suppose the noble Lords who were inclined to support this Motion by their speeches as well as by their votes, were all members of the committee; the noble Earl (Stanhope) at the Table would begin by proposing the unlimited issue of paper, the natural effect of which would be the expulsion of metallic currency; another Bank restriction,
517
The Earl of Rosebery
, interrupting the noble Earl, said, he never proposed that silver, as now coined, should be the standard, but that gold and silver concurrently, at the market-price, should form that standard.
The Earl of Rosslyn
, in continuation. Even that depreciation would be a relief, he was ready to admit, but then, it would be a relief of the same fraudulent nature as an alteration of greater extent in the standard. He preferred the bolder proposition of the noble Earl at the Table, and would rather say at once, we could not pay our debts, and, like other bankrupts, openly cheat our creditors than do it, to a certain extent, by these covert means. But the point from which he had been drawn was this—the various, the discordant opinions of the noble Lords who would meet upon the committee. This discrepancy of opinion appeared as strongly as to the extent and nature of the proposed inquiry, as it appeared in the topics to which he had alluded. The noble Lord had told them that this committee might propose a commutation of tithes; and as if this were not wandering far enough from the mark, another noble Lord had suggested, that the committee might make many useful suggestions to landlords as to the management of their property and their estates. Thus, every interest, commercial, manufacturing, and mechanical,—the commutation of tithes,—the operation,
518
l
l
519
520
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that he had proposed to recur to a silver standard, and he did it partly from thinking that the present standard was so completely an experimental one, that we could not permanently adhere to it. What he wanted was, that silver, not gold, should have been made the standard of the currency. As far as a concurrent standard of both metals was concerned, one must be subordinate to the other; and he would have had silver, allowing gold to pass at an agio. He would also say one word on the subject of small notes. He attributed the present distress, which was different from that of former years, inasmuch as it affected both farmers and manufacturers, to both classes being deprived of their usual home market, which grew, in his opinion, out of the distresses of the agriculturists, caused by the alteration relative to the small notes. He had anticipated, in 1826, these results, and had then pointed out the danger to credit, and the general distress which must ensue, if their Lordships put an end to the small notes. As he had then anticipated also, the people had been reduced to paupers. He believed that there were more small notes in circulation than the Ministers thought, and that their measure was more sweeping in its consequences than they had expected. This state of things might, he confessed, have been advanced or influenced by other causes, as well as by the currency. He
521
l
Earl Gower
said, he should vote against the Motion, because he thought it could lead to no beneficial result, and because he was of opinion, that the conduct of Government, in the reduction of taxation, and in the promise of farther reduction, deserved and invited the confidence of their Lordships and of the country. By the appointment of such a committee as that now proposed, he was very much afraid that they would only excite hopes which they would find it impossible to realize.
The Earl of Darnley
said, he should also oppose the Motion, because he could not bring himself to believe that it could lead to any good practical result.
Lord Holland
said that, after the vote he had given on a former occasion, he felt it necessary to trouble their Lordships for a few minutes in explanation of the reasons which induced him to vote in favour of the noble Duke's Motion. He must confess that he was a little surprised at the course which his noble friend (the Earl of Darnley) near him, had declared that he should adopt; for, if he were not very much mistaken, the last time he had heard his noble friend speak, he had taken credit to himself for having proposed an inquiry into the condition of the labouring classes of Ireland, which inquiry the other House of Parliament had just consented to institute, though their Lordships had refused to follow its example. But his other noble friend (the Lord Privy Seal) had surprised him still more, when he painted the evils and dangers which would result from the institution of the inquiry proposed by the noble Duke; for his Majesty's Ministers, as he understood, had already agreed elsewhere to appoint a
522
523
Omnia bene acta nostro Marte agentur
Lord Ellenborough
agreed with the noble Baron who had just spoken, that this was not the country in which it would be proper to adopt the principle of absolute government, but he thought that the noble Lord could not impute to the Government any intention of arrogating to themselves the right of doing every thing that was to be accomplished for the people. The Ministers objected to the appointment of the committee moved for, because they thought that the object proposed could not be accomplished by means of that committee. The appointment of the committee would hold out expectations which could not be realized. It had been said, that noble Lords of all opinions had been appointed as members of the committee sitting on the East India affairs; but let their Lordships remember, that that committee was to deal with facts, and the one moved for now was to deal with opinion. He never knew a committee, the business of which was to examine into facts, which thoroughly investigated the subject; and he would ask their Lordships, what would be the result, if a committee was appointed to
524
The Marquis of Lansdown
had at first only intended to state his reasons for supporting the Motion before the House, but after the speech of the noble Lord, he felt bound to stand up in favour of the practice of Parliament, and to maintain the utility
525
526
l
l
527
l
l
l
528
The Duke of Wellington
quite concurred with the noble Marquis who had just sat down, that it was desirable for their Lordships to adhere to the usual practice of Parliament, in making inquiries, such as that proposed, by means of committees; but he was also of opinion, that in these matters their Lordships ought to adhere to the practice of Parliament entirely and closely, and that practice had invariably been to this effect;—That when a noble Lord moved for the appointment of a committee of inquiry on any particular subject which he wished to bring under consideration, he stated specifically to the House what was the object which he intended to effect by means of a committee. That was the invariable practice in moving for such committees: and when he found it departed from in the present instance,—when he observed that it was very doubtful what was to be the particular object of the proposed committee, and that several noble Lords who had supported the Motion had each stated a different subject forinquiry,—he thought the House had reason to doubt whether there was not some object in the present Motion beyond that which appeared on the face of it. The noble Duke, in bringing forward the subject, stated that it was a motion for inquiring into the internal state of the country, with a view to the condition of the labouring poor, and in order particularly to ascertain the manner in which taxation affected productive industry. As the noble President of the Council truly stated, there was not a single branch of the Government, or of the internal policy of the country, which might not, and would not, come under discussion before a committee appointed according to the terms of this Motion. Each of the noble Lords who supported the Motion stated a
529
530
The Marquis of Lansdown
.—It was excluded one year, and included the next.
The Duke of Wellington
, in continuation, thought the noble Marquis would find that his statement was correct, and that the matter in question was excluded from the inquiry, because it was considered impossible at the time to come to an agreement upon it; and besides, it was thought a subject too important to be
531
532
533
Earl Stanhope
gave his cordial support to the Motion of his noble friend, the Duke of Richmond. The question was, whether the country were not afflicted from one end to the other with distress unparalleled in our history—of intolerable pressure, which
534
per se
535
The Duke of Richmond
said, in reply, that he could not help expressing the feelings of astonishment with which he had heard the speech of the noble Lord, the President of the Board of Control. If that speech had been uttered out of the House, he should have designated it a libel on Parliament. If it were spoken out of doors, and there was no law sufficiently strong to reach such language—language in the highest degree inflammatory—he should then wish that a law might be framed for that purpose. That was the feeling with which he heard the speech of the noble Lord. But, on reflection, he feared that he had misunderstood the noble Lord; for surely the noble President of the Board of Control could not have been speaking of the House of Lords. No; he was opening the doors of the Cabinet—and informing their Lordships, that there presided in that Cabinet one man of great and commanding talent, who carried every thing as he pleased. He admitted the great talents and industry of that noble Duke, and he believed, that if he were properly advised and informed, he was the man who would do essential service to the country; but, unfortunately, that noble Duke was not so advised. The noble President of the Council, though he said that he would vote against the Motion, conducted his argument in such a way, that many noble Lords must have thought that he had risen to second it. Ministers did not oppose the Motion in a plain and direct manner; but they met it by the hacknied plea, that it ought to be refused, not because it did not rest on sufficient grounds, but because, forsooth, it was got up from factious motives. Was that an answer which would satisfy the country? Was it an answer which would satisfy any man with an upright, honest, and feeling mind? If it were got
536
d
537
538
Their Lordships then divided, when the numbers appeared—Content, present 39, Proxies 22, Total 61, Not Content, present 69, Proxies 72; Total, 141.—Majority 80.
List of the Minority and Majority
MINORITY.
Dukes
Eldon
Cumberland
Rosebery
Gloucester
Falmouth
Richmond
Stradbroke
Argyll
Kinnoul
Marquisses
Viscounts
Lansdown
Granville
Salisbury
Goderich
Clanricarde
Melbourne
Sligo
Maynard
Ailesbury
Barons
Earls
Teynham
Winchilsea
King
Carlisle
Holland
Ferrers
Vernon
Cowper
Calthorpe
Tankerville
Lilford
Stanhope
Redesdale
Radnor
Rivers
Digby
Seaford
Mansfield
Bishops
Carnarvon
Bath and Wells
Romney
Llandaff
PROXIES.
Dukes
Marquis
Newcastle
Anglesey
Grafton
Earls
Devonshire
Guilford
Marlborough
Orford
539
Sheffield
Churchill
Bradford
Northwick
Manvers
Lorton
Lords
Haddington
Walsingham
Howard de Walden
Wodehouse
Yarborough
Stowell
Feversham
Kenyon
Duncan
MAJORITY.
The Lord Chancellor
Darnley
Archbishops
Clare
Canterbury
Clanwilliam
York
Fife
Dukes
Viscounts
St. Alban's
Arbuthnot
Buckingham
Hereford
Gordon
Melville
Wellington
Barons
Marquisses
Arden
Bute
Bayning
Bath
Clifden
Conyngham
Clifford
Hertford
Colville
Camden
De Dunstanville
Cholmondeley
Dunally
Earls
Ellenborough
Bathurst
Farnborough
Rosslyn
Forrester
Shaftesbury
Glenlyon
Pomfret
Harris
Malmesbury
Hill
Charleville
Manners
Jersey
Maryborough
De La Warr
Montagu
Dudley
Prudhoe
Wicklow
Saltoun
Hardwicke
Stourton
Verulam
Wallace
Glengall
Wharncliffe
Westmorland
Willoughby d'Eresby
Cornwallis
Bishops
Chesterfield
Bristol
Huntingdon
Rochester
Amherst
Chester
Aberdeen
London
Gower
Winchester
Cassilis
Oxford
PROXIES.
Dukes
Tweeddale
Clarence
Winchester
Beaufort
Earls
Bedford
Abingdon
Buccleuch
Aboyne
Leeds
Ashburnham
Manchester
Balcarras
Montrose
Belmore
Northumberland
Breadalbane
Rutland
Brownlow
Marguisses
Caledon
Cleveland
Cardigan
Donegall
Cathcart
Downshire
Chatham
Lothian
Courtown
Stafford
Elgin
Thomond
Errol
540
Glasgow
Clinton
Harcourt
Dormer
Hopetoun
Douglas (of Douglas)
Howe
Dufferin and Claneboye
Lauderdale
Macclesfield
Le Despencer
Morton
Monson
Poulett
Plunkett
Scarborough
Ravensworth
Somers
Rolle
St. Germans
Scarsdale
Waldegrave
Selsey
Warwick
Skelmersdale
Wilton
Stafford
Viscounts
St. Helens
Beresford
Stuart de Rothsay
Exmouth
Bishops
Gort
Carlisle
Northland
Chichester
Sidney
Hereford
Barons
Lichfield
Abercromby
St. David's
Bagot
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 18, 1830
MINUTES.] Returns presented—Of the period at which the Cork Foundling Hospital was first established, and statements relative thereto:—Copies of Memorials to the Irish Government on the subject of advances to build the Court House at Kerry. Of Memorials to the Commissioners of Customs relative to the office of Coal Meters, Dublin. The expenditure of the Commissioners of Public Records in 1829, and Works published. The number of Letters, from the Solicitor to the Board of Taxes to persons in i arrear in 1829, and charges thereon. Writs or Processes issued by the Solicitor. Letter from Mr. Abbot, dated Nov. 27, 1829, with the observations of Messrs. Brooks-bank and Bcltz. A Scale of Stamp Duties on Bills of Exchange. Accounts of the Notes of Country Bankers; Notes stamped; and of the Bankers who have commuted for the Stamp Duty since 1826. Accounts relative to the Penitentiary at Milbank; and to the Irish Tontine Annuity office. Accounts of the Corn, Meal, and Flour imported from Ireland during the last two years. Copies of the informations and judgment against Mr. Alexander, the Editor of the Morning Journal. The gross receipt of the tolls of vessels passing the Light Houses of Winterton, Orfordness, Dungeness, North and South Foreland, and of Hunston Cliff, with the expense of maintaining the Light Houses. The number of Contracts now existing for supplying the Naval service. The Second Report of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on East India Affairs. A copy of the Commission issued for inquiring into the state of Ecclesiastical Courts in England and Wales.
An Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, for a copy of the 18th and 19th Reports on the Public Records of Ireland.
Returns ordered—On the Motion of the Marquis of BLANDFORD, of the number of Persons entitled to vote at Election of Members of Parliament for Ireland:—On the Motion of Mr. SYKES, of the amount of Tonnage entered Inwards and cleared Outwards in Ireland since 1823:—On the Motion of Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE, of the total quantities of Hides, Skins, Malt, Coffee, Tea, Paper, Printed Goods, British and Irish Spirits and Tobacco, charged with Excise Duties in each year since 1818:—Of the number of Gallons of Spirits imported from Scotland into England since 1827; with the number of Excise Officers employed on the Borders, and the Expense, as well at an Account of the quantity of Spirits seized.
541
Petitions were presented—praying for a Free Trade to China—by Sir R. FEROUSON from the Magistrates, and Town-Council of Kirkaldy; and from the Chamber of Commerce of Kirkaldy:—By the Earl of BELFAST, from the Merchants of Belfast. Praying for a Repeal of the Vestry Act, Ireland, by Lord BINGHAM, from the parishes of Kilcomen and Robin. Praying for the Repeal of the Subletting act, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from three parishes in Ireland. Praying for a Reform in Parliament, by the Marquis of BLANDFORD, from Garboldsham (Norfolk). Against the proposed Alteration in the Licensing System, by Mr. PELL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Cheltenham. Praying for a Repeal of the Malt Duties by Mr. EDWARD DAVENPORT:—By Mr. POTTER MACQUEEN, from the Freeholders of Bedford; and complaining of Distress, and praying Relief, by Admiral SOTHERON, from Southwell.
The Indemnity Bill was brought in and read a First time; as was a Bill to Repeal certain Inoperative Statutes in Ireland.
REVISION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.]
Petitions praying for a revision of the Criminal Law, so as to do away with the punishment of Death incases of Forgery and other crimes, except murder, and to render punishment more certain, were presented from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by Sir M. W. Ridley; from Carlisle, by Colonel Lushington; and from Chelmsford, by Mr. Bramston. The hon. Gentleman said, that he concurred with the Petitioners in their prayer, that human life should not be taken away except for murder. The making any other punishment, such as that of solitary confinement, certain, as the consequence of particular crimes, would probably be more effective for the prevention of crime than the present system. However, he should not feel altogether disposed to take away from the judges that discretion they were very properly allowed to exercise in particular cases.
Mr. Western
, like his honourable colleague, supported the prayer of the Petition. He concurred with the petitioners in thinking that the punishment of death was frequently inflicted when it was not necessary to insure the safety of society, but he had not yet carried his opinion so far as to suppose that it ought to be abolished in all cases except murder. It sometimes happened, that great violence was used in committing crimes, which, though not amounting to murder, could only be repressed by capital punishment. Except in such cases, he admitted, as a general principle, that the law ought not to inflict death as the punishment of crimes.
Petition to be printed.
Similar Petitions were presented from Sunderland and Darlington, by Lord W. Powlett; from Lewes, by Mr. Kemp.
Mr. Grant
said, he earnestly hoped that this subject would not escape the atten-
542
Petition to be printed.
OPERATIVE WEAVERS.]
Sir M. S. Stewart
begged leave to present a Petition from the Operative Weavers of Glasgow, praying for some relief from the sinking distress under which they suffered. The Petition was signed by about 4,600 individuals; and large as this number was, he was informed that it composed but a very small portion of the thousands that were now suffering the severest privations from the extremely low rate of wages given to Operative Weavers in Glasgow. The petitioners averred, "that the average income of each family, according to the strictest investigation, amounts only to about 3
s
d
s
543
Ordered to lie on the Table.
Mr. Hume
supported the prayer of the petition, though he did not see by what means that House could give the petitioners any relief, except by reduction of taxation. It was a singular anomaly, he observed, in so rich a country as this, that so many thousands of the poor labouring classes should have to work for so many hours in the day at wages of 3
s
d
Mr. Brownlow
presented a Petition from the Operative Weavers of Dublin, complaining of distress, and praying for means of employment. The petitioners thanked the House, the hon. Member observed, for the advantages of civil and religious liberty they enjoy, but they venture to complain of the unparalleled distress from not having a market for their commodities. They complained chiefly of the want of a home market, and they therefore prayed the House to encourage the erection of public works in Ireland. Government, they thought, might advance money without the risk of loss, which, judiciously laid out, would give employment to thousands. All they asked for was employment.
Petition referred to the Committee on Irish Poor.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.]
The Marquis of Blandford
, in presenting a Petition, praying for a Reform in Parliament, as necessary to restore that House to the confidence of the people, moved
544
Mr. Ross
observed that it would be very difficult to make out such a return. There were many electors non-residents, and they would not be included in the return.
Mr. Benett
did not see why it should be more difficult to make it for Ireland than it had been for England and Wales, for for which such a return was moved last year.
Mr. Hume
said, a motion of his to that effect was carried last year.
Sir J. Newport
said, he thought there could be no difficulty, for the non-resident freemen were included, as well as the residents, in the poll-books, and they were not liable to any sudden change.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
expressed his surprise that any objection should be made to the Motion.
Motion agreed to.
BOROUGH OF CARLOW.]
Mr. O'Connell
Motion agreed to.
GALWAY TOWN.]
Mr. O'Connell
presented a Petition signed by several Protestants and Catholics in the town of Galway, praying for the admission of Catholics as well as Protestants to the freedom of the Corporation of that, town. The petitioners stated, the hon. Member observed, that the right to vote for Members of Parliament had been recognized, several times, to vest in the resident burgesses, and in particular, that it was recognized by the
545
l
s
d
s
TRIALS AT CORK.]
Mr. Jephson
would take occasion to advert to certain official documents from Ireland, which he had formerly moved for, but, as it seemed, without effect. He alluded to the memorial of the Grand Jury of Cork to the Lord Lieutenant, relative to the postponement of trials in that county, together with the viceregal answer thereto. The return which was laid before the House, in compliance with his motion, consisted of a simple statement from Mr. Gregory, and dated from the Civil Office, at the Castle, in Dublin, that there was not the least trace of any such memorial having been received at the Castle. As he (Mr. Jephson) had stated that a memorial of that nature was transmitted, he found himself placed in rather a disagreeable situation. There could be no doubt that such a memorial was forwarded, and he wished to know from the noble Lord how it happened that a copy could not be laid before the House?
Lord F. L. Gower
supposed that some accident had befallen the memorial on its way to the Castle, but he had no means of elucidating the subject any further, having been absent at the time when it was alleged to have been presented.
546
Mr. O'Connell
observed, that the postponement of these trials had cost Government an expense of 3,000
l
Mr. King
said, that he, as Foreman of the Grand Jury, had forwarded the memorial on the day of the assize, accompanied by a letter, and he knew that both the letter and memorial were put into the post-office; and he did not know why a special commission had been granted, unless it was in consequence of that letter.
WOOL TRADE.]
Mr. W. Burrell
, in presenting a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Shipley and West Grinstead against the importation of Wool with a nominal duty, said, that it was necessary, in consequence of some remarks which had been made by Gentlemen on the Wool Trade, for him to describe, at some length, the contents of the Petition. The petitioners stated, then, that British wool had become nearly unsaleable, and that the admission of foreign wool into the home market was a serious injury to them. They were of opinion, that the real wealth of a country consisted in the quantity and value of its produce, and of the skill and industry of its inhabitants; that those branches of manufacture which combined the production of the raw material with its subsequent preparation, either for home consumption or for exportation, were the most profitable, and to be considered as the natural manufactures of a country; and it was, they affirmed, on this account that woollens had been, for so many generations, the staple manufacture of England. For all these reasons, the petitioners submitted to the House the propriety of encouraging, by protecting the home-grower of wool, the manufacture of woollens. If he were correctly informed, Austria, which sent a great quantity of wool to this country, would not, in return, take any of our manufactured cloths. And why, then, he would ask, should we sacrifice our home-growers of wool for the sake of admitting her raw materials into this country? There were other countries, he believed, which, like Austria, would allow us to have wool, but would take none of our manufactures in exchange. In France, a duty of thirty-three per cent was levied
547
Petition to be printed.
LUNATIC COMMISSIONS BILL.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that, some short time since, he had introduced a Bill to enable the Lord Chancellor to issue Commissions
de lunatico inquirendo
548
l
Mr. R. Gordon
was very glad that the hon. Gentleman had withdrawn his Bill, because it only gave power to the Lord Chancellor which he already possessed. What they wanted was a real and efficient bill to remedy the evils of which they had so much cause to complain.
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY—ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. Fergusson
said, that although the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. E. Davenport) had, on the previous evening, accused the Members who were of the same opinion with himself of being luke-warm in the cause, he (Mr. Fergusson) must say, that he had not perceived any behaviour to justify that accusation. For his own part, he thought that nothing like apathy had been displayed; for scarcely an evening during the present Session had elapsed without the subject being adverted to in one shape or another. Neither did he think, though he should perhaps have to vote against the Ministers that night, that they had thrown themselves open to the charge of having been negligent of the state of the country. On the contrary, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few evenings ago, the House was bound, he thought, to believe that the Ministers were really willing to do whatever was in their power. The hon. Member for Shaftesbury having moved for a committee of the whole House, he should have felt some difficulty in supporting that motion, knowing that the time necessarily occupied by such a proceeding might be advantageously employed in the other affairs of the country. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Shoreham, however, relieved him from the difficulty that he felt on that head, and he should therefore vote for the appointment of a Select Committee. The only ques-
549
550
Mr. W. Whitmore
was ready to admit that there had been distress in the country during the last year; but he thought it would be better to look at the causes of that distress, to ascertain whether it
551
552
553
Sir George Philips
said, if he could believe all the representations made by hon. Members, he must suppose that there was no employment in the country, and that the people were actually dying of starva-
554
s
s
s
s
d
s
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
555
s
d
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
d
s
s
d
s
d
s
s
s
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
556
557
558
d
d
559
560
Mr. Bucknall Estcourt
said, that the subject was too delicate for a Member so young as he was to presume to pronounce an opinion on it, but he might say, that the present state of the country excited in him feelings of pain and deep concern, and that he could not look on the future without the most frightful forebodings. He thought that in a Committee the question of the public distress was likely to receive a better consideration than it could do in the House, and that the relative value of opinions could be ascertained with greater certainty, and their merit more fully appreciated.
Sir Hussey Vivian
did not deny that considerable distress existed; but was persuaded that many of the statements of it were greatly exaggerated. He entertained no despair of the country; but, on the contrary, felt convinced, that however serious the difficulties might be with which it was beset, it would rise superior to them all. With respect to the low prices, some of the causes of them were, in his opinion, sufficiently obvious. During the war, our manufacturers and merchants had a monopoly of the markets. Now, however, they were obliged to enter into a competition with foreign manufacturers and merchants. Now, as one-fifth of our industry was employed in the supply of the foreign markets, our exports being between fifty and sixty millions, and as the prices we obtained in the foreign markets must govern our prices at home, he thought there was little difficulty in accounting for the low prices. Among the causes assigned by various persons for the existing distress
561
That a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroy'd, could never be supplied.
l
l
562
l
l
l
l
l
563
"One doctor physic'd him and purg'd;
A second bleeding strongly urged;
A third a tonic mixture tried;
Among them all—the patient died!"
564
Mr. Liddell
declared himself prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member near him, though he trusted that in doing so he incurred no risk of being understood to pronounce any opinion condemnatory of the motives of his Majesty's Government. He was willing to give every credit to the right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House for the uprightness of their intentions, and for the earnest zeal with which they endeavoured to promote the interests of the country, as it appeared to them; but he must be allowed to say, that his views of the true interests of the country, and what its necessities at the present moment demanded, were quite opposed to the course which the Ministers of the Crown appeared determined to persevere in adopting. There was one proposition on which he would mainly rely, and which he did not apprehend that any hon. Member would attempt to controvert—namely, that at the present moment there was not profitable employment for the capital of the country. Notwithstanding the low rate of interest at which money could be borrowed, there were not to be found traders in the United Kingdom who could see any profitable means of embarking it in any speculation whatever—that he believed was true of nearly every branch of commerce and manufactures. Were the Government and Legislature of the country to allow things in such a state to take their course—were they to say to the people, "You must wait for the operation of natural causes, and not look to any amelioration of system for that relief of which you now stand so deeply and alarm-
565
566
567
Mr. Courtenay
would state shortly his views to the House upon this most important occasion; in commencing to do which, he could not help saying, that those who were loudest in their expressions of sympathy with the sufferings of the people, were the slowest to bring forwad any measures of relief, or to pledge themselves to any definite proposition for the benefit of the country. It had been made matter of repeated accusation against the Ministers, particularly by the hon. Member for Newark, that at different times they had attributed the public distress to various and contradictory causes. First, they were accused—or rather he should say, not the present Government, but several successive Governments were accused—of attributing the distress, some years to a transition from a state of war to a state of peace. Now he believed that, at this distance of time, no one could doubt who looked at the condition of the country at that period, that the distress then prevailing was to be ascribed to that cause. At that period, the mere disbanding of the Army and Navy was in itself a considerable source of public inconvenience, and one of the most active causes of public distress; and he believed, that if the other causes to which, in truth and in justice,
568
569
570
l
l
l
l
571
572
Sir Richard Vyvyan
said, he could not concur in the view taken of this subject by the hon. and gallant officer (Sir H. Vivian). He did not think the country was in a state approaching to prosperity; on the contrary, from his own knowledge of the condition of the people in Cornwall, and from his information as to the state of other parts of the country, he was convinced that it was suffering very severely. We were now in that situation, that if some remedy were not applied in time, they might, in three Sessions more, meet under a different form of government. He would not go into any detail
573
l
574
575
576
l
l
l
l
577
578
579
Mr. Courtenay
said, that nothing could be further from his intention than to say any thing personally offensive to the hon. Member for Newark, and if he had in his remarks passed beyond the fair line of controversial debate, he was bound to say that he was sorry for it.
Mr. Buller
said, it was their part to consider, first, what were the nature and extent of the distress; and secondly, what was the remedy which it behoved them to apply. The hon. Member for Cornwall had observed, that the Ministry themselves admitted the fact of the distress by their remission of taxes. But who, he asked, had been ever found to deny it? The gist of the question was, whether it was distress of a nature for the Legislature to control, or rather of a kind to be remedied by the natural operation of events. He certainly thought that it had been very considerably exaggerated. The petitions were at least of a very unselfish character,
580
Mr. Huskisson
spoke in substance as follows:—Sir; The principal arguments which have hitherto been adduced in favour of the Motion,—I might, indeed, say the whole—by those who have given it an unqualified support, turn upon some undefined alteration which they wish to effect in our Currency. The hon. Baronet who lately preceded me (Sir Richard Vyvyan) has ventured into the field of prophesy. He predicts, that we must, ere long, come to one of these alternatives—either a depreciation of the Currency, by a return to an inconvertible paper circulation, or a national bankruptcy. The hon. Baronet fortifies himself in this prediction by quoting one from Mr. Hume, whom he describes as a true prophet, for having foretold, in his Essay upon Public Credit, that bankruptcy would be, at no distant period, the inevitable result of the extension of our debt. Many years have elapsed—more than seventy—since this prediction of the philosopher was given to
581
582
583
l
l
l
l
*
*
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
l
l
591
l
l
592
593
594
595
596
597
l
598
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
599
600
s
d
s
s
d
s
l
l
601
602
603
l
l
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
Lord Althorp
rose amid loud and general cries of "Adjourn." After some difficulty the Speaker obtained order, and the noble Lord proceeded. He should have felt great difficulty in rising after the very able and eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for Liverpool, had he entertained any intention of following him throughout its various topics. But he had no such intention, for he nearly concurred in every syllable that the right hon. Gentleman had said. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Wootton Bassett, (Sir G. Phillips) that all the hands in the manufacturing districts were at present in employment, and in employment, too, at good wages. Now, if that were the case, it was quite impossible to believe that any distress existed in that quarter. He was afraid, however, from the general body of information which had been poured into the House from those districts, that the statement of the hon. Member was much too favourable. He believed, however, that it must be admitted that some improvement had commenced to exhibit itself in the country. He hoped that it would long continue; but he must say that his hopes
611
l
l
612
Colonel Sibthorp
613
[Considerable confusion ensued and prevailed for some minutes in the House. During the continuance of it, we saw Mr. Attwood and Mr. Alderman Waithman on their legs; but their words were completely drowned in the general turmoil.]
Mr. Peel
at length obtained a hearing. He said that if there were several Gentlemen still anxious to address the House on this subject, he should be the last man in the world to throw any obstruction in their way. The cries of "Adjourn" drowned the remainder of the right hon. Gentleman's observations.
The Question on the adjournment to the following day was then put and carried.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 19, 1830
MINUTES.] The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Exchequer Bills' Bill, the Transfer in Aids' Bill, and the Paupers' Removal Bill. Commissioners—the Lord CHANCELLOR, and Lords ROSLYN and SHAFTRSBURY.
The Mutiny Bills, and the Pensions and Duties Bills were read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. Praying for the abolition of the system of Paying Wages in Goods, by Viscount GODERICH, from places in the county of Worcester and Staffordshire:—By-Karl BATHURST, from Wotton-under-Edge. For the repeal of the Leather Tax, by Viscount GODERICH, from the Tanners of Belfast and of the city of Dublin. For the Opening of the Trade to India, by Viscount GODERICH, from the inhabitants of Beverly:—By Karl FITZWILLIAM, from Thome. For Relief; and complaining of Distress, by the Duke of RICHOND, from Boston in Lincolnshire: By Lord VERNON, from Eynsford, Norfolk:—by the Earl of DARNLRY, from the Operatives of the Collon trade of Dublin:—By the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Grocers and Tea Dealers of Bath and Wells— Complaining also of the Hawkers of tea;—Against the Duty on Hops, by Viscount GODERICH from Ticchurst, Sussex—Ami praying for the regulation of labourers' wages, by Lord TEVNHAM, from the King's Head Society, for the Encouragement of Industry.
LEGALAMENDMENTS.]
The Lord Chancellor
said, he rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move the second reading of three Bills, the object and nature of which he would endeavour to explain very shortly to their Lordships. The first was entitled "a Bill for altering and amending the law regarding Commitments by Courts of Equity for Contempts, and the taking bills
pro confesso.
614
pro confesso.
pro confesso,
615
habeas corpus,
alias habeas corpus,
pluries alias habeas corpus;
alias pluries alias habeas corpus;
pro confesso,
616
femmes couvertes,
femmes couvertes
617
618
The Earl of Malmesbury
thanked the noble and learned Lord for the very lucid illustration he had given them of the subjects comprehended in these Bills, which he must be allowed to observe came from a most respectable and satisfactory quarter. He thought that legal amendments could be in no safer hands. He now rose merely to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord. A clause in the second Bill enabled the trustees and guardians of an infant to grant leases: and he begged to know if this clause would extend so far as to enable them to grant a lease of the family mansion, and of the domain belonging to it, for twenty-one years. If it would, such a lease might be made when the infant was nineteen years old, and so a man might be forty years of age before he could inhabit his own mansion.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the general terms of the clause would include such a case; but the noble Earl would recollect, that no lease could be made by a guardian or trustee, without application to the Court of Chancery; and it would be supposing the height of indiscretion in
619
The Earl of Malmesbury
was fully sensible of the advantages of the clause; but as the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that the extreme case he had supposed might be included in it, he thought there would be no harm in. specially excepting the family mansion and the domain belonging to it. He would move, therefore, in the Committee, that no lease, for a longer time than that at which the heir would be of age, should be granted of the family mansion and the domain belonging to it.
Bills read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 19, 1830
MINUTES.]Lord ELLEN BOROUGH'S Divorce Bill was, on the Motion of Sir G. CLERK, read a first time. The Indemnity Hill was read a second time.
Returns presented;—Of the parishes in Ireland which have entered into an agreement under the Tythe Composition Act:—The rate of pay and allowances to Officers and Men in the Navy; and in the Civil Service of the Navy since 1792:—The number of Masters and Surgeons of the Navy in each year since 1826; and copies of the correspondence between the Irish Government and the Officers of certain Charitable Establishments in Ireland, with reference to the Irish Estimates for 1829.
Returns Ordered;—On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, of the Fees received by the Commissioners of Bankrupts during the last three years, with sundry Accounts connected therewith:—On the Motion of Mr. WODEHOUSE, of all the Flour, Coal, Culm, with an account of all the vessels that have entered the Port of South Wold annually, during the last twenty years—And on the Motion of Mr. SPRING KICK, of all Spirits in the possession of the Distillers of the United Kingdom, on March 13th, 1830.
Petitions presented;—Complaining of Distress, by Mr. WM. DUNCOMBE, from the inhabitants of the neighbourhood of Holderness. Praying for a Legislative Measure to check Horse Stealing, by Mr. BRANSRY COOPER, from Gloucester. By Lord ALTHORP, from the parish of Wellingborough, in Northamptonshirc, against Capital Punishments.
[He concurred with the Petitioners in thinking that severe punishments were in-effectual, when they went against the feelings of society; in such a state of things severe punishments encouraged crime.]
By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Rev. Thomas Smith, of London, complaining that the Petitioner had been a Clergyman of the Established Church for seventeen years, and yet was without any ecclesiastical preferment, and praying that greater facilities might be given for the erection of Churches. By Lord EUSTON, from Bury St. Edmund's, praying for a Revision of the Criminal Law. By Sir M. W. RIDLRY, from Richard Trevithick, slating that he had invented Machinery for transferring Coals from Ships into Barges, by which a saving of 3
s.
620
DUTY ON MALT.—BEER TRADE.]
Mr. Carter
presented a Petition from Portsmouth and Portsea, against the opening of the Trade in Beer.
The Marquis of Chandos
presented a Petition from owners and occupiers of land of a hundred in the county of Buckingham, praying for a reduction of the Duty on Malt. The noble Lord expressed himself pleased with the reduction of the Duties on Beer; but still he must say, that unless the tax on Malt were also repealed, the farmer would not get that relief which his condition required. If the Malt duty had been taken off instead of the Beer tax, the advantage to the community would have been greater. He hoped that a motion which stood on the Orders on this subject would be pressed; and that if Ministers were not prepared to repeal this tax this year, they would announce their intention of doing so next year.
Mr. Heathcote
contended, that the repeal of the Duties on Beer would give relief to the poor; and that, with the abolition of the present licensing system, would do away with the monopoly of the brewers, who had not reduced the price of Beer though the duty on and price of barley, had been nearly doable their present amount. The reduction of duty since the peace had been from 4
s.
d.
s.
d.,
s.
s.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, he was satisfied that the reduction of the duty on Beer would do much good, but he could not concur in what had been said with respect to the Licensing System, He was sure
621
To be printed, as was a similar Petition, presented by the noble Lord, from another hundred of the county of Buckingham.
Lord Eastnor
, in presenting a Petition from the publicans of the city of Hereford, praying that the trade in Boor might not be thrown open, observed, that the petitioners stated to the House, that they would most certainly be ruined by a measure, from which they did not believe the community would derive any benefit. Their sufferings too would be greater than those of the licensed victuallers in the Metropolis, because their properly depended more on the exclusive privileges they enjoyed. They had embarked their capital, they staled, in the trade, under the existing laws, supposing that as long as they conducted themselves with propriety, those laws would not be altered to their injury. Their conduct had been approved of by the magistrates and clergy of Hereford, and he must say, it would be very unjust for the House to impose a loss on them for the supposed advantage of other persons. They were subjected to having soldiers billeted on them, and various other burthens, for which their license was scarcely a compensation. They had in general paid considerable sums for their premises, and they could but expect, if the measure they prayed against were passed into a law, that they should be utterly ruined. The noble Lord, in conclusion, expressed his approbation of the conduct of the Ministers in diminishing taxation, and his hopes that the country might derive all the advantages they ex-
622
DUTIES ON WEST-INDIA PRODUCE.]
The Marquis of Chandos,
in presenting a Petition from the West-India Planters, praying for a reduction in the Duty on Coffee, observed, that he could not avoid expressing his regret, that nothing had been done for the Colonies in the late reductions of taxation; but since his Majesty's Government were disposed to afford relief where it was most wanted, he was not without hopes that they would yet, before the Session was at an end, do something for the Colonies, which were in a lamentable state. The loss of income in some of them was so great as to endanger their existence. When it was considered how much the former reductions of the duty on Coffee had increased the sale of that article, the petitioners were justified in anticipating, from a further reduction of duty, no loss to the revenue. Such a measure would be equally beneficial to the Colonies, and the mother country.
Mr. K. Douglas
concurred with the prayer of the petition, and gave notice of his intention to bring the subject of the trade of the West-India Colonies generally under the notice of the House shortly alter the Easter recess, with the assistance of the noble Lord. He must also express his regret that nothing had been done for the West-India Islands. As the trade with them was very advantageous, it was only right that they should receive their fair share of protection.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
hoped that the difficulties under which the West-India interest laboured would speedily be at an end. It would, no doubt, be extremely satisfactory to the Government to afford the petitioners any relief which they possibly could by the removal of any taxes which could safely be repealed. In bringing before the House his financial statement, he carefully considered those imposts which could with most advantage be repealed; and in looking at the choice he had made, he thought it best calculated on the whole to effect the legitimate objects of reduction. In his view the taxes on West-India produce could not with propriety be remitted, while the taxes on commodities made at home remained so high. Though not directly, yet indirectly, the West-India interest would derive bene-
623
Mr. R. Gordon
thought a reduction of 7
s.
s.
Petition printed.
LEAD.]
Lord W. Powlett
presented a Petition from Arkengarthdale, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, complaining of the low price of Lead, of the great importation of foreign Lead, and of various other things from abroad, while the foreigner would take none of our commodities, and praying that a duty might be levied on foreign Lead. The place from which he presented the Petition was, he said, from its vicinity to the Lead Mines, of great importance. There were upwards of 20,000 people in that neighbourhood whose subsistence altogether depended upon these mines. He was certain that the importation of foreign Lead, of which the petitioners complained, was a serious evil, and he was anxious to know whether the Government contemplated an augmentation of the import duty on foreign Lead, or meant to allow of this competition proceeding unchecked. At a time when distress pervaded all ranks, Ministers should, as far as possible, look to the welfare of the working classes. He expected every day to receive a petition from Sunderland, exhibiting in a striking manner the great distress which he knew to prevail there, and which he did not wonder at, since he knew the vast quantities of timber, and of almost all other foreign productions, that were continually brought into the country. He requested to be informed what were the views of Government respecting the importation of foreign Lead.
Mr. Herries
said, that this subject had never been lost sight of since he had the honour, at the Board of Trade, to receive a deputation from the north of England, but he would not say that the Government had decided according to the wishes of the petitioners. He did not see how it was possible for the Government, when he considered how much Lead was used in our manufactures, to interfere with the competition in the market, and dictate an artificial price for an article of such extensive consumption. Even if it were possible to protect the English miner, as the practice of imposing a duty on the
624
Petition printed.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.]
On the Motion of Sir George Clerk, the House went into the Committee of Supply, and the Navy Estimates were referred thereto.
Sir Geo. Clerk
then moved, that a sum of 603,200
l.
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY—ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
The Order of the Day for renewing the debate on this Question was then read.
Colonel Sibthorp,
who was in possession of the House, immediately rose and went on to say; when the important measure that was introduced last Session to the House was brought forward, the right hon. Gentleman who proposed it, defended it on the ground of expediency; he wished that the Government would attend to the same feeling in this instance, because he was convinced that it would lead them to meet the universal wish of the people. It was retorted upon those Members who most pressed this point, that it was their unwillingness to lower their rents. Now, for his own part, he had no unwillingness on that head, because he was convinced of the necessity for such a proceeding. One of the most striking instances of the present state of things was to be found in the Wool trade; and of the state of that trade what was taking place in Lincolnshire might be taken as the criterion. The price of that article was now reduced to about 5
s.,
l.
625
626
Colonel Davies
observed, that in his opinion a sufficient case had been made out to call for the appointment of a committee; but after having heard what had fallen from the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, and the hon. Member for Newark, with respect to the question of currency, he said that it would be impossible to vote for the Motion without broaching that subject, unless it were an understood thing that the currency question should not be entered upon in the committee. He was convinced that the people would not be satisfied if they found that inquiry was refused because they were at variance on one point; and yet many Members would be compelled by the obstinacy (if he might use the term) of those who brought forward the motion on the question of Currency to vote unwillingly against it. With reference to the distress, he knew that it existed to a great extent among all the manufacturers. In particular, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say the other evening, that there was no distress in the iron trade, when, if there was one trade of the kingdom more distressed than another, it was the iron trade. He knew that several furnaces had been blown out.
Mr. Harries
explained, as we understood, that his information had been derived from an iron-master.
Colonel Davies,
in continuation, said, that the anonymous authority of one iron master ought to have no weight with the House, when it contradicted such a well-known fact as the general distress of the iron manufacturers. The hon. Member then proceeded to read an extract from a news-
627
628
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said:—It had been my intention to abstain from troubling the House with any observations, or from voting at all on the present occasion. As far as the situation of the country has come under my purview, I agree with all that has been stated by the hon. Member for Essex; and as to the causes which have produced that situation of things, I also entirely agree with that hon. Member; but I am compelled to confess, which has also been not obscurely indicated by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade as his opinion, that things so standing, I do not exactly see how to mend them. The very able speech, however, of the right hon. the Member for Liverpool has induced me to throw myself, for a few minutes, on the indulgence of the House. That right hon. Gentleman has proved, that all the commercial measures of the Go-
629
630
631
l.
s.
d.
632
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, it appeared to him that nearly all the Members who took any part in the debate on this question, were of opinion that the distress was to be ascribed to the diminution of the currency. He repeated, that many Gentlemen had expressed an opinion to that effect, and he was satisfied that it was founded on very erroneous conclusions. It was a gross error to suppose that the distress would be alleviated by any artificial addition to the currency. He would ask the Members to look at the state of trade, and at the condition of the various branches of our manufactures. In the iron trade they would hear that so much iron had never been required before. In the silk trade they would hear that the importation of the raw material was greater than it had ever been, and in various other manufactures they would perceive steady demand and constant employment. But then, with all this demand, and with the employment of a vast deal of capital, there was still a great quantity of capital in the country which could not be advantageously invested, and which yielded but a very small return. Suppose, then, that this capital thus unemployed was still further increased, what would be the consequences? Why, a host of mere adventurers would be let in to the ordinary paths of commerce, the profits on capital would be still further diminished, and capital itself must unnecessarily be increased. The trade of the country did not require currency so much as customers. It required the opening of new channels for the direction of the industry; or, still better, that the people of Great Britain, the best and the surest, should become customers themselves. This was a good to be obtained by the removal of the burthen of taxation in such a manner as to increase consumption, and to that object the Government had already successfully applied
633
634
Mr. Holdsworth
said, he had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Liverpool, with regret and
635
636
637
d.,
d.
l
l
s.
d.
s.
d.,
638
l
639
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, the debate had taken an extraneous course. The questions for the consideration of the House were—Did the distress complained of exist?—What was its nature and extent, and from what causes had it arisen? Were the proposed reductions in taxation calculated to give the necessary relief, or what other remedies could be applied? He gave the Government credit for good intentions, and admitted that the taxes proposed to be repealed were well selected. The present Ministers had done as well or better than the administrations that had gone before them, but that was not enough: the country was now under extraordinary circumstances, and required much more; further reductions could not probably be made with our present enormous establishments, but had the estimate of Lord Castlereagh in 1817 been adhered to, more than a hundred millions, including interest, might have been saved to the country. That distress, to a great extent, existed was admitted by all, although some Gentlemen denied that it was extensive, and had produced letters to support their statements; but such documents, opposed as they were to petitions from all parts of the country, were worth nothing. All the productive classes, whether engaged in agriculture, mercantile, manufacturing, or trading concerns were alike suffering, and those who had fixed incomes, or who
640
l
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
*
Mr. Fyler
felt called on to make a few observations, in consequence of what had fallen from the honourable Members for Bramber and Liverpool. Of his own knowledge he could say, that the Silk Trade was in a most deplorable state, and
*
648
[The call for Mr. Peel becoming general, the right hon. Gentleman rose, but Mr. Bramston (a new Member) having risen at the same moment, Mr. Peel gave way.]
Mr. Bramston
proceeded to say, that a very few days had elapsed since he had the honour to be returned to the House for a large and important agricultural county, whence he came convinced of the reality and prevalence of distress—distress, not indeed universal, but by far too abundant. He had entered these walls an advocate of inquiry; but, after listening patiently to the arguments offered for it during three nights, he felt his desire for inquiry arrested by the state at which the discussion had arrived. He found that two objects which a committee, if appointed, would have to take into consideration would be, the state of the currency and taxation. As to the currency, even if the principle acted on by the House in 1819 were an erroneous one (which he did not admit), it appeared to him, that in the present state of things, and after a lapse of eleven years, we should only run the risk of encountering still greater evils by abandoning the present and recurring to the former system.
649
Mr. Lockhart
was much astonished at the declaration made by the hon. Member who had just sat down—that he had entered the House the advocate of inquiry, but was now opposed to it. With regard to these debates, he did not look at them as argumentative, but as evidential; and the evidence they afforded was, that distress existed to a great extent. Under these circumstances, the House ought not to abdicate its right of inquiry, especially since the distress appeared to arise from a new combination of social circumstances, before unknown. They might not be able to reduce taxation, but the right hon. Member for Liverpool had admitted that there might be a new arrangement of the taxes. There was now a suction upon the productive
650
caput mortuum
Mr. W. Horton
said, that the committee he had proposed, to inquire into the subject of colonization, had been refused, on the ground that the inquiries involved were too extensive—an objection which he thought peculiarly applicable to the present Motion. There were already committees appointed to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland, and into several other circumstances connected with the national distress, which made the hon. Member's Motion of less utility, and therefore he should certainly vote against it.
Mr. Attwood
said, the House were not called on to inquire now what were the causes of the present distress, and the speech of the right hon. Member for Liverpool had, therefore, been out of place—it would have been more appropriate in the Committee. The question was, whether there did exist such a degree of distress and suffering as demanded the attention of the House. He should have preferred a Committee of the whole House, and to have had evidence given at the Bar, as more suitable to the magnitude of the occasion. He would take the state of the country from the speeches of those from whom he differed. He would take it even in the mitigated language used in the Speech from the Throne, and of which the President of the Board of Trade had told them he had the confirmation in his pocket. If what that right hon. Gentleman produced to this purpose was to be called confirmation, never was any so unworthy of the original document. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he had received letters which had been sent him from different parts to inform him that the King's statement of the condition of the country was correct, although that statement was in direct opposition to the voice of the people. If the Ministers thought that there was but a trifling amount of distress, he thought the patient attention with which the House had listened to these discussions must have convinced them of their error. The proposed Committee was objected to, because it was so extensive in its nature that the Corn-laws must form one of the subjects of inquiry,
651
s.
s.
652
Quorum magna pars fui,
653
654
655
Mr. Peel
felt the full force of the observations of the honourable Mover, on the importance and extent of the inquiry; and he agreed, also, that each branch of the subject demanded the most patient investigation. Of the various topics introduced by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cornwall (Sir It. Vyvyan), there was one which he (Mr. Peel) begged altogether to exclude—he meant the reference made by the hon. Baronet to party considerations. He declined following him upon that point, because he was anxious to enter upon the consideration of the sufferings of the people, without that temper of mind which party questions were likely to. produce. In steering his course through the crowded chart of facts and arguments adduced, he felt the want of a meridian line by which he could be directed, and perhaps, therefore, it would be better for him to pursue the track of those who had preceded him in debate. Acting then upon that view of the question, he had not the slightest hesitation in urging that it was the imperative duty of the Legislature to review all the means calculated to mitigate the existing sufferings of the country—taking especial care that they adopted none which were not perfectly compatible with the real and permanent interests of the whole community. Deeply lamenting, as he did, and as no man in the country of just feelings could help doing, the existence of the public distress, which he admitted to exist, though not in the degree, and to the extent which some hon. Gentlemen asserted—deeply lamenting, he repeated, the existence of that distress, he was most anxious to do all that could be done for its mitigation. He once more repeated,
656
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
657
l.
s.
d.
d.
d.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
658
l.
659
l.
660
661
l.
662
l.
663
664
l.
l.,
l.
665
666
s.
s.;
s.;
s.;
s.
s.
l.
l.
667
668
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
669
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
670
671
Sir C. Wetherell
said, he was not a little surprised that nearly the whole speech of the right hon. Secretary was a defence of what was called his own bill, and that scarcely five minutes had been devoted by the right hon. Secretary to the discussion of the real practical question before the House. Nor had the hon. Member for Callington been behind him in steering from the subject. They had agreed in nothing but in going astray from the question under consideration. The hon. Member for Callington was
particeps criminis
Cries of "No" from all parts of the House.
672
The loud and general burst of laughter which followed this sentence prevented our hearing whether the hon. and learned Member finished the encomium here.
Mr. O'Connell
rose amidst loud cries of "Question." As soon as the hon. Member could obtain a hearing, he said that he felt he could not at that late hour do justice to his constituents, and that he begged, therefore, to move that the debate be adjourned. [
Cries of "No, no."
Mr. Peel
said, it appeared to him that this discussion might be very easily brought
673
[After a desultory conversation on the question of adjournment between Mr. Hume, Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Davenport, and other hon. Members, the gallery was cleared for a division. While we were excluded from the gallery, we understood two divisions took place: the first on the simple question of the adjournment of the House till Monday, on which there appeared—Ayes 9; Noes 341. The second division was on the Motion, that this House do now adjourn: Ayes 12; Noes 329.
[An Hon. Member, as we were informed, then expressed his intention of re-dividing the House on the Motion of adjournment till Monday: upon which
Mr. Peel
said, he should be unwilling to throw any obstruction in the way of hon. Members expressing their opinions, and therefore would propose that the further discussion of the Question should stand over till Tuesday.—Ordered accordingly.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 22, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns ordered. Copies of three Letters from the Court of Directors of the East India Company to the Governor-general in Council at Fort William, Bengal; to the Governor in Council at Fort St. George; and to the Governor in Council at Bombay, all dated March 10th, 1830.
Petitions presented. Praying that the Trade to India might be thrown open—By the Earl of HARDWICKE, from the Borough of Wigan, in Lancashire:—By Lord ARBUTHNOT, from the Royal Borough of Lanark:—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from the Cotton-weavers of Glasgow. By Earl STANHOPE, from the Agriculturists of Nottingham, representing the Distressed State of Agriculture, and praying relief:—and from the Agricultural Society of Holderness, to the same effect.
[The noble Earl stated, that the farmers were living on their capital, that the labourers were in a state of starvation, and he strongly recommended the petitions to their Lordships' notice.]
And by the Earl of ROSEBERY, from the farmers of West Lothian, against the new Tax on Spirits in Scotland.
[The Petitioners were most respectable, the noble Earl said, and many of them were personally known to himself. But
674
REFORMS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.]
The order of the day was read for the Motion of the Lord Chancellor to introduce a Bill to facilitate the Administration of Justice; on which
The Lord Chancellor
rose, to make, he said, his promised statement concerning the improvements in progress and in contemplation, in the modes of procedure in the Courts of Law and Equity, and Ecclesiastical Courts, as he had given notice he would do on occasion of moving the first reading of a bill connected with those improvements. His object, on the present occasion, was to explain the general nature and description of those measures of improvement so that their Lordships might be the better able to understand the separate provisions as they came in detail before them. He felt himself more particularly called on to do so, as the subject was mentioned in his Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session, and the attention of the two Houses of Parliament called to it. His Majesty had then stated, that his attention had been of late earnestly directed to various important considerations connected with improvements in the general administration of justice: their Lordships must therefore be prepared to expect some communication similar to that he proposed to make. He should not feel it necessary however to enter into any details, from the consideration that each measure must be particularly submitted to their Lordships' attention as they all came successively before Parliament. All he proposed to do at present was, to lay before their Lordships the general scope of the proposed improvements. Even of this he was aware, that the several parts might appear dry and forbidding; but their Lordships would no doubt recollect that these were matters of the utmost importance to the liberty, property, and even the lives of the subject, and would therefore be disposed to listen with the attention the matter deserved. In the first place, he solicited their Lordships' attention to what had been done, and what was intended to be
675
676
677
nisi prius,
678
679
in banco
nisi prius.
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
l.
1.
l.
l.
688
l.
l.
l.
689
690
nisi prius
691
692
The Bill accordingly read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it had been intimated to him that he had inadvertently
693
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 22, 1830
MINUTRS.] Lord KILLEEN look the Oaths and his Seal as Member for the County of Meath, in Ireland. WILLIAM BLAIR, Esq. look the Oaths and his Seat as Member for Ayrshire. Lord FRANCIS LEVESON GOWER brought in a Bill to confirm certain Leases of Lands for the purpose of carrying on the Linen Manufacture in Ireland.—Read a first time. The ATTORNEY GENERAL brought in a Bill "for the more effectual Administration of Justice in England and Wales," which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 27th of April. The Smugglers' Families Maintenance Bill was read a third time and passed. The Indemnity Bill went through a Committee.
Returns ordered. On the motion of Mr. HUME, of the number of Vessels which passed through the Sound in the years 1827, 1828, and 1529, distinguishing their respective Nations, being a continuation of former Returns up to the year 1827; of the number of Officers on Full and Half-pay of the Army in each year, from 1826 to the 5th of January, 1830, distinguishing the Rank of each Officer; of the number of those who were admitted into the Army, and appointed to the Military College, Specifying whether by Purchase or otherwise, in each year, from 1821 to the 5th of January, 1830; of the Expense of the Military College during the same period; of the number of Commissions vacant by Deaths, Removals, or Resignations between January '25th, 1828, and January 30th, 1830; of the number of first Commissions appointed to in the same period, distinguishing whether with or without Purchase; of the number of Commissions since March 31st, 1828; of the number of retired Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Marines, who were allowed to sell out since 1825, specifying the Names and Ranks of the Parties; an Account of Officers holding Brevet Rank; an Account of Money received from the Sale of retired Full-pay and Half-pay Commissions, with other Military Accounts, being a continuation of some already presented to the House. On the Motion of Mr. WODEHOUSE, Accounts received at the Foreign-office, from the Consuls Abroad relative to the Price of Com in the year 1828.
[The hon. Member explained, that his object was, to expose a fallacy of Mr. Jacob.]
On the Motion of Mr. SPENCE, an Account of the Decrees and Orders of the Court of Chancery and Courts of Great Session in Wales, during the last ten years.
Returns presented. The Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Wexford Election Committee. The number of Persons discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act. The number of Pursers in the Navy. The Expense of the Shrewsbury and Holyhead Roads.
Petitions presented. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter—By Mr. STANLEY, from the Inhabitants of Guernsey:—By Mr. BEAUMONT from the Merchants and Manufacturers of Barnard Castle:—By Mr. HUME, from the Incorporation of Wrights of Porth:—By Lord STANLEY, from the Inhabitants of Chorley:—By Sir ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, from the Merchants and Manufacturers, and also from the Provost and Magistrates of Perth. Against the Surrey Coal Meter's Bill By Sir M. W. RIDLEY, from Mr. Thomas Bradfield. Against the Watching and Parishes Bill — By Mr. BYNG, from the In-habitants of Paddington. Against the Track System—By Mr. Secretary PEEL, from Stroud (Gloucestershire). Praying for the Repeal of the Malt Duty—By Lord ALTHORP, from the Inhabitants of South Erpingham. Against the mode of taking Polls at Elections—By Mr. O'CONNELL,, from Mr. John Boyle of Cork, Against the Sub-letting and
694
INSOLVENT DEBTORS.]
Mr. Hume
, in moving that there be laid before the House a List of the Fees allowed to be taken by the Provisional Assignee, the Brokers, Messengers, and other officers of the Insolvent Court, together with their aggregate amount during each year, from 1814 to 1829, observed, that it was understood when this court was appointed, that the public were to be relieved from the payment of fees of every description except to a very small amount. He was however informed, that the payment of fees fell very heavy on the suitors of that Court, and as the Act was about to expire, he thought it quite right that the House should be put into possession of all the information which could be collected on the subject. Returns ordered.
CORN LAWS.]
Mr. Hume
staled, that he should likewise move for returns tending to show the evil effects of the existing Corn-laws, which he presumed it was intended to submit to the-revision of Parliament during the present Session. If, indeed, no more efficient Member could be induced to bring the subject before the House, it was his own intention to do so before the expiration of the Session. In moving for the Returns now required, he wished to enable Parliament to estimate the probable amount of our revenue, if only a moderate duty, such as he had formerly recommended, should be laid on. Under such a duty, the revenue derived from this branch of trade would have amounted, he believed, to about 1,190,000
l.
695
l.
LOTTERY OFFICERS.]
Mr. Hume
in moving for a copy of the Treasury Minute respecting the retired allowances of the officers engaged in the late lottery establishments, stated, that he understood there were five individuals receiving an income of 1,473
l.
l.
l.
MALT AND BEER DUTIES, AND PUBLICANS.]
Sir Thomas Gooch
presented a Petition from the occupiers of land in the hundred of Gosford, praying for the Repeal of the Malt and Beer duties.
Mr. Charles Barclay
wished to take that opportunity of explaining what he had said a few nights before. He had then stated, that in his opinion the removal of the Beer duties would be a great benefit to the public brewers; but he meant that opinion to apply solely to brewers, and no other class of persons. He knew that a great difference of opinion existed on the subject; but he had been very cautious in delivering his own sentiments.
696
Mr. Benett
wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to refund the duty on Beer to those who had a stock on hand; otherwise those persons, he conceived, would be placed at a great disadvantage by the intended abolition, of duty, as compared with those who would not purchase stock till after the 10th of October. If the drawback were not allowed, only a very small stock of Beer would be kept up, and none would be brewed but for immediate consumption. The consequences too would be injurious to the agricultural interest, for the sale of old Barley, for the purpose of Malting, would be entirely stopped.
697
Mr. C. Calvert
contended, that throwing open the licensing system would be highly injurious to the vested interest of that numerous and respectable body—the publicans—and he hoped that the duties might be taken off Beer, without at the same time doing away with the licensing system. He wished to see the former measure tried by itself.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in reply to the hon. Member, begged leave to say, that the object he had in view in repealing the tax on Beer—namely, the interests of the large majority of the people—would be defeated unless he could at the same time throw open the Beer-licensing system. If that were not done, the abolition of the duties on Beer could only benefit the dealers in Beer. He could not take too early the opportunity of stating, that he considered the freedom of the trade in Beer to be essential to the abolition of the duties on Beer. He did not deny that the free sale of Beer would be a partial inconvenience to publicans; but he was bound not to consult any interests but those of the public at large. In reply to the hon. Member for Wiltshire, (Mr. Benett) he begged leave to state, that although those who had a stock on hand might be inconvenienced by the intended abolition of the duty on Beer, still it was deemed the best course to have no refunding, and let the Act of repeal come in force on the 10th of October. The interests of the people at large were the rule of his conduct, and not the advantages or disadvantages of individuals. He should be certainly ready to be brought before the Committee; but he must warn Members against adopting the exaggerated views of interested parties out of the House.
Mr. Benett
wished to know if the situation of those who took out no licenses would not be better than that of the public brewers.
Lord Althorp
expressed his hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not depart from his plans, or if he did, that he would couple the repeal of the Malt tax with that of the Beer tax.
Petition to be printed.
DISTRESS AND TAXATION.]
Lord Stanley
, in presenting Petition from Manchester, praying for the abolition of all taxes which enhance the price of the necessaries of life, and impede the national
698
Sir G. Phillips
said, that although there might be various opinions as to the cause of the present distress, no person denied that distress existed to a great extent. He knew that the people of Manchester were exposed to much suffering, though
699
Lord Althorp
explained, that he had not attributed to the hon. Member the opinion that there was no distress in the manufacturing districts.
Petition printed.
DUBLIN PIG MARKET.]
Mr. O'Connell
presented a Petition from Patrick M'Dermott, John Martin, and Miles M'Dermott, complaining of the conduct of the Lord Mayor of Dublin in removing the Pig-market of that city. The petitioners had been forcibly ejected from the market, though the law authorities of Ireland had given an opinion in their favour. They had a right to sell Pigs in the market.
Mr. G. Moore
said, that the Mayor was anxious to submit his conduct to investigation. The law opinions obtained by the petitioners were given on their own partial and incorrect representations. They had no right to sell pigs in Smithfield, which was held for cattle, exclusive of pigs; and the number of cattle being very great, pigs were kept out of the market.
700
Lord Leveson Gower
was sure that the conduct of the Lord Mayor was dictated by a regard to the public interest. That magistrate wished that the matter should be investigated before a proper tribunal, and he was sure that an Irish court of justice would be willing to afford its protection to the animals (bulls) for which the market was intended.
Petition to be printed.
COAL-METERS — DUBLIN.]
Mr. O'Connell
next presented a Petition from Stephen Fox Dixon, complaining of the conduct of the Corporation of Dublin in turning him out of a Coal-meter's situation, and of the bill which gave the Corporation power so to act. He had been a Coal-meter from 1806, and had received his share of the fees which were legally appropriated by the Coal-meters, through whom the corporation levied a lax on the public of several thousand pounds a-year. It had, indeed, proceeded so far that the interference of a court of justice had been demanded, which decided that the imposition ought not to be levied. According to the corporation, however, it was entitled to regulate the business of the Coal-meters by an Act of Parliament. In the course of these proceedings the corporation had turned the petitioner out of his situation, causing him considerable loss; and as he. had no means of redress, he applied to the House. The prayer of his petition was, that the House would amend the Act by which the Corporation of Dublin was enabled to commit this oppression.
Mr. G. Moore
said, he would only observe that the petitioner had been appointed to his office by the guild of merchants, whose right to make the appointment had been recognized for several centuries. In consequence of complaints made against the petitioner, his conduct had been subjected to examination before a competent authority, the charges were regularly made, time was given him to answer them, and having failed to answer them he was suspended from his office, which suspension he illegally resisted. His conduct was then brought before the Lord Mayor and Board of Dublin, and after council had been heard on both sides, they came to the decision of which the petitioner complained. His complaint therefore, was, in fact, an appeal from an authorized tribunal, to the House of Commons. With respect to the amount of the tax levied on the public for metage,
701
Petition to be printed.
UNION WITH IRELAND.]
Mr. O'Connell
, in presenting a Petition, very numerously and respectably signed, from the in-habitants of the city of Drogheda, praying for a Repeal of the Act of Union, through which they alleged that Ireland was suffering incalculable mischief, observed, that the petitioners referred to the total disregard shewn by the United Parliament to the local interests of Ireland, as a proof of their assertions. The Sub-letting Act, the Vestries' Act, the disfranchising of the 40s. freeholders were all passed in contempt of the local interests of that country. Jobs were encouraged, and grievances un-redressed. The colonies had local legislatures, but Ireland was governed by the English Parliament. He moved that the Petition be brought up.
Mr. Vanhomrigh,
as we understood, denied that the Petition expressed the sense of the influential portion of the inhabitants of Drogheda; and adverting to a petition presented the other evening, by Mr. O'Connell, respecting the abuses in the Charitable Foundations of Drogheda, which the hon. Gentleman had stated to be worth twenty thousand pounds a year, accusing the corporation of misappropriating funds to that amount, he declared, that the hon. Gentleman had come to erroneous conclusions from very ill-founded premises. He was distinctly authorized to deny the hon. Member's charge; he had inquired into the circumstances, and that charge was without foundation.
Sir C. Wetherell
thought, that a petition for the repeal of the Union with Ireland, mischievous and absurd as it was, seemed also so clearly an attack on the principles of the Constitution, of which that Union now formed a part, that he for one should
702
Sir M. W. Ridley
saw no objection to the Petition being received. There was no Parliamentary law which forbade it; and as to its prayer attacking the Constitution, they ought to recollect that they received petitions against the Parliament itself, which was also a part of the Constitution. The Union was an act of the Legislature, which the Legislature might repeal. He did not say that it would be prudent or politic to review that measure, but he protested against the doctrine that there was any law or practice which made the presentation of such a petition an impropriety.
Mr. Moore
, adverting to the petition presented by the hon. Member for Clare, from the City of Drogheda, on a former evening, said, he was instructed to say that the statements of the hon. Member respecting the Charitable Fund of the Corporation— taken, of course, from that petition—were wholly unfounded. The Corporation challenged inquiry, and was willing to submit to the most rigid investigation.
Mr. Lockhart
thought, the question respecting the repeal of the Union with Ireland of too much importance to be disposed of hastily; it involved the dismemberment of his Majesty's dominions, and therefore he should move, that the debate on the Petition be adjourned till Wednesday next.
Mr. Secretary Peel
confessed he did not feel much surprise at the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Lockhart). and the hon. Member for Plympton (Sir C. Wetherell) respecting the propriety of receiving a petition in support of a project so mad and so absurd—so utterly destructive of the prosperity of Ireland, and so much calculated to injure the integrity of the Empire—as that of a repeal of the Act of Union. He repeated, he was not surprised
703
Mr. O'Connell
was very sorry that the
704
l.
l.
705
Sir C. Wetherell
again declared, that a petition praying to dissolve the Union with Ireland was something little short of treason, and insisted that it should not be received. If the hon. Member for Clare thought the Act of Union should be repealed, let him move for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose, and he would see how the House would meet it. He thought he could guess its fate; but he objected now, on the threshold, to the reception of this petition, which was a sort of sidewind,—a subterraneous movement,—to do by a dark, insidious course what no hon. Member would have the hardihood to propose specifically.
Mr. Bernal
expressed an opinion, that the hon. Member for Plympton was mistaken in the judgment he pronounced with respect to the Petition. He saw no reason why the House should depart from its usual courtesy on that occasion: when any hon. Member brought forward a measure to dismember the Kingdom, it would be time enough to raise the voice of reprobation, or to move an act of impeachment.
The Attorney General
saw no objection to the Petition being received, although he condemned its object.
Mr. Hobhouse
was also in favour of its being received.
Mr. Trant
thought the people of Ireland should take care how they presented sectarian petitions of this kind, because it might happen that those who passed the measure of last Session for the relief of the Roman Catholics, would, from such petitions, see the necessity of repealing that Act, and excluding all Catholics from the House. It was time too for the Protestants of Ireland to think of moving for the repeal of
706
Sir J. Newport
said, that whatever might have been his opinion of the Union formerly, he was convinced that the repeal of the Act now would be productive of the most mischievous effects. It was his deliberate opinion, and he spoke it advisedly, than any attempt to cause its repeal now would be fraught with the destruction of Ireland, and the deep injury of England. He deprecated the remarks of the hon. Member, calculated as they were to interfere with that harmony and spirit of good feeling which he was delighted to find had so rapidly followed the passing of last year's beneficent measure. Ireland was now tranquillized and prosperous by the removal of all political disabilities, and it was most desirable that no subject of agitation should be introduced there. He hoped the House would receive the Petition, and put an end to that unavailing conversation.
Mr. Portman
was averse to the adjournment of the debate on a question which could not be considered important after what they had heard, but as the Petition was respectfully worded, he saw no objection to its being received.
Mr. Brownlow
observed, that if the feelings of the people of Ireland were really averse to the continuance of the Union, he was persuaded that those feelings could not be put down by the rejection of the present Petition; which would be the sure method of kindling a still stronger spirit of hostility in their minds. For his part, however, he did not think that the existence of such feelings was to be apprehended to any great extent. The interests of all classes in Ireland were so identified with the continuance of the Union, that he was satisfied that there was no general disposition to attack it, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Clare would abandon the wild speculation in which he had embarked on that subject, and would devote his talents to some better and more useful purpose.
Mr. Hume
said, he was one of those who wished to cement and strengthen the union between the two countries. At the same time he thought that feelings and opinions had been ascribed to his hon. and learned friend, the Member for Clare, without any just cause. As to the Petition, it appeared to him that to reject it
707
Mr. Secretary Peel
, in explanation, denied that he had ever contended against the right of the people to express their opinions on that or any other subject. On the contrary, he had contended for that right. But while he had admitted the right, he had also declared that he could not find language strong enough to express his reprobation of the doctrines which the petitioners maintained. With respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said of the separate legislatures of Jamaica, Halifax, and Canada, it must be remembered that, although they had separate legislatures, they were still parts of the United Kingdom. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Clare, if he knew anything of the names that were affixed to the Petition? They appeared to have been signed in a moment of conviviality rather than at a serious meeting of freeholders. For instance, there was the name of "Paddy Bray," followed by that of "Billy Powder Bray."
Mr. O'Connell
said, that those were the names of two of the registered freeholders of the town in which the meeting was held.
Mr. Lockhart
, yielding to what appeared to be the general feeling of the House, withdrew his amendment.
The Petition brought up and read.
Mr. O'Connell
, in moving that the Petition should lie on the Table, took the opportunity of refuting the charge that it was a Petition of a sectarian character, or concealed anything, or sought to attain by covert means, an object which the petitioners did not dare avow. He had not had anything to do with the formation of the Petition; it had been sent him by post, and he knew nothing of its existence till
708
Mr. Trant
said, he considered that the repeal of the Union would bestow the government of Ireland on the Roman Catholics.
IRISH TOBACCO.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in answer to a question from Sir John Newport, as to the intentions of his Majesty's Government to impose a duty on Tobacco in Ireland, said, that he had, on a former evening, stated that it was the intention of Government to place a duty on Tobacco grown in Ireland; and he had hoped that the bill on the subject would have been before the House at the present time; but delay had been occasioned in arranging the necessary details. He could assure the hon. Member that the parties interested were perfectly aware of the intention of Government to lay a duty on Irish Tobacco; for it had been expressed in a previous Session, when a bill for that purpose before the House was withdrawn. Since then, several applications had been made to Government to ascertain what it intended to do on the subject, and they had received for answer that it was the intention of Government to impose a duty on Irish Tobacco.
709
DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.]
Mr. Hume
, adverting to the question of the Deccan Prize Money, begged to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one' of the trustees for its distribution, in what state that property now was, as great anxiety existed on the part of many of the claimants to know when it was probable they would receive the remainder of their dividends.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that after the appointment of the trustees, they were anxious to begin the payments at as early a period as possible. Not being able, however, to get the prize lists without a reference to India, the consequence was, that their progress was impeded; and the first payment was not made until September, 1826. The sum of 230,000
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
710
FORGERY.]
Mr. Sec. Peel
, in presenting a Petition from the Society of Friends in Ireland, praying for a mitigation of the severity of the Criminal Code, and especially for the abolition of the punishment of Death for Forgery, said, although he could not himself consent to go the whole length of the prayer of the petitioners, he felt much pleased and flattered by their intrusting the petition to his care. He did not know any class of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland who were so exemplary in the discharge of all the duties and relations of life as those who were known by the name of Friends. There were none who exerted themselves more in the encouragement of local improvement, or who devoted themselves more earnestly to the relief of the distress by which they were surrounded.
Mr. Lennard
expressed his regret at hearing the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not prepared to go the whole length prayed for by the petitioners with respect to the punishment of forgery. He (Mr. Lennard) had last Session introduced a bill on the subject; and he now gave notice, that early after the Easter holidays he would again call the attention of the House to it.
Mr. Peel
, in explanation, said, that on Wednesday he would move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws respecting Forgery. By that bill it would be proposed to abolish the punishment of death for forgery, in many cases.
Mr. Lennard
replied, that he had then misconceived the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peel
rejoined, that all that he had meant to state was, that he was not prepared to acquiesce in the total abolition of the punishment of death for the crime of forgery.
The Petition read, and printed.
LAW REFORM.]
Mr. Peel
presented a message from his Majesty, which was read by the Speaker. It was to the following effect:—"His Majesty having taken into consideration the Report made to his
711
On the motion of Mr. Peel, an Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, thanking him for his most gracious Message, and assuring him that that House, would take it into their most serious consideration.
Mr. Peel
INDIA.]
Mr. Stuart Wortley
Mr. Hume
wished to take that opportunity to ask a question, to which he trusted some hon. Member present connected with the Board of Control would give a satisfactory answer. It had been stated in the public prints, that considerable alarm had been excited in India in consequence of orders which had been sent out by the Government here, forbidding Lord William Bentinck to give those facilities for settling and taking land which his Lordship had been so willing to afford, with a view to encourage and facilitate the settlement of Europeans in India. He (Mr. Hume) wished to know whether that statement was correct, and whether such orders had been transmitted to Lord Wm. Bentinck?
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he supposed the hon. Member referred to the statement which had appeared in the papers that morning, and in that case he could assure
712
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—GREECE.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee of Supply.
Lord John Russell
would take that opportunity to inquire whether the House might shortly expect to have laid before it the papers relative to the affairs of Greece, mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session.
Mr. Peel
was not prepared at the mo-
713
Lord John Russell
could not understand why these papers had not been in preparation before that time.
NUMBER OF ELECTORS.]
The Marquis of Blandford
inquired why certain returns for which he had formerly moved, to show the number of persons entitled to vote in the several cities, boroughs, and towns in the United Kingdom, had not been made out?
Mr. Peel
said, the case was simply this. An Address was moved to his Majesty last Session, at an early period in the evening, shortly before the House adjourned, that there should be laid before the House a return of the number of persons entitled to vote in the several Cities and Boroughs in Great Britain. The return called for was of the number of persons entitled to vote, and it was impossible to make such a return, for it would be a most dangerous practice to allow the returning officer to decide upon the number of persons entitled to vote in any particular borough or city. A return could be furnished certainly of the number of persons who had actually voted at the, last election.
Mr. Hume
could not see what difficulty there was in the way of the returning officer making a return of the numbers that had actually voted, taken from, the poll-books at the last election in each particular case.
Mr. Peel
wished to know what inference could be drawn from the number that had voted at the last election? Many instances might occur where there had been no contest at all, and where, therefore, no such return could be made out.
Mr. O' Connell
suggested that a distinction should be made between the returns as to counties and as to cities and boroughs. In the latter places the number of voters could be easily ascertained, as the persons qualified to vote possessed that right in consequence of being freemen or free burgesses, &c,
714
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it would be impossible to ascertain the number of scot and lot voters; and no return in that case, corresponding to the motion of the noble Lord could be made.
Lord Nugent
observed, that the return contemplated by the hon. Member for Aberdeen could not be made out correctly; for instance, as regarded the borough which he (Lord Nugent) represented. In 1818, 1,400 persons voted at the election in that borough; and since that period many who possessed the right to vote there had lost it, while the right to vote had been acquired since by others, who did not vote on that occasion.
The Marquis of Blandford
wished to know whether he was to understand that the motion which he had made upon a former occasion, and to which no opposition was then offered, could not be complied with?
Mr. Peel
observed, that it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would give notice in future when he introduced motions of that description. No opposition had then been offered to his motion, because no person was aware that he intended to bring it on.
Mr. Hume
was desirous to know what was the purpose for which it was proposed to go into committee on this evening? was it intended to vote the Ordnance Estimates, upon this occasion, in a Committee upon the Navy Estimates, and before the House was prepared to go into the Ordnance Estimates? He should certainly object to such a course of proceeding, though he should have no objection that a certain sum, which might be necessary to meet the present expenses of this department should be now taken upon account.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that a certain sum was necessary at present for the public service in this department. His hon. friend intended to take a vote upon account for 200,000
l.
COLONIAL EXPENDITURE.]
Lord Althorp
wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, relative to a matter adverted to in his speech the other evening. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into the expenditure of the colonies,
715
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was not intended that the Commission in question should at all meddle with the constitutions of the Colonies. The object of the commission was to make a thorough review in detail of the colonial expenditure, for the purpose of effecting as much saving in that way as would be consistent with the public service. The proceedings of the commissioners would be submitted after- wards to the consideration of the House, and it would be for the House then to determine how far their recommendations might be acted upon.
Mr. Hume
wished to know who were to be the commissioners, how they were to be paid, and where they were to sit, and how long they were to continue their investigations. It appeared by a return for which he had moved, that commissioners had already cost the country upwards of 1,000,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had already stated that this commission would be advantageous to the public, without imposing any new expense upon the country. It was to be composed of persons connected with the Government, and practically acquainted with the Colonies. No new expense whatever would attend the appointment of such a commission.
Sir R. Wilson
wished to know whether the inquiries of the commissioners would be extended to the Canadas?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Maberly
conceived that some reasons for the measure should have been laid before the House, before the commission had been appointed. He should also like to know if the materials on which the
716
Mr. Bright
was of opinion, that some new light should have been thrown upon the subject, before the appointment of the commission had taken place.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the mode which had been chosen had been selected as most advantageous and convenient. When the report of the commissioners should be presented, it would be in the power of the House to pronounce its opinion on the subject.
The Order of the Day was read and the House went into a Committee of Supply.
ORDNANCE.]
Mr. Perceval
moved that the sum of 200,000
l.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
Sir George Clerk
, in proceeding with the remaining Navy Estimates, said, that the first vote he had to propose regarded the civil departments connected with the Navy, comprising the Admiralty, Navy-pay Office, Victualling Office, &c. In this Estimate a reduction to the amount of 1,710
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
objected to the taking of all these votes together. They should be i taken separately. He submitted that the first vote, that of 52,216
l.
s.
d.
Lord Howick
agreed with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and could not but censure the practice of voting in one lump the expense of five different departments. Different Members might object to different portions of these expenses; for example,
717
Sir G. Clerk
said, if it were considered more convenient for the Committee, he would propose the votes separately. The hon. Baronet then moved that the sum of 52,216
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
wished to call the attention of the House to a portion of this Estimate which had been incidentally mentioned a few nights ago; he meant the sum of 2,960
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
718
l.
l.
l.
719
Mr. Croker
said, the hon. Member had observed, that the office of Paymaster of the Marines was expensive and unnecessary; the first it confessedly was; but as to the second, it appeared from the hon. Gentleman's own admission, that these duties which, he contended, might be transferred to another department, were numerous and important. Now, his strong impression was, that there could be no more sure way of creating confusion in the public service, and imposing on the country an increased expense, than that of uniting the Marine barrack department with the Ordnance. The Paymaster of the Marines did a great deal of duty in his double capacity; for he was not only a Pay-officer, but an officer of inspection and control: he was Paymaster and Inspector-general of the Marines. Now, the hon. Member, in the first place, asked why the Marine barracks were not brought under the superintendence of the Board of Ordnance. But, in fact, there was an essential difference between the management of the Army barracks and those for Marines. In the first, there was a constant change of inmates: one regiment marched out—another supplied its place; but the other barracks were constantly occupied by Marines, and therefore the accounts must necessarily be kept in a very different manner. The attention of the House had been called to the state of these barracks at different times; and, he believed, it must be admitted on all hands, that the expenditure, under the superintendence of the Paymaster of Marines, had been diminished in as great a degree as it could have been under any other Administration. The numbers in the barracks were invariably the same, and the average amount of expenditure for the seven years previous to the appointment of the Paymaster was 16,800
l.
l.
l.
l.
720
l.
l.
l.
l.
721
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty might have urged all his present arguments against the former consolidation of the Barrack Department with the Board of Ordnance, which had been found so beneficial. Indeed no measure of economy was ever recommended which did not find Gentlemen to oppose it, in speeches similar to that the House had just heard, sitting on the Treasury benches. It was their business to persuade the House that reductions would not benefit the nation. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not only an answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, it went to contradict the Treasury Minute of 1822, by which the consolidation of offices was recommended, its utility explained, and its applicability to all departments enforced. He was convinced that if this speech were written out, and so subjected to the examination of the Committee, that they would see reason to decide that it contained more sophistry than solid reasoning. Unless the House were to resist such sophistry, and say once for all, you must reduce your expenditure, we will give you no more than a certain sum—he was afraid no extensive reduction would ever take place. Before he gave his opinion upon totally abolishing the office, he wished to say that the present Paymaster of the Marines, whose merits he had admitted, had certainly made several reductions in his department, but this by no means proved those reductions to be sufficient. With all that Gentleman's zeal and ability, however, the reductions he was capable of making would not satisfy the public. After considering the matter well, he was convinced that the office might be done away. There were two sets of officers to two sets of barracks, and two sets of hospitals and two sets of accounts, one set of each being unnecessary. The Finance Committee was convinced that no part of the management of the public money required more immediate revision, for the present system gave no security, while it was confused and complicated. In his opinion all payments whatever should be made by a distinct department,
722
Mr. Maberly
said, the question to be decided was, if that office were necessary. He contended that it was not. The Pay-office of the Navy might pay the 10,000 marines in addition to the 19,000 seamen; and the duties of inspection might be performed by the General, Lieutenant-general, Major-general, or some of the other officers of the Marines who were so highly paid. He was convinced that this department was of no advantage to the public, and that its duties might be quite as well discharged, and at less expense, if they were arranged in the manner he had proposed. With respect to the Marine barracks, and the clothing for the marines, both these departments ought to be, he thought, transferred to the Ordnance, which already provided the clothing and stores for the artillery, and had the general inspection of barracks. He felt so strongly concerning the manner in which these matters were now arranged, that he was almost disposed to call the arrangement by the odious name of a job; the whole of the expenses, both for paying the marines and separate inspection of their barracks, being, in his opinion, wholly unnecessary.
Sir G. Clerk
defended the propriety of the arrangements now made in the department, and contended that no alteration of the sort proposed could be anything but injurious. In his opinion, the department, as it was now constituted, was most economically managed, and considering what its duties were, he did not think that the sum of 3,000
l.
723
Lord Howick
observed, that the opposition made to the Amendment was founded on the assertion of the great labour imposed upon the Paymaster of the Marines, in discharge of that part of his duty which consisted of inspecting the marines when on shore. He could not think that objection well founded, or, if it were, it might, as it seemed to him, be easily removed. When at sea, the marines were under the same discipline and regulations as the navy. He could not understand why, when the marines were on shore at different parts of the kingdom, but especially at Portsmouth, where the greater part of the duty was performed, the inspecting officer of the neighbouring garrison could not perform the duty of inspecting the marine corps and the marine barracks. If that were done, and he saw no possible objection to it, the great point on which the defence of the office was now rested would be removed. He trusted that the hon. Member for Aberdeen would either move a resolution to consolidate the offices now, or one which should pledge the House to adopt some step of that kind in the early part of the next Session.
Mr. Hume
said, that his object was, to reduce the grant by one-half, and he proposed a vote which would have the effect of producing that end now, if at all. As to any resolution that pledged the House
724
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Portman
did not intend to trouble the House at any length, but could not refrain from saying that these offices were defended in a manner in which there was more of fallacy and sophistry than he had ever before heard, and which depended on those old and worn-out excuses that might be brought forward in support of any kind of abuse. He thought it necessary that the Committee should express their opinion strongly on the subject, for if not, the Government would not come down as they ought to do next Session, and make the further reductions which were yet absolutely required. He called, therefore, on the Committee to mark their sense of this vote, and in that manner to strengthen that portion of the Government which was really favourable to the reduction of the public burthens.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
protested against the doctrine which some Members seemed inclined to inculcate, that any particular vote of which they happened to disapprove showed the Government not to be sincere in their wish to diminish the public burthens. The question was, whether the business of the office now under discussion could be more
725
Lord Althorp
could not conceive how the proposed distribution of duties could complicate the business of the office, when it was recollected that at this moment the Paymaster of Marines was a Military Paymaster, an Inspector of Marines, and a contractor for their clothing, all at the same time, and that the alteration suggested was, to divide these "complicated duties" among different departments. He should vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Bright
should support the Amendment, for he saw no reason for keeping up such an expensive establishment for the superintendence of only 9,000 men.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—For the Amendment 90; Against it 130; Majority 40.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Clive, E. B.
Anson, hon. G.
Davies, Colonel
Bankes, H.
Denison, J. E.
Baring, Sir T.
Dickinson, W.
Baring, F.
Dick, H.
Benett, J.
Duncombe, T.
Bernal, R.
Dundas, Sir R.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Dundas, hon. T.
Blake, Sir F.
Euston, Lord
Blandford, Marquis
Fane, J.
Bright, H.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Brownlow, C.
Fyler, T. B.
Buck, L. W.
Gordon, R.
Buxton, J. J.
Guest, J. J.
Calthorpe, hon. A.
Guise, Sir W.
Carter, J.
Harvey, D. W.
Cavendish, H.
Heneage, G. F.
Cavendish W.
Heron, Sir R.
Cholmeley, M. I.
Hobhouse, J. C.
726
Howick, Lord
Power, R.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Price, Sir R.
Killeen, Lord
Protheroe, E.
Labouchere, H.
Pryse, P.
Lambert, T.
Hamsden, J. C.
Lennard, T.
Robinson, G. R.
Lester, B.
Russell, Lord J.
Lloyd, Sir E. P.
Scott, hon. W. H. J.
Lumley, S.
Seymour, Colonel
Martin, J.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Maberley, J.
Smith, V.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Stanley, Lord
Marjoribanks, S.
Townshend, Lord C.
Mildmay, P.
Trant, W. H.
Monck, J. B.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Nugent, Lord
Waithman, Alderman
O'Connell, D.
Warburton, H.
O'Grady, Colonel
Webb, Colonel
Osborne, Lord F.
Wells, J.
Orde, W.
Wilson, Sir R.
Painell, Sir H.
Winnington, Sir T.
Peachey, General
Whilbread, W. H.
Phillimore, Dr.
Whitmore, W. W.
Philips, G.
Wood, C.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
TELLER.
Portman, E. B.
Hume, J.
On putting the Motion on the original Question,
Mr. Hume
inquired to what purpose the grants for nautical inquiries had been applied?
Sir G. Clerk
replied, that the principal expense under this head was caused by the experiments made under the control and direction of Sir G. Brisbane.
Mr. Portman
said, he had had the intention of taking the sense of the House upon making certain deductions from the salaries of Officers in the Admiralty. His plan would be, to effect a deduction of fifteen per cent from the salaries of the higher officers, ten per cent from those of a lower class, and five per cent from the lowest. He thought it fair that those officers should not be the only persons to escape the effects of the change which had taken place in the currency; but as it was the intention of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, to bring that subject under the notice of the House, he was induced to postpone the proposition for the present.
Vote agreed to.
Sir George Clerk
then moved, that 32,033
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Vernon Smith
addressed the Committee for the purpose of moving an Amendment. He was then anxious to do so, as
727
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir George Warrender
, though he wished to see economy, could not consent to the proposed reduction. The office of Treasurer of the Navy had always been held by a person of respectability, and it was important for the service of the country that it should so continue to be held. The Finance Committee of 1817 had re-
728
Mr. Bankes
would support reduction, but not exactly in the form in which it was then proposed to the House. But for the Amendment before the Committee, he intended to have moved an amendment, the object of which would have been to carry into effect the purpose of the motion made a few evenings since by the hon. Member for Cumberland. The Government had admitted the office of Paymaster-general to be useless. He therefore wished to try the sincerity of their professions of economy by seeing whether they would consent to its abolition, and his amendment would have been, had he preceded the hon. Member, to abolish the salary of the Paymaster. It was necessary to ascertain whether offices were intended for the benefit of the public, or the advantage of the individuals who held them. The true way for his Majesty's Government to prove the sincerity of their professions with respect
729
Mr. Labouchere
concurred with the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, and stated that he would not vote against the ministry as to the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because such a vote would have implied a censure on the Administration.
Mr. C. Wood
said, he had voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Cumberland, for abolishing the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because he thought the Government might have made a more economical arrangement, and that it was the business of the House to compel Ministers to adopt such an arrangement. It appeared by the statements of the hon. Members opposite, that two offices were kept up while one was sufficient, and while the Paymaster, according to the admission of the Secretary to the Admiralty, did the whole business both of Treasurer and Paymaster. To him therefore it was extraordinary that the efficient office should be abolished and the inefficient retained. The responsibility of the Treasurer had been dwelt on, but in fact, when put to the proof, that turned out to be no responsibility at all. The office of Treasurer of the Navy was plainly therefore a sinecure. It had been stated too, that the Treasurer might not only do the duties of his office and attend in Parliament, but also that he had time to look after what had been called the floating and unattached business of the Government. What then was the saving proposed by the abolition of the office of Paymaster? The Treasurer received a salary of 2,000
l.
l.
Sir G. Clerk
said that was not the case.
Mr. C. Wood
, in continuation. Well,
730
l.
l.
Sir George Clerk
said, that each of the Members who opposed the vote, did it on different grounds, though only the hon. Member who spoke last advocated the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy. He had been already answered by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Warrender). As to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, he must reply, that it had been regulated that the Treasurer of the Navy was to be made an efficient officer, and the paymastership put an end to, as soon as the meritorious officer who now held that place could be provided for. The present grant, as proposed, was only for six months; and it was the firm intention of Government to provide for the gallant officer who held the place in some other way as soon as possible.
Mr. Bankes
said, that he understood the Government, on the previous debate on this subject, to have pledged itself that the office of Paymaster should be immediately got rid of.
Sir G. Clerk
said, no such pledge had been given by him, or with his knowledge. He always understood that it rested upon the contingency of Government being able to find some other suitable office for the present occupier. What he had then stated was, that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000
l.
l.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
agreed entirely in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and would certainly vote with him on the present occasion. He, for one,
731
Mr. F. Baring
said, that the only argument he had heard in favour of the vote was, that the services of the gentleman who held the office of Paymaster had been active and efficient, and that it was the duty of the Government to retain him in that situation till he could be otherwise provided for. To that argument he could never agree. He had lately observed, that seventy seamen, who held trifling situations on board ships at Portsmouth, had been discharged, and he should be glad to know whether Ministers had waited until these brave men, who had fought and bled in the service of their country, were provided for, before they were sent adrift? At another place one hundred and twenty men were dismissed with a very short notice. He had, a few days before, received an account of thirty families thrown out of the employment of Government, without any notice or provision whatever. He knew no individuals who had such claims on the rewards of the country, as these seamen, who were often compelled to enter its service. It would be most unjust therefore if Ministers kept a single officer in employ for an hour more than he was wanted, while they discharged these poor seamen, and left them to starve, unprovided and unpensioned. Their services had not been limited to the Victualling or the Navy office; their duties had led them under tropical suns and amidst the ice of the poles; they had braved storms and battles, and if they were to be turned off, while a ministerial office was to be kept up to reward the services of some man who had at most never braved any other storm than that of a debate, the people might with justice cry out against the Government and the Parliament. It appeared, indeed, that while these men, who had actively served their country, might be sent to the parish for relief, one of his Majesty's servants must be made a burthen to the public, till a pension could be found to suit him. After this, let them hear no more about a desire to relieve a suffering people. After this, let there be nothing said about plans of retrenchment and economy.
Sir George Clerk
said, if the hon. Member had but looked a few pages further in
732
Mr. Maberly
said, that it appeared on all hands that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was a sinecure; and yet it was the sinecure officer that was to be preserved, and the other that was to be dismissed. The proper mode of acting was to get rid of the sinecure, and give the man who did the business an ample remuneration. This scheme of the Government was very like its other schemes which promised economy: as for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a saving in the Victualling-office; but the fact was, that there had been an increase of nearly 200
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Peel
observed, that out of the five speeches that had been made against the item, four of them contained different and distinct propositions as to the two offices. This was of itself sufficient to prove that it was a matter of extreme difficulty for his Majesty's Ministers to bring forward a proposition with respect to this situation that was at all likely to produce unanimity. He denied that there was any difference in the language held by Ministers on the present, and on the former occasion. They asserted that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000
l.
l.
733
Lord Howick
said, that he took a similar view of the subject to that taken by the hon. Member for Abingdon. The sum, it must be admitted, was small; but economy was not for him the most important consideration. The House had then in its power to remove one dependant on the Government from the House, and as there was already more than a sufficient number of members of Government in the House, to get rid of one would be a constitutional benefit. The effect of agreeing, to the vote would be, to confirm the Treasurer of the Navy a political officer, dependent upon the continuance of Ministers in their places, for his situation in that House. He did not so much regard the expense as the influence, and he should willingly vote for the total abolition of the office.
Mr. Trant
supported the Amendment, in order to compel Ministers to immediate economy.
734
Mr. D. W. Harvey
called upon the Member for Radnor to put an end to the debate, by stating whether he were willing to hold the office of Honorary Treasurer of the Navy until the Paymaster of the Navy was otherwise provided? If he would do that, the vote would be unnecessary.
Mr. F. Lewis
observed, that he had no wish to accept of the office as a sinecure. He would rather have an office full of business. The hon. Member asked, whether he would consent to perform the duties of the office without salary? That was a question on which he as an individual could not decide. It was for the House, and not for him, to decide how the duties were to be performed, and how the person performing them was to be remunerated.
Mr. Hume
hoped that the House would not consent to any compromise, but decide the question upon principle. He did not see in what respect the King could be said to want patronage, or how he could use it to save the public purse. [
Order
Mr. Peel
lamented that his argument had not penetrated the understanding of the hon. Member, who must be extremely pugnacious if he were disposed to quarrel with the very modest proposal of Ministers. The experiment he wished to try was, whether the office of Deputy could not be abolished—the principal being required to discharge the duties. If it should turn out that the experiment failed, he would undertake that in the estimates of next year only 2,000
l.
Mr. V. Smith
said, that having elicited this information from the right hon. Secretary, he should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The Committee then divided on the original Question, when there appeared for the original Motion 155; against it 69; Majority 86.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Blandford, Marquis
Beaumont, T.
Baring, F.
Bright, H.
Blake, Sir F.
Benett, J.
Buck, L.W.
735
Cavendish, W.
Monck, J. B.
Cavendish, H.
Maberly, J.
Carter, J.
Maberly, Col.
Cholmeley, M.
Portman, E. B.
Calvert, C.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Dick, H.
Parnell, Sir H.
Davies, Colonel
Poyntz, W. S.
Dundas, T.
Ramsden, J.
Dundas, Sir R.
Robinson, Sir G.
Denison, J. E.
Rumbold, C. E.
Dickinson, W.
Robarts, A. W.
Euston, Lord
Rowley, Sir W.
Fyler, T.
Stanley, Lord
Gordon, R.
Scott, W.
Guest, J. J.
Smith, V.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Smith, R.
Heneage, G. F.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Harvey, D. W.
Townshend, Lord C.
Howick, Lord
Uxbridge, Lord
Jephson, C. D. O.
Whitbread, W.
Kerr, T. R.
Warburton, H.
Lamb, hon. G.
Winnington, Sir T.
Lloyd, Sir G.
Waithman, Alderman
Lennard, Thos. B.
Ward, C.
Lambert, J. S.
TELLER.
Martin, J.
Hume, J.
Mr. Hume
said, he saw a charge in the Estimates of 425
l.
Mr. F. Lewis
said, that it was found the most economical to send part of the money for the payment of the navy to the outports. He would take that opportunity of stating that he was aware of the recommendation on this subject contained in the pamphlet of the hon. Bart. (Sir H. Parnell). But the statement that half a million sterling was sent to the different out-ports by such means was an error. A sum not exceeding 20,000
l.
l.
736
transitu.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the Committee had been given to understand that the system of sending money to the out-ports was by covered waggons, provided with a guard, and therefore he supposed that the system described by his hon. friend must be a very modern improvement. He believed that even the present method was not the most economical, for Ireland was provided with silver money without the expense of conductors and military guards.
Mr. Hume
contended that the bankers at the outports would supply the money that was wanted. The hon. Member read several extracts from the evidence given before the Finance Committee, to shew that Sir H. Parnell was warranted in believing that money was transmitted in large sums to the out-ports. The same evidence also shewed that the Paymasters of Marines could get silver from bankers at the out-ports, without any expense, and he did not know therefore why the Navy Pay Office could not do the same.
Mr. F. Lewis
would undertake to examine the subject, and if he could find better means of conveying the money than that now employed he would adopt it.
Sir M. White Ridley
was disposed to give his hon. friend credit for his exertions; but he believed that the bankers at the out-ports must conduct their business on different principles from other bankers, if they could not advance what money would be required.
Mr. Hume
expressed himself satisfied with the declaration of the hon. Gentleman.
The Chairman was ordered to report progress; the House resumed; the report to be received on Tuesday.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, March 23, 1830
MINUTES.] The Commons were summoned to hear the Royal assent given by commission to several public and
737
Petitions presented:—By the Marquis of HERTFORD from Alcester, praying for the repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties:—By Lord WALLACE, from certain owners of Lead-Mines in Cumberland, praying for a protection against the introduction of Foreign Lead:—By Earl STANHOPE, from a Hundred in Suffolk, complaining of Distress, praying that an inquiry might be instituted into its cause; praying also for a reduction of Taxation, and for a repeal of the measures respecting the prevention of a Small Paper Currency:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the inhabitants of Rochdale, praying for a revision of the Criminal Law, with the view of taking away the Punishment of Death from all offences against property:—And by Lord CARRINGTON, from High-Wycombe, with a similar prayer.
AFFAIR AT TERCEIRA.]
The Marquis of Clanricarde
said, that in rising to introduce the Motion on which he had given notice, he felt how inadequate his powers were, to bring it forward in that manner which its importance deserved; perceiving, however, the vast consequences of the principle involved in the course of policy to which he objected, and fearful, if passed over in silence, that what had been done at Terceira should be drawn into a precedent, he thought he should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he did not bring it under their Lordships' consideration. The papers which had been laid before the House by the noble Secretary opposite, did not contain, in his opinion, information as ample as the House had a right to expect on this important subject. There was one document in particular, the absence of which he regretted,—he meant the protest of Count Saldanha, against the attack made on the vessels sailing to Terceira, by Captain Walpole,—because he knew that the principle for which he contended was there very fully and very ably laid down. There was, however, in the documents before the House sufficient information on the affair to warrant him in bringing it under the consideration of their Lordships. Before he proceeded further, he would read the Resolutions which he intended to submit for the adoption of their Lordships. The noble Lord then read the following Resolutions,
"That prior to the 12th of December, 1828, her Majesty the Queen, Donna Maria 2nd, had been recognized by his Majesty, and the other great Powers of Europe, to be the legitimate Queen of Portugal; and that at the period above-named the said Queen was residing in this country, and had been received by his Majesty with the accustomed honours of her royal rank.
"That on the said 12th of December, the Island of Terceira, part of the dominions of
738
"That on the said 12th of December, instructions were given by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, stating that a considerable number of Portuguese soldiers and other foreigners were about to sail in transports from Plymouth to Falmouth, and it is supposed they intend making an attack on Terceira or other of the Western Isles, and his Majesty having been pleased to command that a Naval force should be immediately despatched to interrupt any such attempt, you are hereby required and directed to take the ship and sloop named in the margin under your command, and to proceed with all practicable expedition to Terceira, and having ascertained that you have succeeded in reaching that Island before the transports above alluded to, you will remain yourself at Angra or Praia, or cruising close to the Island in the most advisable position for interrupting any vessels arriving off it; and you will detach the other ships as you shall deem best for preventing the aforesaid force from reaching any of the other Islands.
"That on the arrival of the Naval force sent to Terceira, in pursnance of the instructions, the commanding officer found that Island in the possession of, and governed by, the authorities above mentioned.
"That in the beginning of January, 1829, a number of Portuguese subjects or soldiers of her said Majesty, voluntarily left this country with a view of repairing to the said Island, and that their departure and destination were known to her Majesty's Government, that they appear to have embarked and sailed in unarmed merchant ships, to have been unaccompanied by any naval force, and themselves without any arms or ammunition of war.
"That these unarmed merchant ships and passengers were prevented by his Majesty's naval forces, sent for the purpose, from entering the harbour of Porto Praia; and that after they had been fired into, and blood had been spilled, they were compelled, under the threat of the further use of force, again to proceed to sea, and warned to 'quit the neighbourhood of Terceira, and the rest of the Azores, but that they might proceed wherever else they might think proper.'
"That the use of force in intercepting these unarmed vessels, and preventing them from anchoring and landing their passengers in the harbour of Porto Praia, was a violation of the sovereignty of that state to which the Island of Terceira belonged; and that the further interference to 'compel these merchant ships or transports to quit the neighbourhood of the Azores,' was an assumption of jurisdiction upon the high seas, neither justified by the necessity of the case, nor sanctioned by the general law of nations."
739
740
Hear hear," from the Duke of Welton.
741
"It is not possible, then, without injustice, to enter its territory in arms to pursue and capture a guilty person. Such an act affects the safety of a state, and is injurious to the rights of sovereignty or supreme authority, which belong to monarchs. This is what is termed a violation of territory, and nothing is more generally recognized among nations than this, as an injury that should be repelled with vigour by any state that will not submit to oppression."
"
Nulla siquidem sit ratio, cur mare, quod in alicujus imperio est et potcstate minus ejusdem esse dicamus, quam possum in ejus territorio."
"Non oportet in mari, allerius principis continenti proximo, leges dare, sed accipere, quum ibi sumus subditi, non seats ac in ejusdem territorio."
742
743
Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis.
744
The Resolutions having been put by the Lord Chancellor,
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that although their Lordships had been three or four times already called upon to discuss this question, yet he felt perfectly well satisfied that the noble Lord had thought proper to bring it once more under their consideration; for he was well convinced that the more the subject was examined and understood, the greater would be the certainty of their Lordships giving their sanction to the course which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted. The noble Lord had proposed a series of resolutions which, as he had heard them that night for the first time, it could not be supposed that he was prepared to discuss minutely. Some truth there doubtless was in the narrative contained in the noble Lord's resolutions; but it was dashed with circumstances well calculated to give any one who read it a very erroneous notion of the transaction. The subject was indeed highly important; but their Lordships should view it candidly and dispassionately: it was even a subject, he would say, on which their Lordships should rather distrust first impressions; and moreover, the character of the trans-
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
The Earl of Radnor
said, that he had been listening very attentively to the speech of the noble Secretary, in order to obtain some information on this subject, but that he found that speech to be no answer at all to the points that had been brought forward by the noble Lord near him. The noble secretary's speech had been an account of what had been done, but of nothing else. The reception of the Portuguese troops at Plymouth he admitted to have been a breach of neutrality, but was that any justification of the other breach of neutrality which had been committed by following them upon the high seas, and preventing them from landing at Terceira? Certainly not; unless it was meant to be argued that as the Government had broken the neutrality on the one side, it was a proof of their impartiality to break it on the other. No answer, he contended, had been given to the arguments of the noble Lord near him on that part of the case. The noble Secretary could not mean to say that the misdeeds of the Marquis Itabayana, who had committed the fraud, were to be visited on the heads of these unfortunate refugees. That fraud might have justified remonstrance to the Court of Brazil, but it ought not to have regulated the conduct of Government with regard to the refugees. Again, as to the false clearances: that transaction might have been very wrong, and might have justified our stopping the troops in our own ports, but it did not give us a right to pursue them across the Atlantic, and then fire into their ships. Then the noble Secretary attempted to justify the conduct of Government, by alluding to the transaction of 1826. Those Portuguese, however, were deserters; they left Portugal and retired to Spain, without arms; but they returned with arms, and with the actual support of Spain. But supposing the two cases to have been similar and parallel, would Spain, upon
752
The Marquis of Clanricarde
said, that he had at least the consolation, should his motion be negatived, of knowing that it was so on grounds which could not be generally satisfactory. The noble Earl had alluded to the case of neutrality only, and that in a very incomplete manner. As for the possession of Terceira, it was clear that the government of that island was in the hands of Donna Maria, and was exercised in her name. The comparison drawn by the noble Earl between this case and Spain did not hold good; for it was a fair ground of war against Spain, that she harboured Portuguese deserters and sent them back armed to annoy Portugal. On that occasion we interfered to preserve the peace of Europe. We
753
Lord Holland
should not have ventured to trouble the House with any observations on the subject, but after the manner in which it had been treated, he could not allow it to go to a vote without expressing his surprise at the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. When this unfortunate and painful subject first came before the House, the Government appeared to be panting and longing for an opportunity to give an explanation of the whole of their conduct; yet now, neither in the speech of the noble Earl, nor in the defence put before the House, on which the Government rested its case, was one word said directly or indirectly on that branch of the subject which formed the principal ground of the Motion of his noble friend below him. It had been the custom when the affairs of Portugal were introduced in that House, to elude the question, by professing an unbounded love of peace, a strict and austere adherence to the terms of our conventions with other countries, and a most unbounded respect for the opinion of the people in them. In had been found, for instance, in the present case, that in the unanimous opinion of the people of Portugal (by what magic the noble Earl had taken the exact poll of the people of Portugal it was hard to say), the Government of Don Miguel was preferred to the charter accorded by Don Pedro. The noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government sometimes shewed that he understood the tactics of debate as well as he did those of the field. He had spoken on these questions several times, and although he had said little to elucidate the subject referred to, he had obtained one great advantage, he had contrived to impress the public with the belief that those who found fault with his Majesty's Government were in fact doing nothing more than urging an unnecessary interference in the affairs of another country, and prompting this Government to impose by its will upon another people a Government which they disliked. He would notice that part of the subject more particularly before he sat down. But with respect to those professions to which he had before alluded, he could not help saying, that when they were made he could not think
754
755
756
757
de facto
758
759
The Duke of Wellington.
760
761
762
dignus vindice nodus.
763
764
765
766
The Duke of Wellington
observed, however anxious he might have been that noble Lords should have an opportunity of discussing the affair of Terceira, that had certainly been afforded them, both in this and the last Session of Parliament. That was he believed the fourth time it had been under discussion, and he conceived that every objection which had been introduced had been plainly and satisfactorily answered; but he must say, that a more extraordinary mode of bringing forward the discussion than that which had been resorted to on this occasion had never occurred in any instance whatsoever. The noble Lords who supported this Motion, after admitting that this country had a right to remain neutral,—after admitting that Great Britain had a fair and just right to remain neutral, or to adopt either of the two courses which were open to her with respect to these contending parties,— those noble Lords now stood forward and certainly did pronounce the most severe and the most uncalled-for invectives against his Majesty's Ministers, for pursuing that line of conduct to which they had thought proper to adhere. He would assert, that
767
768
769
770
771
de facto
772
Lord Goderich
said, the noble Lord opposite had complained that the present was now the third or fourth time when this subject had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships; and he seemed to urge that as a reason for not acceding to the Motion. Now, he could not help feeling, when he considered the circumstances in which their Lordships were placed with respect to this question, that those circumstances justified his noble friend in again expressing his opinion. At the close of the last Session of Parliament, his Majesty was advised to lay before their Lordships certain papers explanatory of the course which his Majesty had been counselled to pursue. At that time his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, challenged inquiry on this subject; but it was then totally impossible for any noble Lord to stir one step in the business, because Parliament rose, he believed, the day after those papers were produced. In the next Session, the question of Portugal formed part of the matter contained in his Majesty's Speech, and when the Address was moved, the subject of Terceira was noticed as a matter of great importance in itself, but of still greater importance when viewed in reference to our communications with Portugal. But what said the noble Duke on that occasion? He made it a matter of complaint that, the subject was brought forward on the first night of the Session, when he had not had time to refresh his memory. It was, therefore, unreasonable for him to object to the Question now, when it was introduced as a substantive Motion. The time which had elapsed might perhaps have lessened the interest attached to the subject; but certainly it did appear to him that nothing could be more reasonable or proper, when his Majesty's advisers had laid before Parliament their views on a certain question, than for any noble Lord to bring that question under
773
774
The Duke of Wellington
.— I said, it would have been just as well if I had not used it. I did not say unfortunate.
Lord Goderich
.—Well, that was sufficient for his argument. It did appear to him that the whole proceeding was hasty, inconsiderate, and irregular. And, in his opinion, it arose from the manner in which that correspondence was conducted. They were told to go away from this country as individuals, but they were never told how or in what manner they were to go. They went away in British ships, and were exposed to consequences by the British Government to which they ought not to have been liable. But their Lordships were told, that the course taken with respect to the Portuguese who had escaped to Spain, was the same which Ministers had adopted in this case. It was true the troops were sent back by Spain, but they were armed first and, he believed that they were armed by the Captains-general in Salamanca and Ciudad Rodrigo. Thus, then, a
casus fœderis
775
The Lord Chancellor
expressed his anxious desire to say a few words on this subject. He was perfectly ready, after all the attacks which had been made, to declare his responsibility for the advice which he had given with respect to the matter in question. He would state to their Lordships, as shortly as possible, the grounds on which he had given his advice,—which, as it appeared to him, was perfectly proper. So far from the conduct of Ministers being blameable, he thought that if they had taken a different course they would have been subject to the just censure of the country. One noble. Lord, who spoke early on the Question, wished to confine it to what the noble Baron called the last catastrophe; but the noble Baron thought it was better to take a wider range, and he availed himself of that privilege to a most extensive degree, for very little of his speech was restricted to that point. The noble Lord having confined himself so little to this portion of the subject,
776
777
778
Lord Holland
, in explanation, said, that his motive for not alluding more at length to the point adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, did not arise from any feeling of its weakness or want of importance. The noble Duke had charged him with having omitted the point of notice. He did not intend to have done so. But he would now trespass on their Lordships' indulgence to say a few words in answer to that point. He would suppose that the noble Duke, instead of prosecuting Mr. Alexander, had given him notice, that if he should write another inflammatory article he would give him a drubbing, and that upon Alexander writing such an article he had given him a drubbing: would the noble Duke have been justified in thus taking the law into his own hands? It appeared to him that the two cases were not very dissimilar
The Lord Chancellor
said, that in the Terceira case the parties had professed to submit to the wishes of our Government, and therefore had no right to complain of the consequences resulting from their breach of faith.
779
The Earl of Carnarvon
denied that the Marquis of Palmella had given any distinct pledge that the troops should go to the Brazils, and not to Terceira. On the contrary, it appeared that the Marquis had acted throughout with perfect candour and good faith. Their Lordships were told that this country was entitled to maintain its principle of neutrality, and to exact attention to it on the part of those who had found an asylum here. That was the case while they were in this country; but that principle gave us no right to make a hostile attack on these unfortunate people for the purpose of driving them from their own shores. When they had got to those shores they were entirely out of our jurisdiction. But it was said, that they had sent arms before them, which were ready to be put into their hands when they arrived in the island. Was it clear that such was the fact? Certainly he found no satisfactory evidence of it. The noble Duke feared to keep them here as a body. That was rather an extraordinary fear on the part of the noble Duke; but it appeared that he feared as much to allow them to go hence as a body. The noble Duke wanted them to disperse; but they preferred, naturally, to leave the country; for, if they should be dispersed, they must starve, as the subscriptions would then, probably, cease, and their subsistence depended on their remaining as a body. The real question had been always blinked by the Ministers; which was not whether they had a right to expel the refugees from our own ports, but whether they had a right to pursue them from one quarter of the globe to another. While hero, Ministers might have a right to control their proceedings and motions; but what had that to do with the act of driving them, by a hostile attack, from their own shores? That was the point in which the Ministers had violated the law of nations. Well, but, said the Ministers, perhaps we did act contrary to the law of nations, but then we had a right to do so, since they violated their promise. He did not think that they had violated their promise; but if they had, that gave the Ministers no right to violate the law of nations. Suppose they had violated their promise, were they the only one of the two parties who had done so? Was there not a much more grievous violation of promise on the part of Miguel? He was one of those who
780
The Duke of Wellington
explained, that he was apprehensive of the consequences, in case the troops had refused to obey the order to disperse; and therefore had felt a disinclination to issue such an order: with respect to what had fallen from the noble Baron as to the notice, he must say, that he had twice given them notice that they must not go to Terceira.
Their Lordships then divided, and the numbers were—Content, present 21; proxies 10; total 31. Not-content, present 61; proxies 65; total 126. Majority 95.
Against this decision the following Protest was subsequently entered on their Lordships' journals:
PROTEST—TERCEIRA.
—" Because the forcible detention or interruption of the subjects of a belligerent state, upon the high seas, or within the legitimate jurisdiction of either of the belligerents, by a neutral, constitutes a direct breach of neutrality, and is an obvious violation of the law of nations. And such an act of aggression, illegal and unjust at all times against a people with whom the interfering power is not actually at war, assumed in this instance a yet more odious and ungenerous aspect, inasmuch as it was exercised against the unarmed subjects of a defenceless and friendly Sovereign, whose elevation and right to the Crown of Portugal had been earnestly recommended and openly recognized by his Majesty, and whose actual residence in Great Britain bespeaking confidence in the friendship and protection of the King, entitled both her and her subjects to especial favour and countenance, even if considerations of
781
VASSALL HOLLAND.
COWPER.
SOMERHILL.
MELBOURNE.
CARLISLE.
SEAFORD.
GRANVILLE.
KING.
WM. FREDERICK.
CALTHORPE.
RADNOR.
CARNARVON.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, March 23, 1830.
MINUTES.] Lord FRANCIS LEVESON GOWER brought in a Bill to continue for a time, to be limited, the several Acts for the encouragement and improvement of British and Irish Fisheries. Read a first time.
[The Act was only intended, his Lordship explained, to continue those Bounties for the present Session.]
His Lordship also obtained leave to bring in Bills to consolidate and amend the laws respecting Tolls and Customs in Ireland, and to regulate the importation of Arms into that country. The Illusory Appointments Bill was read a third time and passed.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WARD, of all Fines imposed during the last three years on Dealers in Foreign Wines:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of all sums expended on the Bridge, Harbour, or other Public Works of Londonderry since 1814, specifying the dates, and all other particulars necessary for the information of the House: of all Officers who had been dismissed the service without trial by Courts-martial since 1827. together with returns of all general regimental and district Courtsmartial held from 1820 to 1829:—On the Motion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, of the total quantity of Butter imported between 1801 and 1830 inclusive, distinguishing the countries it came from; and of the foreign Cutter and Cheese imported during the two last years:—On the Motion of Mr. JEPHSON, Copy of Correspondence between the Commissioners of Charities and the Trustees of Morden College:—On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, of the sums received by the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, under the Act of the 6th of Geo. 4th cap. 125, sec. 4, with a list of the names of riser pilots:— On the Motion of Sir HENRY PARNELL., in consequence of Lord L. Gower having intimated his intention to bring in a Bill on the subject of the Fisheries, of all sums of Money expended on the Fisheries of Great Britain for each of the last five years, together with the Expenses of the Establishments connected with them.
Petitions presented. Praying for the abolition of Slavery, by Sir JOHN WROTTRSLEY, from the Protestants of Hanley and Lane End, Staffordshire. For a reform in the Administration of the Laws, by Mr. HUME, from the inhabitants of Carlisle. For the abolition of the East India ' Company's Monopoly, by Mr. Hume, from the inhabitants of Wootton-under-Edge, and from the Clothing Districts of Batley and Soothill, Yorkshire:—By Sir JOHN LOWTHER, from the inhabitants of Carlisle. For the removal of impediments to the cultivation of Anatomy, by Mr. WARBURTON, from the Surgeons and Physicians of Sheffield.
[The hon. Member said, that his opinions on the subject were unchanged, and his only reason for not renewing the Bill of last Session was, that he hoped a measure would be introduced in the other House, so as to get rid of some of the obstacles which had proved fatal to his Bill in that House.]
782
For Relief in Distress, by Sir GILBERT HEATHCOTE, from the inhabitants of the County of Rutland:—
[The hon. Baronet bore testimony to the respectability of the Petitioners, and urged upon the House the necessity of effecting a reform in the representation of the people.]
By Mr. RAMSDEN, from Huddersfield, praying also that Salaries might be reduced:—
[In this prayer the hon. Member said, he heartily joined, though he had no wish to unsettle the Administration.]
By Admiral SOTHERON, from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Nottingham also, and earnestly praying for a reduction of Taxation:—
[Mr. S. Lumley supported the prayer of the Petition.]
By Mr. WESTERN, from the Hundred of Clackclose, Norfolk, signed by 500 persons, and against the Bill of 1819: —By Colonel DAVIES, from the manufacturers and others of Dudley. For removal of disabilities in the Jews by Mr. HUME, from the inhabitants, being Jews, of the northern and eastern divisions of the Metropolis:—by Mr. MONCK, from a person named Thomas Flanagan. For a Registry of Births in Ireland, by Lord CASTLEREAGH, from Archibald Hamilton Rowan and George Cockburn. For a License Duty on Hawkers and Pedlars of 25
l.,
EMIGRATION.]
The Marquis of Chandos
presented a Petition from a hundred in Buckinghamshire, for the application of a portion of parochial Poor-rates to the assistance of voluntary emigrants. The noble Marquis, in supporting the prayer of the Petition, said, he hoped that Government would take the subject into its consideration, as he knew of no more efficient mode of lessening the Poor-rates, and improving the condition of the working classes, than supplying those who were unable to procure work with the means to emigrate to such of the colonies as have a demand for their labour.
Mr. W. Horton
begged leave to say, that he intended to bring in a bill to meet the wishes of the petitioners, Should the
783
Mr. Portman
said, he coincided in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman, that this matter ought to be seriously taken up; but he regarded the Ministers as the only persons who could successfully carry it into execution. Government, he thought, ought to appoint a committee to investigate the matter first, and point out the proper methods in detail for executing the project. He conjured the House not to deserve the reproach of being unable and unwilling to do any thing to relieve the condition of the poor.
Sir Thomas Freemantle
concurred in these opinions. He was sure that it would not cost parishes more to send their paupers to colonies, where they might be comfortable and happy, than it cost to keep them at home in want and wretchedness, where so little demand existed for their labour that they were set to break stones to keep them out of mischief.
Mr. Secretary Peel
considered the subject to be one of almost equal difficulty and importance. His right hon. friend, the Colonial Secretary had directed his attention to the subject, and had, as a preliminary step, sent out an intelligent person with a view to establish a uniform system of emigration to the North American colonies. With respect to parishes mortgaging their poor-rates, that was a subject of great difficulty, and he did not yet see in what manner Government could take it up, and he was not prepared to give an opinion, either one way or the other. He would not then enter into a discussion of the points alluded to by the petitioners, but should reserve his opinions till his right hon. friend's (Mr. W. Horton's) promised measure was before the House. To the details and principle of that measure he would give his best attention,—the rather, as his right hon. friend had, on a former occasion, displayed such a perfect mastery of the question in all its bearings,—had, in fact, so exhausted the subject that no committee or further inquiry was necessary. He was glad that his right hon. friend had announced his
784
Mr. R. Colborne
thought it was time that something should be done with the now undeniable superfluous population, for whose labour there was no domestic demand. Under such circumstances, the Act of Elizabeth could not be strictly adhered to. If relief were given only to sick and infirm, many able-bodied men must starve. He hoped, therefore, that either the Government or the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in introducing some practical measure.
Colonel Wood
anticipated the best results from the intended bill of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was evident that a part of the evils of the Poor-laws arose from the mal-administration of them.
Petition to be printed.
VOTING BY BALLOT.]
Mr. D. W. Harvey
presented a Petition from Colchester, for a Reduction of Taxes, a Reform of Parliament, Triennial Parliaments, Election by Ballot, a Commutation of Tithes, and relief to the productive industry of the country by a commuted Property-tax, and by applying a portion of the Bishops' revenues to lessening the public burthens, to all of which he cordially and cheerfully subscribed, save the prayer for election by ballot.
Mr. Hume
supported the prayer of the Petition, particularly that part of it which requested that voting by ballot might be the principle of reform. That was the only means which could be adopted to check the operation of undue influence at elections, and to enable every man to give a conscientious vote. The hon. Member on a former occasion had stated, that his constituents were averse from election by ballot, but he was probably now convinced of the contrary. If the hon. Member canvassed the country, he would probably find that opinion was in general in favour of this measure, because it was the best means of preserving the popular power.
785
Mr. O'Connell
also supported this part of the prayer of the Petition, because he knew tradesmen were frequently obliged to vote against their wishes. He had been implored by his constituents not to relax his exertions to obtain voting by ballot, and he should certainly attend to their wishes. He would begin his undertaking by collecting the names of those who supported him on the former occasion.
Mr. Harrison Batley
objected to the proposition for voting by ballot, and declared he would always most strenuously oppose it. He should consider such a measure as a fatal blow to the British Constitution.
Mr. D. W. Harvey,
in moving that the Petition be brought up, added, that he had certainly stated on a former occasion, that his constituents were averse from voting by ballot, and such was then his belief, but he now found that he was mistaken.
Petition to be printed.
SURREY PETITION.]
Mr. Denison
presented a Petition from the freeholders, inhabitants of the County of Surrey, agreed to at a public meeting regularly convened and most respectably attended. The Petition was moved by one of a class of persons which, he was afraid, was rapidly diminishing—he meant the class of English country Gentlemen. It complained of extreme distress, arising from excessive taxation, of which it prayed for a great reduction, declaring that what had been already done was not sufficient —for great retrenchment in all public departments, and for a Parliamentary Reform. The hon. Member entered into a view of the causes of our present distress, ascribing it to the vast sums we had expended during the late war; subsidizing all the powers of Europe, from Naples to Russia, and to the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. We were now paying the price of those proceedings. They had led to the inundation of the country with paper money; and, subsequently, to the revulsion of 1819. He did not join with some of his friends near him, in wishing to have the currency again depreciated, though he thought that was a subject which wanted further investigation. When he considered too, the great liabilities of the Bank of England, he was rather fearful of what might be the consequences should any convulsion, of which there were not wanting signs, occur on the Continent, He hoped, therefore,
786
Mr. C. N. Pallmer
begged to add his strongest testimony to the respectability and unanimity of the meeting which had passed the Petition just presented. The House would observe, that this petition was the first which had been presented since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his exposition of the financial intentions of the Government. It would appear that the reductions proposed were considered as by no means sufficient to meet the exigencies of the country. He, for one, was far indeed from undervaluing those reductions. He appreciated highly the principle upon which they had been made,—namely, the relief of the labouring population. It was a great been that the poor man's beer should be made cheap, and especially that it should be unaccompanied by licence regulations, which would bring it to his domestic circle; but it must not be forgotten, that to enable him to enjoy his untaxed beer in his own house, the legislature must untax the fuel which he requires to warm his cottage, and the candle which serves to light it. He hoped that the result of that evening's debate would further the great objects of relieving the public distress; that it may be placed in the power of a committee to call for reductions, and to sanction his Majesty's Ministers in the severity of any retrenchments, and the boldness of any reductions, which may be required of them; above all things, that it may urge upon them the
787
Mr. C. Pallmer
then presented a Petition from the workmen at Barn Elms, complaining of the pressure of the existing distress. That was the residence of a great politician, and great political economist; and the petitioners had entered into some details which were not unworthy of the notice of the House. They complained of the plans to give them relief by emigration, stating, that of the 11,000 parishes in England and Wales, 1,004 did not possess each 100 inhabitants. It was not, therefore the excess of population, but of taxes, which caused their distress. They stated, that the money paid for the relief of the poor did not amount to 6,000,000
l.
l.
l.
Petition laid on the Table.
DOUBLE PUNISHMENT.]
Mr. O'Connell
rose to move for certain documents with a view to shew that certain individuals had been punished twice for the same offence. These individuals were first tried for a conspiracy to forge, and then for the crime of forgery. If it were true that these individuals were tried before a competent tribunal, and were about to be tried for the same offence before another tribunal, that would be a violation of justice, according as it was administered here, which ought not to be allowed, and which called for explanation. It was to obtain correct information on the subject, that he should then move "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a copy of the record of proceeding before the Magistrates in the Colony of Van Diemen's Land, and of the judgment and sentence whereby Joseph B. Clark, James Cox, Thomas Bird, William Frazer, and Charles Browne, or any of them, were convicted and sentenced to corporal punishment for
788
Mr. Hume
said, in seconding the Motion, he must express his satisfaction that his hon. and learned friend had taken it out of his hands, for he was well able to point out what was right or wrong in any legal question. He was further anxious to state that when the Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir G. Murray) received the first application on this subject, he evinced the greatest readiness to inquire fully into it; in fact, he wrote at once to the Colony for information, requiring at the same time that justice should be done to these persons. From the feelings by which that right hon. Gentleman was then governed, he was persuaded that the sentence of punishment, if it were wrong, and the second sentence for the same offence, would not be carried into execution.
Sir George Murray
said, he meant to make no opposition to the Motion. He had already given the hon. Member for Montrose all the information he then possessed, and he could assure him that on all similar occasions he should feel it his duty to pursue the same course. The moment it was ascertained at the Colonial Office that an irregularity had been committed, orders were immediately sent out to put an end to the punishment. He wished to inform the House that the first proceeding occurred before the present regular court of justice was established in the Colony, and that such irregularities were not likely again to occur.
Mr. Hume
added, that so candid and explicit a declaration gave him reason to believe that justice would be done without the papers being produced, and perhaps it would be better if his hon. and learned friend were not to press his Motion.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he concurred in the opinion of his hon. friend, the Member for Montrose, and with permission of the House he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
789
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY—ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
On the Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Distress of the Country being moved by Mr. Herries,
Mr. Huskisson
rose and spoke as follows:— Sir; I rise to request your indulgence for a very short time upon a subject personally interesting to my own character, and in which, I may add, that of this House is in some degree concerned. Every Gentleman who hears me is aware of the great exertions that are made by the daily press to give to the public the speeches made in this House, within a very few hours after they are delivered. This arduous task is executed, I believe, honestly and impartially; but from the difficulties which attend it, especially in protracted debates, it cannot be matter of surprise that inaccuracies sometimes occur in the reports. Upon ordinary occasions, I am sure that I am the last man who would trouble the House by calling your attention to any trifling inaccuracy; but, Sir, a mistake, which I find has inadvertently been made in sending forth to the world some words, purporting to have been used by me on the motion of my noble friend, respecting Portugal, is not of that immaterial character. In that Debate I spoke very late, and in the course of what I addressed to the House, after comparing the character of the present Ruler of Portugal to that of our Richard the third, I added something to this effect:—That if there should ever arise a struggle for the throne in Portugal, between the usurping uncle and his niece, the legitimate Queen, for one I should not be sorry if the issue of that struggle should complete the parallel:—that it would be something for the honour of high lineage and royal blood if a life of wickedness were closed by a death of courage. I am the more sure that I used expressions to this effect, as I followed them by stating that Don Miguel would then, at least, redeem himself in history from the character which had been given him in another place, of being cowardly because he was cruel. Now, Sir, in some Newspaper of the next morning, I am made to use the following words, "It was to be hoped that he would finish a life of infamy by a death of violence.'' Not having read the Debate, it is only very recently that I have been made acquainted with the fact of this misrepresentation. Every Gentleman must be aware that the
790
It will be seen by referring to the report given of Mr. Huskisson's Speech, March 10th, in these Debates [
see Part 1. vol. xxiii.
See Commons Debate, Sir Charles Wetherell's Speech, June 10th.
[The Debate on the Distress of the Country was then resumed.]
Mr. O'Connell
said, he felt that some apology was due from him to the House for having been one of the persons who protracted this debate beyond the third evening; but he had an apology, and a strong one, in the sense of the duty he owed his constituents, and in the conviction that the subject ought not to be disposed of without the House being made acquainted with the great and unusual distress of the people of Ireland. The Members of that kingdom constituted more than one-seventh of the whole House of Commons, but yet, with the exception of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. L. Foster) not one of them had said a word on the question. He avowed that, as he felt it his duty, so he should make it his object, to support one or other of the motions for inquiry. A plain case had been made out
791
792
s.
793
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
794
l.,
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
795
796
797
798
Sir H. Vivian
said, that he had been completely misunderstood by the hon. Member for Clare. He never uttered a word about low wages; and of course never argued in favour of them. What
799
Mr. O'Connell
admitted that the gallant officer spoke only of "low prices;" but the necessary consequence of low prices, he thought, was low wages.
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that he would confine the few observations he had to make almost exclusively to Ireland, with a view to reply to the statements of the hon. Member for Clare. When that hon. Member found that the usual supporters of the side of the House on which he sat were shrinking from so general an investigation as was proposed by this Motion, and when he found that there was a disposition not to make the state of England a subject of inquiry; he dexterously shifted his ground, and made the vast distress which prevailed in Ireland the reason for demanding inquiry. That severe distress prevailed in many towns in that country he admitted; but the House must recollect, that a committee was sitting up stairs, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member, to devise the means of alleviating that distress. The whole question therefore, as respected Ireland, was virtually and practically disposed of. If the hon. Member for Clare meant to assert that the distress which now existed in Ireland was greater than that which prevailed at any former period of the history of that country, he (Lord Gower), with every respect for that hon. Member, would beg leave to deny that assertion. He did not understand that there was such an outcry in Ireland now, as to the non-payment of rents, which was heard throughout this country, and that circumstance he took to be a proof that the agricultural interests in Ireland were not suffering as severely now as in former times. In fact, he believed that at no former period were the rents of Irish landlords more punctually paid, or more likely to be so, than at present, and he would ask whether that was evidence of the existence of agricultural distress in Ireland? With regard to the commerce of Ireland, he
800
801
Mr. Beaumont
said, that he differed entirely from the noble Lord who had just addressed the House as to the utility of an
802
803
Mr. W. Peel
said, that he did not deny, and the Government did not deny, that distress existed in the country; but he was of opinion that no good whatever would result from the proposed inquiry. He could not help thinking that a great deal of time had been already wasted in the course of the debate as to the question of the degree of the distress. If a ship were in distress, it would be very odd for the sailors, instead of taking steps for its preservation, to set about calculating what was the quantum of danger by which they were surrounded. As it appeared to him, these were not points on which it was for the Government to contend. They were rather to come down to the House, and propose such remedies as seemed to them most effectual. The Government had already shown every disposition to do all in their power to relieve the distress by the remission of taxation, and they should be allowed to proceed in the good work of reduction and retrenchment. There were some Gentlemen who appeared willing to attribute the present state of the country to the measure of 1819, but he could not agree with them. The hon. Member for Callington had said, that a sovereign now would go as far as two then; but if the hon. Gentleman contrived thus with his sovereigns, he certainly could do much more than other people. It was said by an hon. Member, that England had never been so degraded in the eyes of Europe as during the administration of the Duke of Wellington, and that Englishmen never
804
Mr. Beaumont
explained that he had not said that the Government had lost, but that it was losing the confidence of the country.
Sir Thomas Gooch
was fully impressed with the conviction that great distress existed in the country, but he thought this Motion for inquiry, if successful, would be productive of no practical good. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already done much, but he hoped Ministers would redeem the pledge which they had given by doing much more hereafter in the way of remission of taxation. He thought it absolutely necessary that a very great reduction should be made in the taxation which pressed upon the productive classes of the country, who were now principally suffering under the prevailing distress. He should vote against the proposed committee, because he saw no good likely to follow from it. The subjects of inquiry proposed were so multifarious, that the country would be ruined, or relief would come of itself, before that committee could make its report. He conceived that there should he a revision of our system of taxation—that those taxes should be removed which bore principally upon the productive classes of society, and the deficiency supplied by the imposition of a modified property tax. He thought that by
805
l.
The Marquis of Blandford
said, that he could not refuse to give his assent to a Motion, of which the object was, to inquire into the condition of the productive classes of society, with a view of affording them some relief from the distress which at present was pressing them to the earth. He would briefly point out to the House the course which he thought Ministers ought to pursue in the present crisis of the country. They ought to remove at once from 10,000,000
l.
l.
Mr. Lennard
declared his intention of voting against the proposition for a committee, because he was convinced that the granting of a committee would not relieve the distress which he acknowledged to exist
806
General Gascoyne
supported the Motion for a committee, and in reply to the observations of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, contended that whatever might be the case in Liverpool, there was in the districts which ranged within a few miles around it, greater distress than in any Other portion of the United Kingdom. Indeed, he could not help wondering at the language employed on this subject by the supporters of Ministers. To judge from their speeches, there was no distress in the country; but unfortunately for their veracity, the Ministers themselves admitted the distress of the country to be the main cause of the defalcation in the last year's Revenue. Besides, the recent proposal to repeal taxes was an indication that Ministers were at last becoming sensible to the existence, if not to the extent, of the distress. He was surprised to hear an hon. friend of his, (Sir Thomas Gooch) who some years ago had proposed an inquiry in its nature precisely similar to the present, rise up to make a speech in opposition to this Motion. The simple question then before the House was, whether the numberless petitions presented from the people were worthy of consideration, and if they were not, why were the people ever allowed to petition at all. To refuse inquiry was to tell them their complaints were of no consequence. He trusted that the people would not forget the votes which might be given that night. He trusted that those Members who now showed them-
807
Sir F. Burdett
, [who had risen with several of the preceding Members, but had never been able to attract the notice of the Speaker,] then proceeded to explain the reasons which induced him to give a vote in opposition, he said, to that of several of his hon. friends with whom he usually acted. He thought that his hon. friend, the Member for Shaftesbury, was entitled to the thanks of the country for bringing this matter so distinctly under the consideration of parliament. It was impossible that a mass of Petitions, complaining so bitterly of distress, could be left unnoticed on the Table of the House of Commons; and though they referred to a subject of magnitude sufficient to deter many persons from bringing it forward, still such was the patriotism of his hon. friend, that he had not shrunk from the task of undertaking it. He had paid great attention to the course which this debate had taken, and he was now compelled to say, that his mind was confirmed as to the necessity of complying with the prayer of these petitions, not merely by the arguments of those who spoke in favour of his hon. friend's Motion, but also by the arguments of those who spoke against it. He could not concur with his noble friend, the Member for Northamptonshire, that it was any reason for not granting" this committee to the prayers of the people of England, that the vote of the House of Commons in favour of such a proposition might be construed into a vote of censure against the Cabinet. He did not think that there was any reason in the other notion of his noble friend, that if such a committee were granted, it would end in being a delusion on the public. If there were any truth in that argument, then all the functions of that House must in future be considered as a mere delusion upon the public. As to the distress of the country, it appeared to be at length admitted in some degree by the Ministers, but still it was
808
809
l
810
l
l
811
mutato nomine,
l
experimentum crucis,
812
nunc patimur longæ pacis mala;
813
salus populi
suprema lex,
l
l
l
l
l
l
814
l
Here Mr. Peel expressed his dissent.
"Shall we, like exiles, still be doomed to mourn,
And ne'er, with length of rolling years, return?
Shall we, compell'd by fate's unjust decree,
No more our homes and pleasant rallies see?
Or shall we mount again our rural throne,
And rule the rural kingdom once our own?"
815
aurcs asininas Midas non habet.
816
l
l
817
Mr. Peel
said, he wished to notice a most extravagant misconception of the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon. Baronet had charged him with having said, that it was a part of his policy to depress the landed interest. Every one who had heard him, except the hon. Baronet, must know that he had said nothing of the kind. His statement was, that during the war a great portion of inferior land had been brought into cultivation in this country, and that now, by the application of steam to navigation, and by the circumstance of the good land of Ireland and Scotland being better cultivated, the produce of the inferior land of this country was likely to be injured in the market. He had stated this as a fact; and he had added, that whatever might be the benefit to the country, he could not but view the consequences with the utmost pain, so far as they affected those individuals who would suffer from them. The hon. Baronet had entirely mistaken him in supposing that he had stated it as part of his settled policy to depress the landed interest.
Sir F. Burdett
did not mean to impute any wish of that kind to the right hon. Gentleman, and had only stated that the depression of the landed interest was the necessary consequence of the policy he had determined to pursue. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he acquitted him of any such intention, for no doubt there were few men who wished more heartily than the right hon. Gentleman for the prosperity of the landed interest; but there was as little doubt that the policy he had adopted, and that which he declared he intended to pursue, must have the tendency he had ascribed to it.
Mr. Peel
contemplated no such consequences, and did not believe they would be found to follow from the present policy of the Government.
Sir T. Gooch
, in explanation, said, that the hon. Baronet had misrepresented him; he had never said that the petitions of the people ought not to be referred to a committee.
818
Mr. F. Lewis
said, that he did not much wonder at the opinions of Members who had not been in that House during discussions on the Currency Question, and who now seemed to imagine that a return to a depreciated currency would be a panacea for the evils of the country; but he did much wonder at hearing such opinions fall from the hon. Baronet opposite. He repeated, he could not but fuel the utmost surprise at the unqualified praise bestowed by the hon. Baronet on the Bank Restriction Act, and the more so when he recollected that the hon. Baronet sat in that House during the times of that mock prosperity which he alone had eulogized. The hon. Baronet had referred to the well-known Essay of Hume, but that would not support him in his views in favour of a depreciated currency. In that Essay, Hume stated that the prosperity of the country was connected with prices constantly increasing; but he had not said with a constantly depreciated currency. He had said the contrary indeed; for if the spirit of the Essay was attended to, it would be seen that he never intended to allude to any currency as advantageous to a country if it went on diminishing in value as it increased in amount. Of what avail was it to increase the amount of the currency by continually multiplying the issue of notes, which, exactly as they were multiplied in number, cut off a part of the value from those which had preceded them? The wealth of a country consisted in the abundance of its commodities; increase of commodities required, he knew, an increased amount of currency, but it must be a currency of the same standard and value; and its increase must be created with, and solely in consequence of, the increase of the commodities it represented. The hon. Baronet had been mistaken in asserting that Mr. Tooke had said that prices did not depend on money —meaning on the quantity of money. Mr. Tooke had not said any such thing, but had only referred to the difference between the Mint and the market price of gold, as one of the elements of prices in the country. He must confess that he was much surprised at the praise bestowed by the hon. Baronet on that most odious measure into which this country had been driven in her misfortunes to have recourse to—he meant the Bank Restriction Act. The hon. Baronet had proposed to have recourse again to a Paper Currency, seem-
819
Mr. Stanley
said, that as a representative of a great manufacturing and commercial town, which suffered much, he regretted to say, in common with the rest of the same class in other parts of the kingdom, he could not give a silent vote on a Motion having for its avowed object the relief of that distress, the existence of which no person denied. Although the latest ac-
820
Mr. Western
began, by assuring the House that it was not his intention, at that late hour, to trespass on their attention for many minutes, and would therefore claim an indulgent hearing for the little he had
821
822
s.
s.
l
Colonel Wilson
said, that they had been now debating this subject four nights, and were not now much wiser with respect to it than at the commencement of the discussion; and he was sure that if they sat there for a month of Sundays they would be still in the same situation. If the hon. Mover had confined his Motion to the distress of the country he would go to the committee; but there were other matters included in the proposed inquiry which were not necessary. The distress of the country was unprecedented; but Ministers had done much in the way of reduction of taxation, much more than he had expected, or than he should have believed had any body told him of it when he was last on his legs in that House. Imputations had been cast on him by noble Lords and others, that he was sneaking after Ministers, and looking for the loaves and fishes; but he wanted no office or place. He had served his country without emolument; he entered into its service at fifteen years old, as a private soldier—perhaps they did not know that. He had carried "brown bess" on his shoulder for years; but there was only this difference between him and other private soldiers,—that he had the honour
823
s.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that at that late hour it was not his intention to press upon the patience of the House, which he knew was nearly exhausted. He did not therefore intend to go into the subjects introduced into the discussion at any length. He rose rather for the purpose of correcting an error, an unintentional one, no doubt, into which the hon. Member for Essex had fallen. That hon. Member stated that the people of Essex wished for inquiry; now the fact was, that at the meeting the other day in Essex inquiry was not called for; the great majority of the people in the country did not wish for inquiry. They knew well enough the cause of the distress they suffered, and they plainly enough pointed out the means of relief. If he were not afraid of trespassing too long on the attention of the House, he would venture to reply to some of the extraordinary arguments raised by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster; but though he would not follow
824
Mr. Trant
rose amidst loud cries of "Question;" but he said, if he were not heard he would move the adjournment of the debate. He stood pledged, at a meeting of yesterday, to some of the most respectable gentlemen in London,—members of the committee for the Relief of the Manufacturing Poor,—that he would state to the House that which they communicated to him, viz., that, from the information they received by means of their communications with all parts of the country, they were convinced that the distress was overwhelming. These gentlemen ought to have an opportunity of being heard in a committee, in reply to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) who spoke so much of the prosperity of the country.
Mr. Monck
was one of those who looked to a reduction of the taxes on productive
825
Mr. Rickford
considered, that the distress of the country fell chiefly on the agricultural classes, and that to them, therefore, relief should be chiefly applied.
Mr. Benett
was surprised, that when the right hon. Member for Liverpool was quoting instances of the general wealth and prosperity of the country, he did not look to the very obvious proofs to be derived from the consumption of butchers' meat. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked to the consumption of the town of Birmingham alone, he would have found that that consumption had diminished one-third within the last year. He would support the Motion for a Select Committee, as he thought the numerous petitions presented to the House rendered some inquiry imperative.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
would vote for inquiry, and in doing so would appeal to any hon. Member acquainted with the city of London whether the trade of that city was ever so much depressed as at present? He was free to admit, that some improvement had taken place within the last fortnight; but it was only that something like a cost price could be obtained for some articles, while a month ago no sale could be effected at any price at all. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Bramber a few evenings ago, he begged leave to say, that the hon. Member was in error in asserting that an improvement had taken place in the iron trade. The contrary was the fact, and had been so for the last four or five years, during which immense sums — even millions—had been expended in that trade, without obtaining any profit, and even in some instances suffering an actual loss. It was a fallacy to suppose that because manufacturers went on manufacturing, that therefore they were reaping profitable
826
l
l
Mr. Warburton
, was confident that Ministers could not adopt a more mischievous measure just now, than a revision of the currency system, as its inevitable effects would be, to create such a run on banks as would destroy all those whose cash deposits were not equal to their issues.
Mr. Irving
[
amid loud cries of "Question,"
Sir T. Acland
, as a Member of the manufacturing committee, must protest against the statement made in reference to that committee by the hon. Member for Dover. One fact would show, contrary to the declaration of the hon. Member, that the distress had diminished instead of increased within the last few weeks,—namely, that whereas heretofore it was found necessary for the committee to meet once a week, now, owing to a diminution of the distress, they met but once a fortnight.
Mr. Davenport
rose to reply. The question, he said, after all the discussion, turned on the single fact, that numerous petitions from all classes, and all parties, and all places in the country, had been presented to the House for relief, and that if inquiry were refused, the only inference that the public could draw was, that it was useless to again petition a Parliament that
827
The Speaker
informed the hon. Gentleman, that if the original Motion was withdrawn, there would remain no question before the House, as an amendment upon a motion which was withdrawn could not be put.
Mr. Peel
suggested, that they should divide upon the Amendment, with the understanding that that division was to decide the whole question. The original Motion was accordingly negatived without a division.
On the Amendment the House divided, when the numbers appeared—for the Amendment 87; Against it 255: majority against the Amendment 168.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 24, 1830
MINUTES.] Lord Viscount DONERAILE took the Oaths and his Seat as a representative Peer of Ireland, in the room of the late Marquis of Headfort.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY laid on the Table the Second Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Common Law Courts.—Ordered to be printed.
Petitions presented;—By Lord HOLLAND, from certain retail brewers of Bury, in Lancashire, complaining of the injurious operation of law affecting their trade, and praying for relief. The noble Lord presented a similar Petition from retail brewers of Manchester and Salford: — By the Earl of KINNOUL, from the merchants and other inhabitants, and from the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Town Council of the City of Perth, praying that the trade with India and China might be thrown open—Referred to the Committee on East India Affairs:—By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Mendlesham, Suffolk, complaining of Distress, and praying for the repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 25, 1830
MINUTES.] The Illusory Appointments Bill was brought up from the Commons, and read a first time. The annual Finance accounts, the annual account of the Droits of Admiralty, and other casual Revenues, and the sixteenth report of the Commissioners for the repair of Roads and Bridges in Scotland, were laid on the Table.
The following Returns were ordered to be laid on the Table, on the Motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGH—List of Hong Merchants, stating the particular privileges and powers with which they are invested in respect to the Canton trade:— Also, Statement of the Company's Establishment of Supercargoes, &c. at Canton, specifying the rank of each, their respective salaries, and all other charges of the establishment at Canton; likewise the commission paid to each on the European or Chinese sales of goods, or both,
828
s
d
Petitions presented. Praying for the Repeal of the Laws
829
WELSH JUDICATURE.]
The Earl of Eldon
presented a Petition from the Gentry, Clergy, and Freeholders of the county of Pembroke, against any alteration in the system of Welsh Judicature;—also a similar Petition from the Mayor, Burgesses, and In-habitants of the town of never ford west. The noble and learned Lord said, he wished to take that opportunity of expressing his regret that he had been unable to attend in his place when the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack introduced the subject of the proposed changes in the law to their Lordships' notice; which was not from undervaluing the importance of the subject, or from any want of respect to the noble and learned Lord, but literally because he was unable. He would, therefore, without going into the subject to which their attention had been called, take that opportunity to state, that he would give his most serious consideration to the measures about to be introduced, and if he should be found opposing any part of them, it would not be from any spirit of contention, but from conscientious grounds of objection. Had he been in his place on Monday, he should most readily have corroborated what fell from the noble and learned Lord as to the unfounded assertions respecting the expense of the commissioners of inquiry into the Court of Chancery. The gentlemen who acted in that commission never received one farthing for their trouble. They not only gave their services gratuitously to the public, but their attention to the business of that commission was given at the sacrifice of considerable professional emolument. With respect to the inquiry proposed into the state of the Ecclesiastical-law, he admitted that the necessity of it was made out by a recent case, to which he would not then more particularly allude. As to the revision of the Criminal-law, Ins professional habits for a very long period of his life were such as to render him not the most competent judge on that subject, but he very willingly gave credit to those who had undertaken the task for a disposition and ability to improve the law and its administration. On the subject of the proposed
830
Earl Cawdor
said, that he was sorry to differ from the petitioners, but he thought that the assimilation of the practice of the law in England and Wales would be a great benefit to the latter country. He was sorry to have to differ on this point from the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down; but so far from thinking that the Equity Courts to which the noble and learned Lord alluded were a benefit to Wales, he thought them an encumbrance and a hindrance to justice.
IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS.]
The Marquis of Salisbury
rose to move for several Returns connected with the expenses of the Commissioners of the London and Holyhead, and London and Edinburgh Roads, to the production of which, he said, he understood there was no objection. The reason why he made the Motion was, that a committee had been, as he understood, appointed in another place to inquire into the state of those roads; and he wished that their Lordships should be in possession of all the information necessary to understand
831
Viscount Goderich
wished to know, if his noble friend included in his Motion the whole of the receipts of the Commissioners, for if he did not, the account would be incomplete and incorrect; the whole expenses of the roads not being met by sums from the public purse:—a considerable part of the expenditure was made good by tolls which they were authorised to levy.
The Marquis of Salisbury
stated, that he wished to have an account of the whole expenditure for which the public supplied the funds, as well as that which came from other sources. What he most disliked was, a species of local taxation by Parliamentary Commissioners, which he considered to be very improper.
Viscount Goderich
doubted if the Commissioners levied any money except that which they were authorised to do by Act of Parliament. In order to support the expense, an increased toll was levied at some places, and there was an additional postage on letters conveyed from London to Dublin. From these sources the money at first advanced by the commissioners had since been replaced.
The Returns were then ordered.
EAST RETFORD.]
The Marquis of Salisbury
Lord Wharncliffe
said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but merely to give notice, that if their Lordships should think the evidence sufficiently strong to warrant the second reading of the Bill, it was his intention to move an amendment in the committee—that the franchise be transferred, not to Bassetlaw, but to one of the great
832
DISTRESS.]
Lord Wharncliffe
presented a Petition, signed by 3,500 persons residing in Huddersfield and its vicinity. They complained of great distress, and prayed for some relief. A part of their distress they attributed to the decline in the demand for Fancy Stuffs, which was so great as almost to destroy that trade; but the great cause of the difficulties they and other classes suffered, they attributed to the pressure of taxation, greatly aggravated by certain measures that had been adopted by Government, more particularly that of the change from a paper to a metallic currency. This change the petitioners thought should have been accompanied by a reduction of part of the national debt, or by some measure which would bring the property of the fundholder as much under the effects of taxation as the other property of the country. Upon these points he differed from the petitioners. He did not see what measure could be introduced which would have the effect of making the property of the fundholder liable in the way proposed. Nor did he admit the justice of any reduction of the national debt in any way by which faith would be broken with the public creditor. In that part of the prayer of the petitioners which sought for a large reduction of taxation he fully concurred, and he hoped to hear of still greater reductions than those which had been already announced by Government. He had great confidence in the disposition of Ministers to go as far as they could in reducing the burthens of the country.
Petition laid on the Table.
CORN AVERAGES]
The Earl of Malmesbury
rose to move for certain returns respecting the averages taken of the price of Corn. Those returns he considered of great importance in ascertaining how far the present mode of taking the averages was correct. Their Lordships would recollect, that when the Corn-laws were in progress through the House, it was said that a great been was given to the English farmer by including Irish wheat in the averages; but he had reason to believe that a very small portion of the wheat from that country was actually so included. The first return for which he should move was an account of the quantity of Corn imported into Liverpool from Ireland, and the quantity imported coastwise, from July, 1828, to January, 1830. The second Return would
833
s
d
s
834
The Earl of Limerick
supported the Motion. It was right, if the quantum of protection to be given to the British Corn-grower were to be measured by the averages, that the mode of taking those averages should be as correct as possible, and they could not be so if the returns did not include the whole of the home-grown Corn brought into the market.
Motion agreed to.
TAXATION.]
Lord Suffield
said, he had to present to the House Petitions from the owners and occupiers of land in the several hundreds in the county of Norfolk, complaining of great distress, caused by the excessive burthen of Taxation, from part of which they prayed to be relieved, more particularly from the burthen of the duty on malt. The petitioners complained that they were now in a worse situation than they were ten years ago, and they stated, that the capital of the farmer had been very materially reduced, which proved that his trade had been a losing one. In adverting to the distress of the country, it was not his intention to advocate the interest of one class more than another because he happened to belong to it. He had been an enemy to the Corn-laws from the beginning, because he felt that they failed in giving that protection to the home-grower which was intended, and at the same time they had not produced any advantage to the consumer. Bread was still too dear, though the farmer did not derive any benefit from the high price. What the farmer required was, a reduction of rent, and that had taken place to a considerable extent, and a still greater reduction must take place. The petitioners, he admitted, did not pray for any such reduction, but there was no doubt that it would be a relief to them. Indeed, too high rents could not be long continued, for in the result they would operate to the injury of the party receiving, as well as to the party paying them. The distress of the country, however, did not arise in any great degree
835
Petitions read, and to lie on the Table.
The Earl of Eldon
, referring to what fell from him on a former occasion in respect to the debt of the country, said, that what he stated had been incorrectly given. He was represented to have said, in allusion to the alteration in the currency, that debts contracted in a depreciated currency ought to be paid in a depreciated currency, or at the same rate they were contracted. He was in the recollection of several noble Lords, and he could appeal to them in stating that he had said no such thing,— quite the reverse. He should consider such a proposition as extremely unjust.
KENTISH PETITION.]
Earl Stanhope
said, that he had been requested to present a Petition, agreed to at a public meeting held in the county of Kent, and that he acceded to that request with the more pleasure, inasmuch as he heartily concurred in the prayer of the petition. He should not have troubled their Lordships with any observations upon the respectability of this
836
837
l
s
l
l
l
l
l
838
Petition read.
The Marquis Camden
said, that as his noble friend had thought proper to make a great many observations upon what he had felt it his duty to say in that House, he would tell their Lordships what he had meant to say on the occasion referred to. He had meant 40 say, that as far as his experience and means of observation would allow him to form an opinion on the subject, the distress complained of was not so great or so general as it had been represented to be by some persons in that and in the other House of Parliament. As to the County of Kent, he had said that the distress was not so great as it had been represented to be. He spoke from his own experience, and their Lordships would do him the justice to recollect that what he had said was founded upon a comparison which he had made between this and former years, the result of which comparison was, that the
839
The Duke of Wellington
. — Certainly not.
The Marquis Camden
continued.—He bad spoken as an independent Peer; and in that capacity he had thought it right to express the opinions he entertained. Again, if the county of Kent were as much distressed as it was said to be, or even more so, that could not prove that the country generally was distressed. Besides, it should be recollected that there was a peculiar culture in Kent—that of hops. The low price of that produce, and the duty upon it, might have made it very difficult for the growers to remunerate themselves. His noble friend had alluded to a tenant of his (Marquis Camden's) who had lost 200/. by his farm. He did not know who that tenant was, but he thought it not unlikely that a tenant who wished his rent to be reduced, or the day of payment deferred, would hit upon such an argument.
Earl Stanhope
, in explanation, said, he trusted his noble friend did not think he had meant to say that his noble friend's conduct had proceeded from any but the most conscientious motives. As to distressing the Government, he thought it the proper course to excite noise, and he pleaded guilty to the desire to excite noise, both in that House and out of it, when he found himself beaten by numbers, and not by arguments.
The Earl of Winchilsea
said, he felt some reluctance to intrude upon their Lord-
840
841
842
The Marquis Camden
said, in explanation, that he had spoken of the stale of things in his own neighbourhood, and represented it as improving.
The Earl of Darnley
observed, that some apology might be expected from him for not taking a part in the getting up of the petition, particularly as he was connected with the county from which it had emanated, and was known to be favourable to these expressions of public opinion. But he had not interfered because he was convinced that the distress complained of could not be relieved in consequence of any proposition of the meeting, and that the suggestions of the noble Lord (supposing him to be favourable to them) were likely enough to be counteracted. In 1822, when according to his opinion the distress was greater than at present, a county meeting was held in Kent, at which Mr. Cobbett attended and proposed an equitable adjustment. On that occasion, acting, as he thought, the part of an honest man, he had opposed the proposition, but he stood almost alone in his opposition, and it was carried by acclamation. At another county meeting in Kent, the noble Earl proposed a loyal Address, when up started an auctioneer, from Rochester, knocked down the proposition, floored the noble Earl, and his second, and bottle-holder (a noble Lord not now in his place), and upset the entire proceeding. [
Laughter
843
Earl Stanhope
said, with respect to the idea of the majority of the meeting being favourable to the counter-petition, he thought the majority was for the original proposition, but admitted that if so it was by no means a large majority. However, it was all matter of opinion, and the High Sheriff had decided differently. The noble Earl (Darnley) had alluded to former meetings at which he (Earl Stanhope) was not present, and stated that a proposition for an equitable adjustment was carried at one of them. He was not a friend to what was called equitable adjustment,; because he thought it could not be effected in an equitable manner. However, to that we must come at last, or adopt an issue of paper money. He did not wish to allow! bankers to make such issues without requiring from them proper security, and would rather have country bankers the distributors than the creators of paper money. He should not object, for instance, to an issue of Government paper. Noble
844
Lord Suffield
expressed his partial concurrence in the statements of the noble Earl behind him, who had drawn with such strong colouring a picture of the distress experienced in Kent. Many of the noble Earl's remarks would apply to the county (Norfolk) with which he was himself connected. He regretted as much as the noble Earl the diminution that had taken place in the class of yeomanry: persons of from 500
l
l
Petition to lie upon the Table.
FREE-TRADE—IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.]
Earl Stanhope
said, he understood it was not the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to offer any opposition to the production of the Returns which he wished to obtain, the motion for which he had given notice of on a former day. This being the case, he should not enter into the subject which the Returns involved upon the present occasion, reserving to himself the right, at a future opportunity, when the accounts were before the House, to make his observations on the question of Free Trade. The noble Earl moved for accounts of the declared value of Foreign Manufactured Silk imported into Great Britain in 1826, and the three subsequent years; of the English Manufactured Silks exported in 1823, and each subsequent year; of the value of articles of Leather imported in each year subsequent to 1823; of the quantity of Gloves imported within the same time; of our Exports and Imports generally to and from France in 1828 and every subsequent year; also for an account of the expenses incurred in the mainte-
845
The Duke of Wellington
said, he had no! objection to the Returns being furnished, and should himself move for the production of further returns, explanatory of the subject, upon a future day.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 25, 1830
MINUTES.] Mr. A. ELLIS moved an humble Address to his Majesty, requesting that the House might be furnished with a "copy of a Circular Letter addressed by Mr. PEEL to different Public Offices, in favour of the Society for superseding the use of Climbing Boys in the sweeping of chimnies; a list of Public Offices to which the same was addressed, and the number of Flues in each that have been swept by Hoys or cleaned by the Machine, since the date of the Circular: shewing also in which of such buildings, the Agents of the Society for superseding Climbing Boys, or Sweeps that keep Boys are employed." Agreed to.
A message came from the Lords, requesting a copy of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the case of Sir JONAH BARRINOTON; and a copy of the evidence on which the House passed the Bill for Disfranchising the Borough of East Retford.
The Lease of Lands Bill (Ireland) was read a second time. The Indemnity Bill was read a third time and passed. A Bill to regulate the Importation of Arms into Ireland was brought in by Lord P. L. GOWRR, and read a first time; as were a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Tolls, (Ireland), and a Bill to extend the powers of Grand Juries (Ireland) in the execution of the Act of 58Geo. 3rd, relative to Fever Hospitals.
Returns Presented. Annual Accounts of Public Expenditure. Consolidated Fund, Public Funded Debt, Un funded Debt, Dispositions of Grants, Arrears and Balances: —Also Accounts of Amounts paid in each of the last four years for Half-pay, and Retired Allowances; ordered, 8th February and 22nd March:—Also Accounts of the quantity of Spirits that paid Duty in each Kingdom, from 10th October, 1823, to 5th January, 1830, and amount of Spirits Distilled, and of Spirits exported to and from each Kingdom, and amount of Duty:—Also Account of Monies received in respect of Droits, and from surplus of four and-a-half per cent:— Account of Malt charged with Duty, and Malt made; the amount of Duties-paid in each collection of Excise in the year ended 5th January, 1830:—Also: account of Amount paid as Drawback on Malt under the Acts 1 and 2 Geo. 4. c. 82, Geo. 4 e. 94, and 6 Geo. 4 c.58; ordered 18th February:—Also Accounts of the number of acres of Land under cultivation of Hops, and of the Hop Duty for 1829; ordered 8th February:—Also Accounts of the number of barrels of Beer, exported in the year ended 5th January, 1830; the quantity made; of the number of Barrels exported in each year from 5th January, 1825, to 5th January, 1830; number of Barrels brewed in the year ended 5th January, 1830; and number of Brewers in Great Britain; ordered 8th February:— Also accounts of the quantity of Soap made in each town of Great Britain in 1827, 1828 and 1829, the quantity exported in 1828 and 1829, the duty repaid as Draw-back allowances mode to manufacturers of Silks, &c.; distinguishing the hard from the soft Soap and quantity exported to Ireland during the years 1827, 1828, and 1829; ordered 26th February:— Also Account of the contract prices of Bread and Meat from 1819 to the present time, so far as relates to the Commissariat Department; ordered 2nd March:—Returns of the establishment of the Commissariat on the 1st January, 1817, 1822, and 1830, and of all the Appointments and Promotions since 1828; ordered 12th March:—Also Accounts of the principal articles charged with Duties of Excise in each
846
Petitions presented. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter—By Mr. MARSHALL, from three different places in the Clothing district of Yorkshire:—By Mr. S. WORTLEY, from Wortley:—By Sir M.W. RIDLEY, from the Merchants and Inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. By Mr. H. DAVIS, from the Licensed Victuallers of Bristol, against throwing open the Beer Trade—Referred to the Committee on the Beer Licensing System. By Sir J. WROTTESLEY from the Inhabitants of Stoke-upon-Trent, complaining of Distress:—By Sir W. W. WYNN, from Denbighshire, with the same prayer. By Mr. WAR-BURTON', from Bridport, for a reform in the Criminal Law:-By Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN from the Protestant Dissenters meeting in Worship-street Chapel, Finsbury-square, with the same prayer. By Mr. W. SMITH, from TRIVRTT ALCOCK, of Norwich, in favour of the Jews;— And by Lord JOHN RUSSELL., from the Letter-press Printers of Sheffield, praying for a reduction in the Newspaper Stamp Duty. The petitioners staled as their opinion, that if this Duty were reduced from 4
d
d
s
d
s
MISREPRESENTATION.]
Colonel Sibthorp
, in presenting a Petition in favour of the Selby and Liverpool Railway Bill, from the inhabitants of Lincoln, said, he availed himself of that opportunity to rectify an error which had gone abroad with respect to what he had uttered in the late debate on the motion of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury. That morning a letter had been put into his hands, purporting to come from a respectable inhabitant of London, and written under the misconception which this inaccuracy in his speech had naturally originated. He was represented to have stated that Mr. Jacob or Mr. Poole would have been roughly handled in the event of their trusting themselves in Lincoln. But such an innuendo he had never intended to convey. What he did really say was, that he regretted the noble Duke should not have had recourse to better means of obtaining information, before he depended upon such authorities for the price of Corn as Mr. Jacob, or for the price of Wool and Meat as Mr. Giblett. In noticing this misstatement, he could not forbear to add, that he had no reason to complain of the newspaper press generally. He should now postpone his notice of a motion for the accommodation of reporters, until Thursday, the 13th of May.
DISTRESS.]
Sir T. E. Winnington
presented a Petition from the freeholders of Worcestershire, complaining of Distress, and praying for an alteration in the Currency, and also for Parliamentary
847
Mr. G. Robinson
supported the prayer of the Petition. He believed as the petitioners expressed themselves, that the distress was not as stated in the King's Speech, partial, but general He was not disposed however, to agree with the petitioners in their prayer for an alteration of the Standard, though he was of opinion that the I return to the use of metallic money had caused much of our distress. The petitioners desired that the standard might be restored to what it was in 1797, but on this subject he thought the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman unanswerable. Various changes were indeed talked of, but he would give no opinion on any one of them till he saw some substantive measure brought under the consideration of the House. That would be the best method for those Gentlemen who had plans to propose to adopt, and then every one might be able to form a judgment of the probable results of their schemes. As to Parliamentary Reform, he would say that he desired to see the franchise extended to those large towns which have of late grown up, and he would recommend those opposed to reform rather to yield to gradual measures than be at length compelled to adopt a more extensive reform. He would recommend those who wished for reform to adopt the same plan, as the surest and safest way of accomplishing their object.
Colonel Davies
dissented from the statements of the petitioners, and expressed his regret that they had overlooked the true cause of the distress,—namely, the pressure of inordinate taxation. They had contented themselves, however, with expatiating on the worn-out topic of the currency, without ever adverting to an additional repeal of taxes, which all parties acknowledged to be an unexceptionable mode of administering relief. He would venture to assert, that not one person in a hundred of those who had signed the petition understood the questions on which he gave an opinion. There was no county less subject to political excitement than Worcester, and he was sure that nothing but intolerable distress could have induced the people to petition. It was impossible, under such circumstances to say to what lengths people might go, and therefore he regretted that they engaged in matters which they did not understand
Sir F. Burdett
differed widely from his
848
Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.
l
l
Mr. Warburton
was of a different opinion from the boa. Baronet, on the ground
849
Sit Charles Burrell
said, the hon. Member was very feeling towards those who might be ruined by another change, but he had no compassion for those who had suffered by the changes already made. He, for one, had no doubt that the greater part of our present distress, and in particular the sufferings of the agriculturists, and all the industrious classes, had been caused by the former change in the currency. He would not then however enter into the subject, he would only observe that from, information which he bad received, the proposed alteration in the Beer duty would completely disappoint those who expected that it would be attended with any benefit to the agricultural classes.
Mr. Bright
expressed his surprise, that Members of that side of the House should consider it a great thing, forsooth, that the petitions of the people were favourably received, and to him it seemed most arrogant in Members to run down the petitions of any class of people. What reason had those who asserted, that to ascribe our distress to a change in the currency was a proof of ignorance, to give for their assertion. He was of the same opinion as the petitioners whom the hon. Member for Worcester had branded with ignorance. Nothing indeed could be clearer than the fact that prices fell when the quantity of money was lessened, and rose when that was increased. A depreciation of price and general distress among the working classes had invariably followed a contraction of the currency, from whatever cause it might have arisen. He did not mean to say, however, that a reduction of taxation would not alleviate the distress, for it was plain that a portion of the charges which weighed on the people would by that means be removed. He would not assert that it was possible wholly to get rid of distress by reducing taxation, but he would assert that to give much relief a much larger portion of the taxes must be taken off. Those who had endeavoured to obtain an inquiry into the cause of the distress, and
850
Colonel Davies
complained of the hon. Member having misrepresented what he had said of the petitioners.
Sir F. Burdett
said, his hon. friend had also misunderstood what fell from him.
Sir M. W. Ridley
protested against the doctrine of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) that it would be an act of injustice to revert to the former standard, though he admitted that it might be inconvenient. We had already committed injustice, and he thought that it would not be more than an act of justice, to place those who had been affected by the change al-ready made in the currency, in the situation they would have stood in, but for that change.
Mr. Davenport
maintained; that the ex-
851
s
s
s
s
s
l
l
s
s
Lord John Russel
said, the hon. Member for Westminster seemed to think that the House had not treated the question, of the Currency fairly. [Sir F. Burdett said, that was not what he said] At least, the noble Lord continued, he so understood the hon. Baronet. If that were the case the fault must be attributed to the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, who made a speech which turned altogether on that topic; but concluding with a general motion on the state of the currency, he lost the votes of those who were averse from altering it. He was surprised that hon. Members who ascribed all the evils of the country to the change in the currency did not bring forward a substantive proposition respecting it, which might afford the House an opportunity of again expressing a decided opinion on it. That was the manner in which the hon. Member for Essex acted in 1822, when the House, at the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade, came to a resolution that settled the matter for some years. If that course were now taken, no doubt the argu-
852
l
l
Mr. Ward
rose to ask the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) who had been represented to have stated that the corporation of the Bank of England and of the East-India Company exercised an improper influence over the city elections, if that were so, because he wished to inform the hon. Member, if it were, that he was labouring under a mistake. He could assure him that the Bank had never exercised the least influence over the City elections, and had it done so, those who arc supposed to be subject to its power would have freely expressed their opinions on the matter. While he was on his legs he wished to add, that his statement on a former evening relative to the gold currency, included the quantity issued by the Bank of England subsequent to the last returns.
Mr. Warburton
admitted having expressed the opinions alluded to, but he meant it to apply to all such great corporations, and in that sense he had no doubt the remark was correct. He believed, however, that at the last City election the Bank had exercised no influence. Other public bodies however, interfered, and it was a notorious fact, that if the Lord Mayor be a candidate, his office ensures him 500 votes. The hon. Member's question he understood to apply particularly to the Bank, and that body he was bound to say did not exercise any influence at the late election.
Petition read. On the Question that it be printed,
Mr. Davenport
, in answer to the noble Lord's challenge, begged to say that he would, before the close of the Session, submit a distinct motion respecting the Currency, which would afford the opportunity of discussion for which the noble Lord seemed anxious.—Petition to be printed;
MANUFACTURE OF ARMS.]
Mr. Lawley
presented a Petition from the Gun-makers of Birmingham, against the intended abolition of the Arms' Proof-house of that town. This Petition, he said, from its importance well deserved the attention of the House. This persons who signed it carried on a trade
853
l
Alderman Thompson
, in support of the prayer of the petition, contended that it was necessary that Government should give some employment to the manufacturers of Arms, otherwise, in the event of a war, the means of supply might be found wanting. He was convinced that the Ordnance in undertaking the manufacture itself, acted from the best motives, but at the same time he must assert, that Government ought to trust for a supply to the private manufacturers. That they were capable of meeting its demands was proved by the fact that between 1803 and 1815 not less than 3,277,000 stand were manufactured in this country.
Mr. Littleton
conceived that the supply of Arms should be left, like that of any other manufacture, to the competition of capitalists, and should not be a Government manufacture. For a considerable period during the late war, a musket a minute, including night and day, was manufactured in the districts from which the Petition came. Had the establishment at Enfield been broken up several years ago, the country would have saved a great deal, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would persevere, when the time came for voting the Ordnance estimates, in his intention of resisting the vote for that establishment.
854
Mr. William Smith
had no doubt whatever of the good intention of Government, but he must, on principle, protest against it setting up to be a manufacturer of any article whatever.
Mr. Hume
said, that he also was convinced that it was very bad policy for the Government to manufacture any thing. During the war there was some reason for its making Arms, but the gun-makers of Birmingham, and other places, were now so experienced, and their establishments were so large, that they might be safely relied on to furnish any quantity, and of the best quality, which might be desired. He had frequently pressed on the attention of the Government the propriety of putting down the establishment referred to, and he should be very happy to give his support to the hon. Member for Warwickshire.
Mr. Perceval
would only remark, that when the Ordnance estimates were discussed, he should be able to shew that the Government had good reason for keeping up this establishment. He would defer stating his views till it was brought substantively before the House by the hon. Member for Warwickshire.—Petition to be printed.
Alderman Thompson
presented a similar Petition from the gun-makers of London.
Alderman Wood
supported the prayer of the Petition. He wished to take that opportunity of asking, why a manufacture of knives and forks was carried on at the Ordnance Works at Deptford or Lewisham, he did not know which, to the injury of the Sheffield and Birmingham cutlers, and the cutlers of the metropolis.
Mr. Dugdale
said, he did not think that putting down the Ordnance establishment at Enfield would be of any benefit to the manufacturers of Arms, for the Ordnance had already a million stand of Arms in its possession. As to the knives and folks alluded to by the worthy Alderman, he could assure him that no such manufacture at Deptford, or any where else, was carried on under the control of the Ordnance.—Petition to be printed.
MANUFACTURE OF FLOUR.]
Mr. Western
presented a Petition from certain Millers in Essex, praying that they might be permitted to take foreign corn out of bond, for the purpose of exporting the flour to be manufactured out of that corn, on the payment of a duty of 4
s
855
Mr. Bramston
supported the prayer of the Petition.
Mr. Herries
begged leave to remind the hon. Member, that the subject involving the prayer of the petition had been discussed at length in that House, and that the opposition to it did not arise from the Ministers, but from hon. Members connected with the landed interest. Ministers were on that occasion anxious to promote the object the petitioners had in view, and would now do the same thing so far as was compatible with the existing Corn-laws. Government was aware that the measure would supply employment to many unemployed mills, and it was desirous to accede to the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Hume
thought the present a favourable time for attending to the prayer of the petitioners, and he hoped that the Government would bring forward some measure to carry it into effect.—Petition to be printed.
CANADA.]
Mr. Labouchere
, in rising to postpone, at the request of his hon. friend, the Member for Dover, his motion respecting the state of the Judicature and Legislative Councils of the Canadas, in order to allow an early hearing for the motion respecting Taxation, wished to know whether the public service would suffer if he brought forward his motion on the question of granting money. He was particularly anxious to bring it on before the sums were voted for fortifying Canada. He was unwilling to retard public business, and if that were to be the result of his bringing forward his Motion, on going into a Committee of Supply, as there was no open day until the 18th of May, he should be obliged to defer his Motion till that day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, so many motions had been brought on at various times by hon. Gentlemen on going into Committees of Supply, that the House had now arrived almost at the Easter holidays without having got through one quarter of the Estimates of the year; but if there was any Gentleman who had any motion
856
TRIAL BY JURY—NEW SOUTH WALES.]
Mr. Jephson
said, Sir, I had given notice of an Address to the Crown to extend the right of Trial by Jury to New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land: I now rise with great pleasure to withdraw this Motion, as it has been rendered unnecessary by the fair and liberal way in which I have been met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He has agreed that an Order of Council should forthwith issue, directing that Juries, formed of the Colonists, and with all the incidents of English Juries, should be granted to all defendants in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land, where the conduct or character of the Government or Governor, or of the Executive Council, or any of its members, should be concerned; also in cases where any conflicting interest or party feeling existed between the civil and military classes,—instead of the present Jury of seven officers, selected by the Governor." This ought, I think, to satisfy the Colonists, and those who interest themselves on their behalf in this House; and I do assure the right hon. Gentleman that I receive this concession made so freely out of this House with much greater pleasure than if a majority of the House had forced upon him the resolution I had this night intended to move. The effect will be very different in the Colony. The enlightened portion of the Colonists must see that the Government is not one of its tyrannical masters; but that there are those now who are intrusted with the management of Colonial affairs who are willing to concede their fair desires, and to impart the full blessings of a Constitution which is the heritage of the Colonist. Before I sit down, if I might hope that any advice of mine would reach the Colonies, it would be this—that the liberal portion of the Press in that colony should abstain from that coarseness of vituperation and harshness of expression towards all who are placed in authority which I have been sorry to remark in the researches I have been obliged to make in preparing for this Motion. Such feelings are, in all states of society, to be lamented; but in a free country more particularly so,
857
INJUDICIOUS TAXATION.]
Mr. Poulett Thomson
, in bringing forward his Motion on the subject of Taxation, spoke as follows:—Sir; In rising to make the Motion of which I have given notice, I have to acknowledge the courtesy of my honourable friend in postponing his very important notice; a courtesy and kindness which I should never have thought of demanding upon personal grounds; but which the vast importance, as well as the nature of the Motion which I have the honour of bringing under the consideration of Parliament, may fairly claim; especially when, as I am happy to remark from what has passed in previous debates, the subject has already attracted so much attention. It is painful to me at any time to solicit the indulgence of the House on my own behalf, and that feeling is increased upon the present occasion, when the importance of the subject, of which I propose to treat, renders me more than usually sensible of my own in-competency to do justice to it, and when I shall be compelled by its nature to trespass upon the patience of my hearers for a more than usual length of time. The deep conviction, however, which I entertain, that no subject was ever submitted for deliberation of greater importance than this, whilst it supports me in the task which I have undertaken to perform, gives me ground to hope that I shall not ask in vain for that indulgence which this House is never backward in extending to those who claim it upon such grounds. Sir, I am aware that in introducing so large a subject, as that of a great part of the taxation of this country, to the consideration of Parliament, I may expose myself to the charge of presumption. I may be told, that I am undertaking a task which does not become a Member of this House unconnected with official station, and holding no responsible situation;—that I am trespassing upon the province of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose immediate duty it is, to regulate the financial concerns of the empire: but I trust that the nature of the Motion which I have in view will serve to acquit me of such an accusation. I do not venture to propose to the House any plan of financial reform, any positive proposition of change; I am conscious that to do so would not be-
858
859
860
861
"Per damna per cædes, ab ipso
Ducit opes, animumque ferro."
862
La Richesse de la Hollande
863
864
865
l
l
*
l
l
*
866
867
l
l
*
*
868
*
l
l
s
l
l
*
869
d
l
870
l
871
l
l
l
d
d
s
d
s
d
Flint & Plate.
Broad.
Crown.
Battle.
Cwts. 67,615
20,607
83,940
227,476
s
s
Flint & Plate.
Broad.
Crown.
Bottle.
Cwts. 29,600
6,140
55,502
155,595
Flint & Plate.
Broad.
Crown.
Bottle.
Cwts. 68,134
6,956
90,603
224,864
d
s
d
l
d
872
d
l
l
l
l
d
873
d
d
l
l
s
s
874
l
l
l
l
d
d
s
875
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
876
877
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
878
l
Nett produce of Sugar
£.5,002,000
Tea
3,177 000
Tobacco
2,793,000
Foreign Spirits
2,921,000
Wine
1,699,000
£.15,592,000
879
s
d
l
l
l
l
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
880
l
l
s
d
s
d
l
l
s
s
l
l
l
s
l
l
s
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
881
s
d
s
d
l
l
l
l
*
s
*
882
*
s
d
l
s
d
l
s
l
l
s
l
l
l
*
883
d
l
s
l
l
s
l
l
l
*
*
884
s
s
d
s
s
l
s
d
s
d
l
s
d
s
d
l
s
d
s
d.,
l
l
l
l
s
d
l
885
l
l
s
d
l
s
l
s
d
l
l
886
l
887
s
s
s
s
s
l
s
s
888
l
s
l
l
l
889
s
d
s
s
l
l
l
890
s
d
s
s
d
s
d
l
l
s
l
l
l
l
l
891
d
d
d
l
892
s
d
The Times
Scotsman
893
l
894
l
l
l
895
896
Colonel Davies
, in very few words, seconded the Motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that although there were several of the general principles laid down by the hon. Member for Dover in which he was most happy to concur, and although he thought it next to impossible not to concur in the principle with which the hon. Member concluded—that it was expedient "to make a revision of the taxes, so that the means of paying the sums voted
897
898
899
900
l
901
l
l
902
903
904
Mr. Bankes
did not consider the course of Government to have gone far enough, and therefore declared his intention of supporting this motion for a Committee, as he was anxious to open the whole subject of the taxation of the country. The taxation of the country was the main cause of its distress, and though he differed from many of the positions laid down by the hon. member for Dover, he had no objection to submit the whole of it to the examination of a committee. Why any objection should be made to its appointment he could not conceive; for it ought not to be forgotten, that if the Finance Committee had been permitted to sit another year, it would have taken this very subject into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that a commutation of taxes had at one time been under the consideration of his Majesty's Government. He was sorry, as such had been the case, that some commutation had not been adopted. He thought that there was no better mode of relieving the distress of the country than by commuting the taxes which pressed on the lower, for taxes which affected the richer classes of society. He conjured the House to lose no time in making that commutation, as the distress was urgent, and might be beyond relief if it were not speedily alleviated. He had heard it represented that our exports at the present moment were greater than at any former period. If that fact were true, it was evident that there must be something rotten at heart, when it existed in conjunction with the extreme distress which was admitted to pervade the country.
905
Mr. Robinson
said, he meant to vote for the Motion, though he did not concur in all the views of the hon. member for Dover. He rose principally, however, to state a fact which would show that the hon. Member had not made an accurate estimate of our exports to France and Portugal respectively. It appeared that during the last period for which the official returns were made out, the British and Irish exports to Portugal amounted to 2,506,755
l
l
l
l
Mr. Maberly
was surprised that Government should object to the Motion of the hon. member for Dover on account of its general nature, when they had consented to the appointment of the Finance Committee, the objects of which were of a much more general character. There was one point upon which he could not concur with the hon. Mover,—namely, granting the Government a vote of credit to meet any deficiencies; nor could he concur in the recommendation of the hon. member for Dorsetshire to impose a property-tax in time of peace. As to the professions of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was his wish to reduce Taxation, he believed that not one farthing would have been taken off had not the House insisted on it; and he further believed that if the House would look close after the Estimates, that it might compel the right hon. Gentleman to mate still further reductions.
Mr. Baring
next addressed the House, but was heard very indistinctly. As far as we could collect, he expressed himself as follows:—He believed that the country would experience no material relief from a change of the system of taxation. He did not mean to deny that the reduction of taxation upon particular articles would increase the consumption of them. He was desirous of seeing an experiment of that nature tried, but unfortunately the recent measures of Ministers had rendered that impossible. He could not avoid declaring, however, that in his opinion, the House of Commons had never lent its sanction to a more profligate arrangement than that which left the country without a sixpence of surplus revenue. The hon. Mover who proposed to reduce taxation to the extent which he had stated in his speech, contented himself with merely hinting at the ways and means which he would substitute for them. In fact, the only suggestion he had offered upon this point was borrowed
906
Mr. E. Denison
supported the Motion.
General Gascoyne
expressed his determination to oppose the Motion, and said, he was certainly astonished at the quarter in
907
Mr. Warburton
said, that under ordinary circumstances he would have been content if the question of taxation had remained in the hands of his Majesty's Ministers; but observing what they had done, and feeling that it was necessary that one or the other side of the House should call for measures that would equalize the income and the expenditure, he should certainly vote for this Motion. The gallant General who had just spoken complained of a Property-tax as one that would reduce considerably the income of the landed proprietor. But the other right hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) had very properly said, the other night, that the great fault of the present system of taxation was, that it rested too heavily on the industrious classes. If that were so, what could be fairer than that the landed proprietor should be called on to alleviate that pressure by sacrificing a portion of his income? It was said, that if this committee were appointed, the necessary consequence must be the establishment of a Property-tax. Now this he looked upon to be a premature assumption. It would be the duty of that committee to look to the various sources of revenue, and to inquire whether, by judicious management, the amount now derived from them might not be increased so as to meet the expenditure of the country. If they found that they could not effect that object by an alteration in the existing system, then, and then only, it would be right for them to resort to the measure of which the gallant General had spoken. The hon. Member then proceeded to state that there were many articles, and amongst them timber, from which a much larger revenue might be raised than they produced at present. If, for instance, the duty on timber imported from the Baltic were placed on a level with the duty of timber imported from Canada, there would be a gain to the country of 1,500,000
l
Lord Althorp
observed, that if the Com-
908
909
Mr. Herries
said, that in his opinion, the Motion had a two-fold, nay, he might assert, a three-fold object. It went first to effect a certain specific reduction of taxation. It next embraced an inquisition into the whole state of the taxation of this country,—an inquisition to be carried on in a committee which the hon. member for Dover proposed, and of which he, of course, if the Motion were agreed to, would be at the head. In addition to this, as had been stated by almost every Gentleman who had spoken on the Question, it might be expected that the committee would consider a proposition for a Property-tax, in substitution of many taxes which the hon. Member was of opinion ought to be repealed. Now, speaking of the hon. Gentleman's budget, he must say that it was particularly unfortunate. Unquestionably it was not received, even by the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion, with any tiling like the favour that was shown to his right hon. friend, when on a former evening he made his financial statement. The hon. member for Callington called the proposition of the hon. Mover a profligate proposal, and the hon. member for Dorsetshire took the earliest opportunity of reprobating this extraordinary budget. For his own part, he would ask, what could be a more preposterous, what a more miserable expedient, than the raising of successive loans by votes of credit? The hon. Member said, only one vote; but he would say, successive votes of credit; because, if they once took that course, they would, of necessity, be compelled to pursue it. He must, on the grounds stated by his right hon. friend, object to the policy of such a committee as that which was now proposed. For his own part, he conceived that no benefit could result from a committee in which, as it would embrace an investigation into the
910
Sir H. Parnell
was of opinion, that the appointment of such a committee as that which was now proposed would be productive of much good. If the Finance Committee had been allowed to proceed with its labours, there would not have been, in his opinion, any necessity for this Motion: that committee would, as it appeared to him, have investigated those points which the hon. member for Dover embraced in his Motion. As he expected that the committee would have resumed its labours, he had in the recess turned his attention to the subject of taxes, and he had drawn up some observations relative to the revision of taxation, which he meant to have laid before the committee. This fact must prove to the House that his impression at least was, that the committee was intended to take that subject into consideration. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Callington state that there was no necessity for an alteration in taxation. To prove that there was, he need only refer to the rapid improvement which was visible amongst the manufacturers of the Netherlands. An inquiry into the state of taxation was, in his opinion, most desirable. A
911
l
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that at that late hour he should address himself to the considerations of paramount importance arising out of the question before the House, and thereby he should disembarrass himself of the details into which the hon. member for Dover had entered. The proposal was,— a proposal made for the first time in Parliament,—that a Select Committee should be appointed for revising and considering the whole system of the taxation of the country. It was something wonderful that it had never occurred before, that the whole power of the Government and of the Parliament should be thus delegated to a select committee of twenty-one. It was a practice founded on good sense, that the House should reserve to itself the power which the hon. Member wished to devolve on a select committee; that the House, possessing ample information upon all the necessary points, should not transfer to any delegated portion of it those powers which a House of Commons ought to exercise of itself. And let it be recollected that the House of Commons had fought the battles of taxation! against Ministers upon former occasions without committees. Even in the time of Sir Robert Walpole the Excise tax was rejected by the House without any inquiry in a committee. The Shop-tax, proposed by Mr. Pitt, had been defeated without any committee. In 1807, Lord Henry Petty proposed a duty on iron, which had been defeated in that House. In 1817 the House had defeated the intention of the Government to continue the property-tax; and with respect to this tax, he would advise the House, whether a Property-tax were desirable or not, to start fair on the question, and not have it decided in a select committee. He would give no opinion on the expediency of a Property-tax; but he advised Gentlemen in that House, and
912
l
pro tanto
913
Mr. Bright
said, the right hon. Secretary had laid good grounds for the House to reject the Motion. It was the duty of the House to keep this power to itself, and not intrust it to a committee. The House should be jealous of parting with its power in respect to taxation. He never could consent to the imposition of a Property-tax.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the only part of the speech of the hon. Member for Dover from which he entirely dissented was the proposal of a vote of credit, or as he understood, successive votes of credit. He agreed with the right hon. President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Herries), that when a first step in this way was taken, no one could tell where it would stop. He could not agree with the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel), that if the House supported this Motion, on any view of a subject which was not consistent with the view of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be placing the Government in such a situation that it would be more manly and consistent to declare that the House placed no confidence in his Majesty's Ministers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone further, and stated that it would almost amount to a misprision of treason, or at least a slight on the Government, for any other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
914
l
915
916
Mr. Bright
stated, in explanation, that he opposed the Motion because it was, he thought, unconstitutional to refer such a subject to a committee.
Mr. Peel
explained, that his objection to the Motion arose as well from its being nearly unprecedented in Parliament as because the committee it recommended would be unlimited in its character.
Sir C. Burrell
, we understood, opposed the Motion, but the few words that he said were lost in the gallery, owing to the noise and confusion in the House.
Mr. Western
said, he should be reluctantly compelled to vote against the Motion of his hon. friend, on the ground that such a Committee as he recommended would supersede the House of Commons in the exercise of its legitimate and natural functions. Sugar, assessed taxes, stamp duties, were
917
Viscount Palmerston
said, he should merely, at that late hour, offer a few remarks in explanation of the grounds on which he intended to vote in support of the present Motion. He was the more desirous to do so, as he stood in a peculiar and singular situation, according to the opinion expressed by his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home Department. That right hon. Gentleman had observed that no person spoke in favour of the Motion before the House, who did not also profess himself favourable to a Property-tax. He, however, was an exception amongst those who should so vote, as he did not desire to recommend a Property-tax. Nay more, the bias of his mind was against the imposition of such a tax as a substitute for those upon articles of consumption. If it were only to affect the rent of land, it must necessarily be partial and heavy upon those to whose prejudice it operated. If it were imposed on the profits of capital, it would leave the country nearly in the same distress which was prevalent at present. He should support the Motion for a committee under the hope that it might ascertain to what extent the inconvenience attendant on raising the existing taxes could be abated, or whether the system of inquisitorial inspection could not be entirely abolished. It had been justly said, that the taxes on production were ultimately on consumption; but passing by that part of the subject altogether, he thought that the able exposition of the manner of levying taxes at present adopted, which had been made by the hon. member for Dover, ought of itself to induce the House to accede to his proposition. Indeed, the recent statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer tended much to the same effect, and it was now high time to institute an inquiry for the purpose of deciding whether he had adduced solitary instances of mismanagement in the important matter of taxation. When, he asked, had the inexpediency of the present mode of taxation been revealed to his Ma-
918
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the relief of 5,000,000
l
Lord Palmerston
, in explanation, said, that was what he meant to imply. The restrictions on the trade were the consequence of the tax.
Mr. P. Thomson
briefly replied. He complained that those hon. Members who followed him in opposition to his Motion left out of consideration the real merits of what he said, and rested their objections upon inferences as to the object of his Motion which he had never intended to draw. They never stated that his proposal would not prove beneficial, but confined themselves to appealing to the feelings of those who were known to be opposed to a Property-tax, which it formed no part of his plan to propose. It was not his wish to delegate the powers of the House to a Committee. All he asked was for an opportunity to get information on the subject of taxation, which would be useful in directing the House in its future proceedings as to what taxes were best to be continued or repealed.
The House then divided—
For the Motion 78—Against it 167— Majority 89.
List of the Minority.
Anson, Colonel
Bankes, H.
Benett, J.
Carter, J.
Bernal, R.
Clive, E. B.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Clifton, Lord
Burdett, Sir F.
Cholmeley, M. J.
Blandford, Marquis
Cavendish, H.
Birch, J.
Cavendish, C.
Byng, G.
Cavendish, W.
Baring, F.
Canning, Hon. S.
Blake, Sir F.
Calthorpe, Hon, A.
919
Davies, Colonel
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Denison, J. E.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Dennison, W. J.
Palmer, C. F.
Duncombe, T.
Pallmer, N.
Dickinson, W.
Portman, E. B.
Ewart, W.
Poyntz, W. S.
Ebrington, Lord
Protheroe, E.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Phillimore, Dr.
Fortescue, Hon. G.
Russell, Lord J.
Fyler, T. B.
Rumbold, C. E.
Grant, Hon. C.
Rice, T. S.
Grant, R.
Robinson, G. R.
Guise, Sir B. W.
Stanley, E.
Howick, Lord
Stanley, Lord
Hume, J.
Smith, V.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sanderson, Viscount
Honywood, P.
Townshend, Lord C.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Tomes, J.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Uxbridge, Lord
Labouchere, H.
Villiers, T. H.
Lloyd, Sir E. P.
Warburton, H.
Lester, B.
Wood, C.
Lamb, hon. G.
Wilson, Sir R.
Littleton, E.
Webb, Colonel
Lumley, J. S.
Wilbraham, G.
Lennard, T. B.
Warrender, Sir G.
Morpeth, Lord
TELLERS.
Maberly, J.
Althorp, Lord
Nugent, Lord
Thomson, C. P.
O'Grady, Colonel
PAIRED OFF
Price, R.
Robarts, A. W.
Parnell, Sir H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Phillips, G.
Phillips, Sir G.
Palmerston, Lord
Beaumont, T.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 26, 1830
MINUTES.] The Earl of ROSSLYN moved that the Standing Order (No. 210) respecting Private Bills for the establishment of Joint-Stock Companies be read.
[The noble Lord said, that certain exceptions had been made in that Order, and he should move on Monday to have them extended to Joint-Stock Companies for making quays or landing places to markets.]
Lord ALTHORP brought up from the Commons the Evidence taken on the charge of Bribery against East Retford, which, on the Motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY, was Ordered to be Printed.
Sir A. GRANT brought up from the Commons a Copy of the Report of the Committee to which had been referred the 18th Report of the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry, and the Depositions of Sir Jonah Harrington, Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland, and certain other Papers relating to the discharge of his judicial duties.—To be Printed.
Sir A. GRANT brought up from the Commons the Annual Indemnity Bill—Read a first time.
Petitions Presented. By Lord KING, from Bridport, for a Revision of the Criminal Code, with a view to the Abolition of punishment by Death for Forgery. By the same noble Lord from the Anti-Bread-Tax Association at Kidderminster, complaining of the effects of the Corn-laws upon the Poor.
[He believed that the Petitioners somewhat exaggerated the effects of these laws, when they stated that the tax raised
920
l
By the Earl of RADNOR, complaining of Distress, from the county of Denbigh:—By the Earl of CARNARVON, to the same effect, from Holywell; and by Earl STANHOPE from Heirderwell, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, praying a continuation of the Bounty on Fisheries.
JEWS—PETITION.]
The Earl of Limerick
presented a Petition from a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England, Isaac Nicholson, the Vicar of Great Paxton, Huntingdonshire, praying for the removal of all Civil Disabilities affecting the Jews on account of their religion. Such a Petition, said the noble Lord, was rather singular, coming from such a quarter; but though he did not concur with the Petitioner in his prayer, yet the rev. gentleman was so respectable that he could not but lay it before their Lordships. The Petitioner stated, that the Holy Scriptures were full of prophecies concerning the Jews, and he thought that the time was approaching when many of those prophecies were about to be fulfilled, and he thought the Legislature was bound to do every thing to promote their conversion to Christianity.
FOREIGN FLOUR—PETITION.]
The Earl of Malmesbury
, from Manufacturers of Flour in and near London, praying for better protection against the importation of Foreign Flour. They stated that flour might now be introduced at a much lower rate of duty than foreign corn, and they prayed an alteration of the law in that respect. The noble Earl adverted to a petition presented from Millers on a former occasion, and recently repeated in another place, praying to be allowed to grind foreign wheat in bond for exportation, and hoped that the Government would not permit such an experiment again to be tried, as it would open the door to great frauds.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 26, 1830
MINUTES.] Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Sir J. NEWPORT, for a detailed Account of 4,302
l
s
Petitions Presented. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter by Mr. MUNDY, from Aston, Normanton, and fifteen other places in the county of Derby. By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Chamber of Commerce
921
[Places, he said, situated in the midst of a population, which consisted of two hundred thousand persons. He regretted to add that these Petitions complained of great distress, and were accompanied by statements to a similar effect from many parishes in the neighbourhood.]
By the Marquis of BLANOFORD, on the subject of Distress, from the inhabitants of Norton.—To be printed. Against the opening of the Beer Trade, by Mr. LITTLETON, from the Licensed Victuallers of Stafford. By Mr. WESSTERN from certain Maltsters in Essex, for Protection against the effects on stock in hand of the intended Repeal of the Duty on Beer. By Mr. DUGDALE, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in the neighbourhood of Alcester, in Warwickshire, praying for a Repeal of the Malt and Beer Taxes.
[The hon. Gentleman took occasion to rectify a mistake which had occurred as to what he had said on the petition lately presented by his colleague from the gun-makers of Birmingham. He had not said that there was no chance of success to the manufacturers when Government kept a million of arms ready for service; but stated that this great supply rendered the maintenance of the Government establishment for further fabrication unnecessary.]
By Sir E. KNATCHBULL from the Hop-Growers in the Weald of Kent, and from Hawkhurst, praying for a Removal of the Duty on Hops. By Sir F. BURDRTT, from Gloucestershire against the Truck System.
[The hon. Baronet concurred in the Prayer of the Petition.]
By Mr. HUME from the Kidderminster Anti-Bread-Tax Association, No. 1, for a gradual, within ten years, but total Repeal of the Corn-laws.
REMOVAL OF THE HAYMARKET—ST. JAMES'S PARK.]
Lord Lowther
Mr. Byng
objected, on the part of his constituents, to this Bill, which, to the best of his belief, was only calculated to create inconvenience and expense to a large portion of the inhabitants of Westminster and the neighbourhood of the metropolis. Some farmers would have to carry their hay two miles further to the new market, and all would be put to great additional expense in going back with a return load of manure. No practical inconvenience was felt from the present situation of the market; and as the new market would occasion a great deal of inconvenience, he meant to oppose the Bill at every opportunity. He would not however resist bringing up the Report, as the House was so thinly attended, he being convinced that the Bill was the less
922
Lord Lowther
observed in reply, that the unpopularity of the measure was by no means so universal amongst the hon. Member's constituents as he would have the House to believe. On the contrary, he apprehended that the suggestion for a removal was generally received with approbation. The reluctance of a few, even although they might lose by the alteration, ought to give way to the general interests of the public. In fact, if partial objections were not in such cases overlooked, all improvements of any kind whatsoever must be prevented. In Birmingham and Sheffield the respective markets had been removed from the centre to the outskirts of those towns, and the change was found to be in every respect advantageous and satisfactory to the inhabitants. What would be thought if it were now proposed to establish the market in St. James's Square, and yet that was more spacious than the Haymarket? In fact, when the market was first established, St. Martin's was really St. Martin's in the Fields, now it was St. Martin's in the centre of the town, and the situation had become unsuitable to a market. The place whither it was intended to remove this market was not distant more than a mile and a half from the northern districts of the metropolis.
The Speaker
here interposed, by stating that it was right he should inform the House, before the discussion proceeded farther, that the report of the committee was irregular, not being in accordance with the Standing Order that prescribed the terms in which the Report of a Committee on a private bill ought to be couched. This Report merely set forth that the Standing Orders had been complied with,—that they had heard counsel and made certain amendments, leaving out what was most important,—namely, that "they had examined the allegations in support of the Bill, and found the same to be true." It therefore became necessary that the Report should be recommitted before they could proceed further with the Bill, consistently with the observance of the forms of the House.
Mr. Byng
remarked, that the promoters
923
Lord Lowther
Mr. Hobhouse
expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex with respect to the inconvenience and expense which a great number of persons must sustain in consequence of the removal in contemplation. He should now, however, give notice relative to another subject nearly affecting the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of the metropolis—that when the Bill was brought fairly before the House, it was his intention to bring under its consideration the proposed obstruction at the end of Waterloo-place, which precluded the public from entering St. James's-park through the opening, as they had hitherto so naturally expected. They considered the stopping up the passage there as a direct violation of the avowed plan of the Government.
Mr. Hume
agreed with the hon. Member for Westminster in objecting to this churlish exclusion of the public where there was no adequate reason for disregarding their accommodation. He was further of opinion that the House ought not to pass money votes either for the expenses of the Palace or for any other improvement connected with the Park, till this very reasonable demand should be complied with.
Mr. Hobhouse
stated, that his only reason for pursuing the course he did was, because it enabled him to take the earliest opportunity of opposing the obstruction, which was particularly desirable, as the workmen were at present actively employed in stopping up the passage in question.
Mr. Protheroe
entertained a similar opinion as to the general inconvenience and disappointment which would be felt in the metropolis if the noble Lord persisted in refusing so reasonable a request. He wished to see the entrance from Waterloo-place effected by a double flight of steps into the Park.—The Bill recommitted.
CONVERSION OF ANNUITIES—NEW
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the 4-per-eent Annuity Acts.
The right hon. Gentleman, when in
924
l
925
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
926
l
l
l
l
s
s
l
"1. That all and every person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, who now is or are, or hereafter may be, interested in, or entitled unto, any part of the National Debt redeemable by law, which now carries an interest after the rate of 4
l
l
l
l
l
l
s
l
s
l
s
l
s
"2. That the interest and dividends payable in respect of the said New 3
l
s
927
l
"3. That all and every person and persons, bodies politic or corporate, who shall not, within the period commencing on Monday, the 5th day of April, and ending on Saturday, the 24th day of April, 1830, "both days inclusive, signify his, her, or their dissent from accepting and receiving a share in the said New 3
l
s
l
l
l
"4. That all and every person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, who shall not, within the periods respectively specified, have signified his, her, or their dissent from accepting and receiving a share in the said New 3
l
s
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
928
l
l
l
l
"5. That provision shall be made for paying off such proprietor or proprietors of the said New 4
l
l
s
l
"6. That all persons, bodies politic and corporate, possessed of any part of the said New 4
l
l
"7. That every proprietor or proprietors of the New 4
l
l
l
l
929
l
"8. That all executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees, may signify such dissent in respect of such shares of the said New 4
l
Mr. Bernal
, on the Question having been put, said, as the greater part of the 4-per-cents were trust funds, he hoped the mode adopted of securing the transfers would be such as would equalize the payments and satisfy the parties for whom the funds were held in trust. He was anxious also to know by what plan the dissentients were to be paid off, because that ought to be ascertained before the House were called upon to provide for the necessary amount. Was it to be by Exchequer Bills?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, in reply, that it would be inexpedient for the Government prematurely to disclose its plan. He hoped it would be enough for his hon. friend to know, that the intended mode of proceeding would be what became the country to pursue in fairness and justice to the public creditor, while the interest of the public was not neglected.
Mr. P. Thomson
said, it was of great importance to ascertain how the dissentients were to be paid, and he should therefore beg leave to repeat the question already put by his hon. friend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could give no further satisfaction. It was necessary to know the number of dissentients, and the amount required to satisfy them before any plan could be adopted. If it were done by way of annuity, an interest corresponding to the eventual reduction of capital, and the rate of the market, would be given.
Mr. Bernal
was persuaded that his right hon. friend meant to do justice, but must press upon him the necessity of making his plan known as early as possible.
Mr. Hume
pressed earnestly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, in
930
Mr. Robinson
was quite convinced that the project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was practicable, but he thought the fullest information ought to be given to all the parties concerned.
Lord Althorp
said, he too was anxious for information, though he was bound to say that the main object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his entire approbation. He wished, on that occasion, to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the propriety of converting all the permanent into terminable annuities, because we had the means of doing so; and that would, at no distant period, put an end to the public debt. The plan should be, to effect the conversion at the market rate of interest, but he would induce the parties concerned to come into the measure by giving them a bonus. The plan had been strongly recommended by the Finance Committee, and since then he believed about 2,300,000
l
l
l
931
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was anxious to give any reasonable proposition a fair trial, but he did not like to pledge himself hastily. The calculations on which such schemes were founded assumed certain facts as data which were not always correct. Although he had been with the noble Lord at that University where calculation was much studied, he confessed that he had not yet mastered Mr. Finlayson's plan; but supposing, when he had mastered it, that he should find it promising, he would give it a fair trial. He had certainly, at one time, supposed that the annuity scheme would not be popular. Experience, however, had convinced him that he had made a mistake. Being aware that the proposed plan would, if founded on correct data, lessen the capital of the debt in a few years, he would certainly take the subject into his consideration.
Mr. Maberly
expressed his satisfaction th Mr. Brickwood's plan was to be tried.
The Resolutions in furtherance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition were then put, and agreed to.—To be reported on Monday next.
SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.]
On the Motion of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, when
Sir G. Clerk
proposed, that 57,560
l
s
Mr. Hume
wished to know what saving had accrued from the change which he understood had been made in the Navy Board, two Commissioners having retired?
Sir G. Clerk
explained, that the Navy Board, which, by regulations of 1786 was divided into several committees, had been, by a late regulation, which received the sanction of the Finance Committee, altered in its constitution. Instead of being; divided into committees, each Commissioner was made responsible for some one department, and in consequence of this regulation two Commissioners had been removed. But in consequence of the important duties
932
Mr. Maberly
complained of the amount of the Superannuations, which he said had increased instead of diminished. He strongly recommended Government to adopt some plan by which its servants might provide for their own superannuations.
Mr. Herries
replied that Government had done so. In all the appointments which have been made since the recommendation of the Select Committee on this subject, the plan referred to by the hon. Member had been acted upon. The superannuation of all public officers who might hereafter enter the service of the country would cost it nothing. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government had the most earnest desire to carry into full effect the recommendations of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Hume
asked whether all the officers under Government were obliged to provide for their own superannuation?
Mr. Herries
answered, all officers under the Treasury.
Mr. George Dawson
observed, that the regulation applied to all officers who had been appointed since the passing of the Treasury Minute last year, and he had to inform the hon. Gentleman, that he should, in a few days, introduce a bill to extend it to all offices under the Crown.
Mr. Maberly
imputed all these improvements to the Finance Committee which he was sorry had not been revived. The public would know to whom the reforms were due.
Mr. Hume
recommended that a scale of salaries to be adopted in every department of the public service should be drawn up and submitted to the House. The present system was inexplicable, it went on no principle, and required revision.
Mr. George Dawson
agreed in the observation of the hon. Member, and begged to inform him that a Return was preparing
933
Mr. Maberly
desired to know whether this bill was only to regulate superannuations?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, according to a Treasury Minute, all persons hereafter accepting office immediately under the Treasury, are to have a reduction made in the amount of their salaries, to form a fund to provide for their own superannuations. The bill which he meant to introduce would extend this principle to all the departments of the public service.
Mr. Hume
objected to the number of useless officers in the Admiralty Office. One Secretary for the Admiralty should at least be got rid of. In 1792 the expense of the three departments, Navy-office, Navy-Pay-office, and the Admiralty, was only 58,719
l
l
l
l
Sir B. Martin
said, that if the salaries had increased, the number of Commissioners had been diminished since 1792, and that the public business had increased. In 1792, all the commissioners had a power of selling clerkships; the clerks in their turn received fees, and he could assure the hon. Member, that if the expense to the public was now greater than in 1792, the emoluments of the individuals were much less. The practice of selling clerkships and of taking fees had been done away. He was sure that it could be neither for the honour nor the interest of the public service to return to the system of 1792. If the question were examined in all its bearings, he was persuaded that the present Estimate, as compared with
934
Mr. Hume
repeated his statement, that the salaries of these officers were too large; and, in particular, he would object to giving the Superintendant of Transports 1000
l
Sir Byam Martin
said, he ought, perhaps, to have stated, that the Superintendant of Transports performed the duty of a Commissioner of the Navy.
Mr. Maberly
did not think the salaries of the Commissioners too large, but he observed that many gentlemen held more than one appointment. The Commissioner for Hackney Coaches, for example, with a salary of 300
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Sir H. Parnell
wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Finance Committee, with respect to the mode of keeping accounts.
Sir G. Clerk
said, that it was necessary to bring in a bill for that purpose, and the bill was in the course of preparation. He added, that the present Accountant-general of the Navy-office had introduced, in lieu of the old system, a very improved system of accounts, upon the basis of the double entry.
935
Mr. Maberly
complained, that the old system of keeping accounts was still adhered to by the Navy-office, when a better system had been prepared and recommended, but not adopted. He wished that Mr. Abbott's plan, which was similar to that adopted by the East India Company, and by the French Government, had been followed.
Mr. G. Dawson
defended the conduct of the Treasury, in adopting the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts, and rejecting that which was recommended by the other Commissioner, Mr. Abbott. It was for the Treasury to determine between the two plans, and they adopted, upon mature consideration, that which they considered the best.
Sir H. Parnell
said, it was plain that the Treasury, in this instance, had acted with too much haste. They should have let the merits of the two systems be tried before they adopted one in preference to the other. They showed too great haste in rejecting the system which included the journal. It must be admitted, he thought, that his hon. friend, who carried on an extensive business, was a better judge of accounts than the officers of the Treasury; and the opinion of his hon. friend was a sufficient condemnation of the system the Treasury had adopted. The Government should have tried the two systems before adopting either. When the Finance Committee recommended that the public accounts should be investigated by Commissioners, it was with a view of procuring information; so that the best possible system might be introduced. He thought, and so did his hon. friend, that the system which included the journal was preferable to the other, and thinking so, he must affirm, that the Treasury had acted rashly in at once adopting the system which did not include it.
Mr. Herries
said, the Government had no interest in the matter further than to select the system of keeping accounts which they deemed to be best, and that they had done in selecting the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts. He conceived that the Treasury had done perfectly right in choosing that system. He had long been of opinion, that uniformity in keeping all the public accounts was very desirable. They would then be easily understood by the House and the country, and the Government would be able at all times to tell how
936
Mr. Keith Douglas
observed, that a great improvement had been introduced by the Treasury within the last three years in the system of keeping accounts in the Navy and other public offices.
Mr. Maberly
said, that he did not censure the individuals, he condemned the total want of system in keeping the accounts in the public offices. The universal system of keeping accounts throughout the commercial world—the system adopted in France—throughout Europe—by the East India Company—and by all merchants—should have been preferred by the Government to the fanciful system of Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, when the two systems in question were laid before him, he had resolved to examine
937
Sir J. Wrottesley
maintained, that in any department where, in the system of keeping accounts, the journal was excluded, the proper and necessary check could not exist. Any private commercial establishment would be ruined in six months unless a journal were kept. By its use, the head of any department could tell every night and morning the whole sum received and expended in that department; and he could exercise an effectual control, with very little trouble on his part, over all the subordinate officers.
Mr. Hume
agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that there would arise a fitter time than that for the discussion; but he wished then to remark, that he had for ten years pressed the Government to introduce a simple system of keeping accounts, so that they might be understood by those who were as little familiar with accounts as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be. At length some attention had been paid to his recommendation, but not, he contended, in the best manner. Without the journal no effective check could exist. No private establishment could keep its accounts without it; the French Government had introduced it into use, and found it an admirable means of controlling its expenses.
The Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution, for a sum of 38,207
l
Mr. Hume
, who contended, that this was an unnecessary and expensive office. The Government should do every thing in this way by contract, as was the case in the Army. If the Victualling Board were to be kept up, one individual would be sufficient to manage it. At present it cost 48,000
l
l
l
938
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Maberly
inquired how it was, that the superannuation allowances had increased in this Estimate?
Sir G. Clerk
said, that the increase arose in the following manner. The clerks on entering the different offices connected with the Navy were distributed among them according as they belonged to the inferior or the superior departments. If they belonged to the inferior department, they received for the first three years only 90
l
l
l
l
l
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that a large capital had been expended in building mills
939
Sir G. Clerk
replied, that there was an exact debtor and creditor account kept of the corn bought and the flour manufactured, together with an account of the salary paid to the Master, and all other contingent expenses. He added, that such a question ought not to be decided merely by pounds, shillings, and pence: it concerned the health and comfort of the seamen; and as long as there was any temptation to adulterate the material of biscuit, which was the case when it was supplied by contract, it was impossible to answer either for the health or the contentment of seamen. When the biscuits were manufactured in the public establishments the seamen knew that there was no temptation to adulterate it.
Mr. Hume
said, it was highly wrong to insinuate that those who professed economy would run the risk of injuring the health of the seamen for the sake of a few pounds. They would do no such thing; but Government might as easily secure against adulteration when the biscuit was supplied by contract as when it was made by its own servants. It must contract for wheat; and might it not be imposed on by bad wheat as well as by bad flour or bad biscuit? What had been advanced did not convince him that the Government ought not to contract for the provisions of the Navy. The ships of the East India Company were supplied by contract, and whenever any of the provisions so supplied were found of inferior quality, the contractors were called upon to make the deficiency
940
l
l
Mr. Maberly
was of opinion, even if meal were an exception to the general rule, that the present mode of supplying salt-meat to the navy was at once unnecessary, useless, and expensive. He had no doubt that all the manufacturing accounts of Government were losing accounts. The hon. Secretary at War had argued some time ago that we ought to keep up a manufactory for swords and cuirasses. He was certain that if the hon. Secretary were to go into the market he could purchase them at half the price which he was paying for their manufacture.
Vote agreed to.
The next Vote proposed was a grant of 137,460
l
Mr. Hume
complained of the extravagant amount of this vote. Some years ago it was not more than 25,000
l
l
l
Sir G. Clerk
explained, that the sum included the rent of a wharf where trans- ports were unloaded, which would not be a permanent charge.
Mr. Maberly
wished to know whether they were to expect any large reduction in these yards as to materials and to artificers. If he understood the evidence given by a gallant Admiral before the Finance Committee rightly, we should not require to have any more ships of the line built after the year 1830, and the yards would not be wanted, except to put down some large frigates to meet those which bad been lately built by America and France. We had now 350 ships of war, a larger number than we could man within any short period after the commencement of a war. Could we, therefore, be justified in keeping up our enormous ship-building establishment
941
l
Sir G. Cockburn
complained, that the hon. member for Abingdon had misrepresented, though he believed very unintentionally, his evidence before the Finance Committee. He had said, that we had now a certain number of ships of the line, and that by 1830 all of these would be in a complete state. In stating that, he by no means meant to assert that all our naval force would by that time be complete: for it happened that we were at present short of frigates. Besides, though we had 350 ships on the list, they were not all in an efficient state. We must keep up our naval establishment to a certain amount, in reference to the amount of other nations. He did not think that the hon. member for Montrose wished to put down the dock-yards entirely. He had himself long been of opinion that the expense of the dock-yards might be reduced; indeed, he had been busily employed in effecting such a reduction. A proof of it might be seen in the single fact, that Government had within a few years reduced 500 salaried officers in the dockyards, whose salaries amounted to nearly 100,000
l
942
l
Mr. Hume
said, that he was glad to hear that we had now, in the fifteenth year of peace, made those reductions which ought to have been made immediately on the termination of the war. It was, however, a severe reflection upon preceding administrations that they had not been made sooner. He wished to know whether there was to be any reduction in the scale of allowances paid to the Commissioner of the Dock-yard at Plymouth for example, who received 1,000
l
l.;
l
l
Sir G. Clerk
said, that no alteration would be made in the scale of those allowances. Some of the offices would be, abolished, but the salaries of those which remained would continue unaltered.
943
Vote then agreed to.
The following Resolutions were also agreed to:—458,720
l
l
l
Mr. Hume
asked, whether it was the intention of Government to revise the bounty on slaves.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that, although this country was subject to great expense in order to suppress the Slave-trade, he thought it would be unwise to abandon that object suddenly. The subject, however, was under the consideration of Government.
The following items were also voted without opposition:—66,494
l
l
l
s
d.,
l
s
d.
Mr. Hume
to say, that he approved of this Vote. He was glad to find that the young men now paid for their education. Formerly this establishment stood the country in 3,245
l
l
l
l
Sir G. Clerk
, in moving for a sum of 854,000
l
Mr. Hume
said, that the regulation alluded to must be of very recent date, for he understood that two promotions had lately been granted at Plymouth, by the flag-officer, Lord Northesk.
Sir G. Cockburn
observed, that the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty thought it was but fair towards those individuals to grant them that promotion
944
The Vote for 296,063
l
Mr. Stanley
to observe, that there was in one page a superannuation allowance of 456
l
l
Sir G. Clerk
answered, that this gentleman had served for a long time at Plymouth, at Woolwich, and Chatham, as Commissioner. His superannuation allowance was calculated on the time he had served, and the salary he had received in the civil office. Mr. Shield was upwards of seventy years of age, and had been for a long period in the active service of the Navy. His superannuation allowance amounted to 466
l
s
Mr. Hume
said, nothing could be more preposterous than that an officer, living in a dock-yard, and possessing every comfort, should receive a salary of greater amount than if he were employed in serving his country abroad.
Sir Byam Martin
said, this individual received his superannuation allowance under an Act of Parliament—his half-pay was granted for forty years' service.
Sir G. Cockburn
observed, that it was not correct to say that those individuals got double what they would have done had they continued actively employed in the Navy. Had they remained in the naval service, they would now have been Admirals, with much larger allowances. Mr. Shield had been forty years in the naval service before he entered the civil service, in which he had been twenty years, and he was now nearly seventy years of age.
l
l;
Mr. J. E. Denison
complained, that by the existing Act of Parliament, a marine, who entered the service at twenty years of age, was entitled to claim his discharge and pension after he had served twenty-one years. Thus a perfectly healthy man of forty-one might claim a salary of 18
l
l
l
l
945
Sir G. Cockburn
said, the statement was true. A marine might obtain his discharge and a pension after twenty-one years service; but the pensions were under consideration. Some alteration would probably take place in the Act of Parliament to which the hon. Member had alluded.
PENSIONS FOR THE HON. R. DUNDAS AND THE HON. W. L. BATHURST.]
The Vote for the sum of 174,584
l
s
d.
Sir R. Heron
said, he hoped that, in proposing the Motion of which he had given notice, he should not be deemed to trespass improperly or unnecessarily on the time of the Committee, while he made a few observations. In the first place, he would say, it was not his fault that the Motion had not been brought forward at an earlier period. He had given many successive notices of his intention to bring the matter under consideration; but circumstances had prevented him from introducing it sooner. He considered the proposition which he was about to submit to the Committee as one of very considerable importance; but he feared that its consideration would not be enhanced in consequence of the subject being taken up by so humble an individual as himself. He observed in the Estimate which they were now called on to vote, the names of two individuals, the Hon. R. Dundas and the Hon. W. L. Bathurst, to the former of whom was granted a pension of 500
l
l
l
nil,
946
l
l
947
l
l
l
l
"No, no," from the Ministerial benches.
l
l
948
l
s
d.
l
The Question having been put,—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
begged to assure the hon. Baronet that he was not one of those who imputed blame to him for the delay that had taken place in bringing on the present discussion—he was aware that the delay had been occasioned by an unwillingness to impede the public service by interposing unnecessary obstacles to the progress of the estimates. He felt anxious to address the Committee on this particular subject, because he thought the hon. Baronet laboured under an erroneous impression, in which in all probability other hon. Members participated, as to the conduct of the Treasury in giving its sanction to this Vote being submitted to Parliament. He thought he should best satisfy the Committee by stating the circumstances of the case, and the grounds on which the Treasury had proceeded in this particular instance, laying aside, as he intended to do, much of the extraneous matter which the hon. Baronet had introduced in the course of his speech. He said "extraneous," because he did not conceive it to be his duty, in considering cases of superannuation such as the present, to examine whe-
949
950
a laugh
951
bonâ fide
Sir G. Clerk
observed, that whatever blame was imputable on the ground of the omission of the length of service of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst in the Estimate attached to him; it was intended that the period of these gentlemen's services should appear, and the hon. Comptroller of the Navy had brought him a copy filled up with these items, but, owing to a mistake of his own, a rough copy in which they were omitted had been brought down.
Mr. C. Wood
was of opinion, that the transaction in question was blameable; but at the same time thought, that the fault did not attach to any particular member of the Cabinet, but to Ministers generally, for sanctioning a vote which involved a most extraordinary principle of superannuations and allowances. Although it did not appear on the Estimates what had been the length of service of these two gentlemen, it was stated that it did not exceed four years. Was that, he asked, a fair period of service for which to grant an allowance? This was to extend the terms of the Act of Parliament under which superannuations were granted, and
952
hear, and cries of "No"
l
l
l
l
Colonel Sibthorp
said, he had heard with astonishment the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, charge the hon. Baronet with introducing extraneous matter into his statement. Never was there a more plain unvarnished tale than that of the hon. Baronet. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was full of extraneous matter. The right hon. Gentleman said, that in his opinion the case of the highest and the lowest individual ought to be considered on the same principle, or simply in reference to the circumstances of it. He hoped it always would be so. But pensions and allowances ought to be granted for public services, and casualties, and what could the committee say when it found pensions of 400
l
l
953
l
Laugh
d.
l
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that whatever opinions might be entertained in the House upon this subject, there was but one opinion upon it out of doors. It might be unfortunate that the period of these gentlemen's services was omitted; it might be unfortunate that they were the sons of Cabinet Ministers; it might be unfortunate that they held other places; but of this he was quite sure,—namely, that all these unfortunate circumstances made it also very
954
erubuit—salva res est.
l
Sir G. Clerk
begged to call the attention of the Committee to the real question before it; that question was, whether there was any thing in the situations of these gentlemen which ought to induce the House to refuse in their case what they would not refuse in similar cases. There was no instance in which persons removed in consequence
955
Colonel Dundas
said, that he should not have intruded himself upon the House but for the unnecessary personality in which the hon. Baronet who brought forward the subject had thought proper to indulge. [
Cries of "no, no,"
Mr. Maberly
said, that this question had been argued as though the vote were one of course, whereas it was clearly subject to the determination of the House. He hoped, however, that the vote of that night would establish the fact, that no person should have a pension who had not performed actual services.
[Sir R. Heron and Mr. Peel rose together, but the latter gave way.]
Sir R. Heron
, in explanation, begged to say, that when he called the late Lord Melville a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, he alluded to an office and to duties which no longer existed. As to the expression "equivocal services," he could assure the hon. Member, that he had no intention of hinting at the circumstances to which the hon. Member had alluded. Indeed, that circumstance never once entered his mind.
956
Mr. Peel
said, he was glad he had given way to the hon. Baronet, whose explanation, he was sure, must be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman who had expressed himself on the subject with a degree of warmth that the circumstances undoubtedly justified. The hon. Member for Westminster was mistaken in supposing that he disapproved of the proposition; but he could assure that hon. Member, that he was not insensible to the value of that independent support which, the hon. Member truly said, the present Government had received. Most sorry should he be to lose such support; and never, to the latest day of his existence, could he forget the conduct pursued by the Gentlemen on the other side of the House on the great measure of last Session. The manner in which the Gentlemen opposite gave their support to the Government at that time could never be forgotten by him; and he thought that the conduct pursued by those Gentlemen on that occasion reflected the highest credit on the political parties of this country. With respect to the present proposition, he agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last as to the nature of it. It was only a proposition made by the Government, which the House would reject or allow as it thought fit. It was a mere estimate, which, if the House thought improper, it would be its duty to reject. He begged of hon. Members, however, to consider what the real nature of the proposition was, before they came to a decision upon it. It was a proposition which arose out of a revision of the establishments of the country which the Government had thought it their duty to make. The course which had been pursued in this case by his Majesty's Ministers had been to take away the youngest officers, and instead of a salary of 1,000
l
l
"Admiralty Office, March 20th,
"SIR—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that
957
"My Lords command me to request you will state this arrangement to the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, and inform me whether their Lordships are of opinion that any retired allowance, and to what amount, should be granted to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst on the abolition of their offices, which have usually been deemed hitherto as held during life or good behaviour. Mr. Dundas has held the office four years, having been one year previously attached to the British Embassy at Madrid and Lisbon; and Mr. Bathurst has held his situation nearly four years.
"Their Lordships think it right to add, for the information of the Lords of the Treasury, that Mr. Dundas is eligible to two of the reserved Commissionerships of the Navy; but that as all the members of the Victualling Board, except the Chairman, are professional, Mr. Bathurst would not be eligible to any seat at the Board, unless as Chairman.
"I am, &c.
(Signed) "JOHN BARROW.
"The Hon. J. Stewart, Treasury."
"
Treasury Chambers, April 30th,
"SIR—Having laid before the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury your letter of the 20th ult., respecting the amount of superannuation allowance to be granted to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst, on their removal from the Navy and Victualling Boards, in consequence of the reduction in the numbers of the Commissioners of those respective Boards, I am commanded by my Lords to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords of the Admiralty, that they observe with satisfaction that their Lordships have made an arrangement for employing in another situation Captain F. M. Lewis, one of the reduced Commissioners of the Navy, and have thus superseded the necessity of raising any question as to any provision for him. And my Lords have no doubt that the Lords of the Admiralty will be equally anxious to adopt a similar course with respect to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst; and my Lords, therefore, consider that any allowance to be made to them is purely of a temporary nature, to continue only during the period which may elapse before they can be again employed in some civil situation connected with the Civil De-
958
" I am, &c,
(Signed) "J. STEWART."
Lord Althorp
observed, that the House had a right to investigate all the circumstances of these pensions, which, in his opinion, ought not to be granted.
The question being loudly called for; the Committee divided, when there appeared—for the Amendment 139; against it 121; Majority against Ministers 18.
List of the Majority.
Althorp, Lord
Benett, J.
Acland, Sir T.
Blandford, Marquis
Attwood, M.
Bernal, R.
959
Baring, Sir T.
Langston, J. H.
Baring, F.
Lambert, J. S.
Byng, G.
Lester, B.
Brownlow, C.
Lennox, Lord G.
Blake, Sir F.
Lumley, J. S.
Burdett, Sir F.
Martin, J.
Buck, L.
Maberly, J.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Maberly, Col.
Bright, H.
Monck, J. B.
Birch, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Barclay, C.
Milton, Lord
Barclay, D.
Marryatt, J.
Burrell, Sir C.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Bankes, H.
Nugent, Lord
Batley, C. H.
Ord, Wm.
Carter, J.
Osborne, Lord F.
Colborne, N. R.
O'Grady, Col.
Cholmeley, M.
Powlett, Lord W.
Clive, E.
Protheroe, E.
Cavendish, W.
Phillimore, Dr.
Cavendish, Hon. H.
Price, Rt.
Cavendish, C.
Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Cotterell, Sir J. G.
Pallraer, N.
Calthorpe, Hon. F.
Palmer, C. F.
Clifton, Lord
Palmer, R.
Davies, Colonel T. H.
Parnell, Sir H.
Du Cane, P.
Peach, N. W.
Dundas, Hon. Sir R.
Philips, Sir R. B.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Philips, Sir G.
Dawson, A.
Pendarves, E. W.
Davenport, E.
Poyntz, W. S.
Duncombe, T. S.
Ridley, J. M. R.
Duncombe, Hon. W.
Rice, T. S.
Denison, J. E.
Robinson, G. R.
Denison, W. J.
Robinson, Sir G.
Dick, Q.
Ramsden, J.
Egerton, W.
Ramsden, J. C.
Ebrington, Lord
Robarts, A. W.
Easthope, J.
Rickford, W.
Euston, Earl
Ramsbottom, J.
Ellison, Cuthbert
Rumbold, C. E.
Encombe, Lord
Sadler, M. T.
Ewart, W.
Spence, G.
Fane, J.
Stanley, E.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Stewart, Sir M. S. B.
Fergusson, Gen. Sir R.
Sibthorp, Col.
Fyler, T. B.
Sefton, Lord
Farquhar, J.
Smith, Ald.
Graham, Sir J.
Thompson, Ald.
Grant, Hon. C.
Thomson, C. P.
Grant, R.
Townsend, Lord C.
Harvey, D. W.
Trant, W. H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Uxbridge, Lord
Hume, J.
Vaughan, Sir R.
Honeywood, P.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Heneage, G. F.
Ward, J.
Hay, A.
Western, C. C.
Hoy, J. B.
Wilson, Sir R.
Howard, R.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Wood, C.
Knight, R.
Warburton, H.
Killeen, Lord
Whitmore, W. W.
Kerrison, Sir E.
Wilbraham, G.
Keck, Legh
Webb, Col.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Whitbread, S.
Kekewich, S.
Wetherell, Sir C.
Labouchere, H.
White, S.
Lloyd, Sir E.
Wynn, Sir W.
960
Wells, J.
Rowley, Sir W.
TELLER.
Wood, Ald.
Heron, Sir R.
Howick, Lord
PAIRED OFF
Stanley, Lord
Newport, Sir J.
Phillips, Sir G.
Rancliff, Lord
Portman, C. B.
On our return to the gallery, the Commitee were discussing the next item,- namely, 99,000
l
A conversation took place between Mr. Hume, Sir G. Clerk, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir M. W. Ridley, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Maberly, relative to the grant of 23,457
l
Sir J. Graham
took that opportunity to give notice, that he should move for the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance when the Ordnance Estimates should be regularly brought before them.
The House resumed, Sir A. Grant reported progress, and the report to be received on Monday.
On the Motion of Mr. Maberly, were ordered copies of correspondence relative to the Naval Hospital at Malta.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 29, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of MALMESBURY of the quantity of Wheat remaining under Bond on January 5th, 1828, the quantity entered for Home Consumption between January 1828 and January 1830; the quantity exported in the same period, and the quantity in Bond on January 5th, 1830:—of the quantity of Flour imported from the Idle of Man into Liverpool, from January 1858 to January 1830. On the Motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, of the quantity of Raw, Waste, and Thrown Silk entered for Home Consumption during the last ten years, specifying the Rates of Duty: —of all Silk Manufactured Articles imported since 1826: —of the quantities of Thrown, Raw, and Waste Silk which have laid Duties during the last three years: —of the number of Skins on which Duties have been paid during the last ten years: —of the Vessels which have passed through the Sound during 1829: —of the number and tonnage of British Ships which entered Inwards and cleared Outwards during the five years ending January 5, 1826, and the five years ending January 5, 1830: — of various Articles, such as China-ware, Earthenware, Cordage, Iron, Lead, Toys, &c &c On the Motion of Earl BATHURST: Copies of any correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Directors of the East-India Company, and of Letters written by the Directors to the Government of India, relative to the cultivation of Cotton and Tobacco in the East Indies.
Returns Presented. Extract of a Letter from the Government of Bengal to the Court of Directors, dated June 29th, 1826, respecting the permission given to Europeans to hold Land on Lease for the cultivation of Coffee: —Minute of Mr. Trower, of the Board of Revenue at Calcutta, dated March 25th, 1823, and Resolution of Bengal Government, pasted 7th May, 1824; —extract of g Letter from
961
The Marquis of LANSDOWN gave notice, that on an early day he would move an Address to the Crown, requesting that his Majesty's Consuls in South America be directed to furnish a statement of the exports of the precious Metals from the districts with which they were connected.
Petitions Presented. By the Duke of GORDON, from Rossshire, praying for a Repeal of the Malt Tax.— Laid on the Table. By the Earl of CARMARVON, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Wilts, praying that as to the Poor-laws, Ireland might be placed on the same footing as England. By the Duke of NORFOLK, from Sheffield, praying for Free Trade to India and China:— By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, from Gloucester, to the same effect: —By the Marquis of LANSDOWN to the same effect, from Pollockshaw, Perth, Hastingden, and the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin. By Lord GRENVILLE, from Wellington, against the Truck System. By the Earl of ESSEX, from Wellingborough, praying for a revision of the Penal Laws. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Fishermen of Robinhood's Bay, praying for a continuation of the Fishery Bounties. By Lord HOLLAND, from Archibald Hamilton Rowan, and George Cockburn, complaining of the manner of Registering Marriages in the North of Ireland, and praying a remedy.
STANDING ORDERS.]
The Earl of Rosslyn
PETITIONS.—MALT TAX.]
Lord Suffield
, in presenting three Petitions from certain inhabitants of Norfolk, praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax, said, he should take that opportunity to explain what he had already stated when presenting a petition of a similar nature on Thursday. The petitioners, on both occasions, complained of the distress which at present affected the agriculturists; they alluded to the burthens under which they suffered, but more particularly they complained of the Malt-tax, He had likewise
962
The Duke of Wellington
professed to have a perfect recollection of what the noble Lord had said upon the presentation of the former petition. To the best of his belief, he had expressed himself to the same purport, if not in the same words, then, as he had done upon the present occasion. He remembered his having referred to the ineffectual administration of the Poor-laws in Norfolk, and specified the 9th Geo. 3rd as the source to which they were to look for a remedy.
CHRISTIANS NATIVES OF INDIA.]
The Earl of Carlisle
presented a Petition from the Christian inhabitants of Calcutta, who were born of European fathers and native mothers, complaining of various disqualifications to which they had been subject since the first settlement of the East India Company. They stated that they were excluded from privileges to which both natives and Europeans were indiscriminately admitted. They were incapacitated from serving in the civil, military, or marine service of the Company, as the preamble of every appointment was required to set forth that the person proposed was not the son of a native and European. The petitioners were likewise disqualified from holding the King's commission in India, nor could they hold offices of trust and emolument in any department whatever.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the present was not a favourable opportunity for entering into a discussion on the subject of the Petition. This much, however, he might
963
The Earl of Carlisle
inquired if there was any difference between the children of half-castes and the half-castes themselves?
Lord Ellenborough
said, the latter were considered as natives, and were eligible to all the offices in the Company's service to which the natives were eligible. The parties to the petition were illegitimate, being of half-caste, and were not eligible to those appointments.
PETITION FROM BIRMINGHAM—DISTRESS.]
The Earl of Radnor
said, he had a Petition to present from Birmingham, which was entitled to the greatest attention and consideration on account of the number and respectability of the names which were annexed to it. It was signed by 25,000 persons. It embraced a variety of topics, such as Parliamentary Reform, and a revision of Taxation, but it derived its chief importance, in his view, because the distress of the petitioners was the foundation of their prayer,—a point which ought by no means to be overlooked, as they had already heard so much of the abatement of that distress, in support of which assertion Birmingham itself had been adduced as an example. The tri-
964
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
965
s.
s.
d.
The Duke of Wellington
said, it was very unfortunate that noble Lords departed from that rule of the House which was opposed to any direct allusion to what was said in former debates, or to what passed in the other House. Had the noble Earl attended to that rule he would not have fallen into the errors he had committed. It was impossible for his right hon. friend to know the condition of the people except from the public returns, and he conceived that in the statement he made he was perfectly justified. The noble Lord, in asserting that the people of Birmingham suffered more now than in 1817, and in appealing to the number receiving assistance from the poor-rates, for the purpose of sustaining that assertion, referred to the prices of the two periods, and attributed the existing distress to the difference between them. But the noble Lord could scarcely compare the prices of the two periods with any accuracy or justice, when
966
Lord Holland
said, since the strict order was that they should not make any allusion to what took place in the other House, or to any former debates in that House, which in his opinion was a nice regulation—he wished to see it strictly observed. The noble Duke had complained of his noble friend as being irregular, when, if there were one question more than another which might excuse an allusion to such occurrence, it would be a petition upon a question of facts affecting the condition of the people. His noble friend did not state any particular date or place, and had he spoken of the conversation generally, as having occurred elsewhere, he might have escaped all imputation of disorder. In short, he would contend, that nothing could be more parliamentary than was his noble friend.
The Earl of Radnor
expressed his concurrence with the sentiments of the noble Duke as to the rule of Parliament he had alluded to, but differed from the noble Duke as to the possibility of comparing prices.
Petition laid on the Table.
CORN LAWS.]
Lord King
rose to move a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Corn-laws. He wished to place upon their Lordships' Journals a statement of the views which he took upon that most important subject; and whether at the present time they agreed with him or not, he felt confident, that at no distant time they would feel the justice of those principles which he advocated, and be compelled to adopt them ultimately, with a view to the welfare of the people. In approaching this question, it was at least satisfactory that it had been cleared of one of the difficulties which stood in its way. It was now universally admitted that one great cause of the existing distress was the too great pressure at present weighing down the productive industry of the country. Mr. Huskisson—he might mention that
967
s.
s.
s.
s.
968
s.
d.,
s.,
s.
d.;
s.
d.,
s.,
s.
d.
969
970
971
"He strove to move, while waved the wizard o'er,
But though he strove, moved not one inch the more."
972
973
"That all regulations, duties, and prohibitions, which prevent the admission of corn, and increase the price of that necessary of life, are impolitic and unjust.
"A regulation of the trade in Corn, for the pretended benefit of the public, is a most impolitic interference of Government in the management of the most important of all trades, which Government is wholly incompetent to direct, and which it never can attempt to regulate without the greatest detriment to the public interests.
"A duty levied upon Corn for the purpose of raising a revenue, is the worst of all possible taxes—being, in effect, not less destructive than a curse of sterility inflicted on the soil.
"An absolute prohibition subjects the consumer to the most pernicious and the most odious of all monopolies.
"That Great Britain, by the abundant supply of coals, by the advantages of machinery, by the accumulation of capital, and by superior skill and industry, possesses the rare and inestimable advantage of being able to make the labour of her people more efficient and more valuable than that of any other nation in the world. More efficient, because, when that labour is applied in directing the powers of steam and of machinery, it produces more goods than the same quantity of labour can produce elsewhere; and it is more valuable, because that produce will exchange for the produce of more labour in any other country, and in this manner it highly contributes to the increase of public wealth and individual enjoyment. That it is therefore the true policy of England to encourage the full developement of her most productive industry, to avail herself of all her great natural and acquired advantages. That it belongs only to the most perverse ignorance, and to the most culpable misrule, wilfully to preclude the country from the fullest enjoyment of these benefits, by prohibiting, under heavy duties (unless when at a famine price), the admis-
974
"That since the enactment of the Corn-laws in 1815, the whole of that long period (a period also of uninterrupted peace) has been marked by an unusually low rate of profit in all trades, by an inadequate reward of labour, by the frequent recurrence of distress in the manufacturing districts, and by the heavy pressure of Poor-rates in the agricultural counties—a state of things the most opposite to the increasing wealth and comfort which so eminently distinguished the ten prosperous years succeeding the peace of 1782, when foreign wheat was, without any interruption, admitted at a nominal duty of sixpence the quarter.
"That great and flourishing manufactures, by the superior reward of labour which they are able to afford, tend most materially to improve the condition of all the labouring classes, by the constant demand for the increasing population of their own, and of the agricultural districts; they provide also the best market for every description of agricultural produce; they furnish the most ample and the most profitable employment for the new accumulations of capital; they afford the means of promoting to an indefinite extent, the general prosperity and wealth of the country; or if there be any limit, that limit is only determined by the returns of raw produce which the great market of the world is enabled to supply.
"That the impediments which have been interposed by law to the admission of foreign Corn have impaired, and, in some degree, destroyed the advantages which nature and industry had bestowed upon us; they have checked the demand for our produce; they have greatly repressed the rate of all profits, because the rate of profits in every country must be regulated by the return of that portion of the national capital which is employed in the cultivation of the least fertile soils; they have prevented our labourers from receiving their just reward, by confining them nearly to the home market, when a cheaper supply could be procured elsewhere; they have rendered almost unavailing the advantages which must otherwise have infallibly attended the improvements of machinery, and the superior facilities of manufacture; they have checked the prosperity of the country, impoverished all the productive classes, and by the most perverse policy compelled our natural customers to become our competitors, our rivals, and almost our enemies."
The Earl of Malmesbury
would not have risen had he not been personally called upon by the noble Lord. He denied that
975
s.
976
panacea
s
977
s.
s.
s.
s.
978
Lord Mountcashel
did not agree with the noble Baron as to the waste of labour in the cultivation of poor lands; for he had seen such lands maintain thousands of persons in Ireland, who, but for them, could not have found the means of subsistence. Other countries cultivated their lands to the fullest extent. In China he had heard that the highest tops of the mountains were cultivated, and why should not our waste lands be cultivated?
The Earl of Rosebery
entirely dissented from the deductions of the noble Baron, not only because they were founded upon speculative and untried doctrines, but because he thought that in the peculiar circumstances in which the country was placed, it was necessary for our prosperity that a protection for the domestic agriculture of the kingdom should be maintained, and also that the principle of the existing laws (deciding the amount of duty payable on the importation of foreign Corn according to the price of the commodity in the home market, by an ascending and descending scale) was the most beneficial to the community at large that it was possible to adopt, and the least injurious to any part of it. Without entering into any detail of argument on the subject, the principle of his objection to any attempt at the establishment of a free trade in Corn was, first, his conviction that in a long series of years the price to the home consumer would not be less than it was under the existing system if the Corn-laws were abolished, or but very little less; and even if the price were reduced, wages would fall along with it, so that the poor
979
s.
980
s.
s.
The Earl of Carnarvon
observed, that if a general repeal of all protections affecting manufactures, as well as those by which agriculture was guarded, could be accomplished, he should have no objection to proceed on that broad and general principle. But feeling that such a state of things, however desirable, could not be brought about, and hoping that, year after year, they would continue to
981
The Duke of Wellington
said, he felt it necessary to say one or two words on this Motion, more particularly after what the noble Earl below him had said, with reference to what had fallen from him (the Duke of Wellington) in the course of the last Session. He agreed entirely with the noble Baron in wishing to have plenty of cheap Corn; because he thought it would be highly beneficial to the country, and would tend to improve the condition of every class of society. But he was anxious to see that effect produced in a manner different from that pointed out by the noble Baron. He wished to see plenty of provisions created in a way that would confer benefit and advantage on the native agriculturist; he wished to see that plenty derived from the improvement of Ireland, and from the increase of her productions. If cheap provisions were produced by these means, great national good must be the result. And he would say farther, that a plentiful and steady supply of provisions could not be produced by any other means. In reply to the observations of the noble Baron, he would call on their Lordships to look at the Returns which had been laid before that and the other House of Parliament. Let them advert to the long period, from 1791 to 1815, during the whole of which time the ports were open, at a duty of 24
s.
s.,
s.
s.,
s.;
982
s.
s.
s.
d.;
s.
d.;
s.
d.;
s.
d.;
s.
d.;
s.
d.;
s.
d.
s.
d.,
s.
d.,
s.
d.,
983
s.
984
985
Lord King
, in reply, admitted the importance of the home market, but his argument was, that if the foreigner were admitted to send his Corn to this country, the manufacturer would, in consequence, have two customers instead of one. With respect to what had been said relative to a duty being imposed by foreign powers on Corn about to be exported here, such a practice never could, in his opinion, be carried into effect. It was very true that Buonaparte had levied such a duty; but it should be observed, that he was at that time master of all the potentates of Europe, and they were obliged to obey his mandate; but he was sure that now no country would be so foolish as to levy an impost which would put an end to its own trade. The noble lord concluded by defending his motives for bringing forward the Motion at the present time. He was sure it was much better to do so now than to introduce it when a great rise in the price of Corn, which he was sure would take place, had created irritation and ill-will in the public mind.
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, it was very clear that the foreign powers would impose such a duty as had been alluded to. The king of Prussia had imposed such a tax in 1801, and on its inconvenience being represented by his subjects, the answer was, that it should remain for a time, but that if the price of wheat in England fell to between 50
s
s
The resolutions were negatived without a division.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 29, 1830
MINUTRS] Mr. ASTELL. brought up the Report on the Tanjore Commissioners Bill.
(The hon. Member stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Trant, that the Carnatic Commission, had closed its
986
l.
l.
l.
Sir A. GRANT brought up the Report of the Committee on the Four per Cent Annuities Act. The Resolutions were read and agreed to, and Bills were ordered to be brought in pursuance thereof.—The Sheriffs of Ireland Bill was read a second time, on the Motion of Lord FRANCIS LEVESON GOWER.—Bills were ordered to be brought in to Amend and Consolidate the Acts relative to the pay of the Navy, and to amend and continue the Insolvent Debtors1 Acts.
Returns presented;—Annual account of increase and diminution of Salaries. Accounts of Superannuation Allowances granted since July 5, 1822;—Of Spirits that paid Duty in each Kingdom, from January 5, 1825, to January 5, 1830:—Of the Receipts of each Receiver-general or Collector in the year ending 5th January, with the Sums paid by them into the Exchequer:—Of the Duty received during the last ten years on Coals in Ireland. The correspondence relative to building a Naval Hospital at Malta, and a Chapel at Pembroke. Probates of Wills and Letters of Administration, issued in the Dioceses of St. David's, St. Asaph, Llandaff and Bangor. Persons committed, tried, and convicted of Criminal offences during the last year. Contracts now existing for the supply of the Ordnance. Account of the progress made in achieving the Water communication between Montreal and Kingston.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. ROBINSON, copies of the Instructions sent out to the Governor or legal authorities of Newfoundland, relative to the operation of the Act of the 5th of George IV. c. 51, and 5th George IV. c.67, and the answers (if any) thereupon:—On the Motion of Mr. MABERLY, a series, showing the amount and official value of the importations of Hemp and Flax, dressed and undressed; and of the Linen imported and exported during the last year:—On the Motion of Lord W. POWLRTT, of the number of Vessels engaged in the Coal Trade of Stockton-upon-Tees.
Petitions presented; —Against a renewal of the East-India Company's Charter, and for opening the Trade with China, from Hastingden by Lord STANLEY;—From Yeadon, in Yorkshire, by Mr. RICK:—from Ossett in the same County by Mr. BUXTON:—From Farnley by Mr. STUART:—From the Corporation of Gloucester by Mr. WRBB:—From Dews-bury by Mr. RARING:—From the Chamber of Commerce in Duudee by Mr. MABERLY:—From Harrington by Sir JAMES GRAHAM. Against the practice of Hindoo widows burning themselves, and of human sacrifices at Juggernaut, from nine Protestant Dissenting congregations in Lancashire, by Lord STANLEY:—From the congregation of the Independent Chapel, Southport, by Mr. BUXTOX: —From Kettering in Northamptonshire, by Lord AL-THORP:—From seven Dissenting congregations in Blackburne and its vicinity, by Mr. STANLRV:—and from several Dissenting congregations of Chapels in Liverpool, by Mr. HUSKISSON: all referred to the Committee on East India Affairs. Against the Bill for opening the Beet Trade, from the Licensed Victuallers in Great and Little Bolton, by Lord STANLEY:—By Mr. DICKINSON, from the licensed Victuallers of From Selwood, Somersetshire, and for protection against the consequences to stock on band of the intended measures respecting the tax and trade of Beer. By Mr. KEKEWICH, from Exeter, for an improvement in the Criminal Law:—From Madely, Shropshire, by Mr. G. THOMPSON:—By Mr. JBPHSOH, from Whitechurch, in the county of Cork, against the Subletting Act. Praying for Relief, and complaining of Distress, by Mr. BENETT, from the High Sheriff and principal Magistrates of the county of Wilts, and from Marlborough:—By Lord W. POWLETT, from the Ship, owners of Sunderland.
LORD ELDON.]
Sir F. Burdett
begged leave to inform the House, that he had,
987
KENT PETITION—CORN LAWS.]
Sir E. Knatchbull
had a Petition to present j from the Gentry and Freeholders of the county of Kent, the result of the late important meeting which had been held at Penenden-heath. He could not present it without observing, that it afforded one more proof of the continued existence of the distress which unfortunately afflicted the country. One of his strongest apprehensions was that which a right hon. Gentleman opposite had so lately expressed —namely, that the effect of the present depressed state of the landed interest would be to diminish the number of that class of most useful and influential country gentlemen who had from 1,200
l.
l.
988
Mr. Wells
said, that he was present at the meeting in Kent, and it gave him great pain to see how great and how universal was the distress of the people. When they found themselves in this condition, it was not to be wondered at, that they should call for a reform in Parliament, and declare that had they obtained reform in time, many of their present evils would have been averted. Indeed, before this petition had been agreed to by the meeting, an address to the King, for Parliamentary Reform, was adopted, on the ground that the people were tired of seeking it from the House of Commons. His hon. friend's efforts to impede this vigour beyond the law, for so he must call the fact of the people addressing the King because they were tired of addressing the House of Commons, were as unavailing on Penenden-heath as similar efforts made by him in the previous year, in that House, were in averting the great inroad upon the Constitution which was then perpetrated. He believed that many measures had at various times passed through the House of Commons which would not have been so successful had the people had a little more influence over their representatives. This was the complaint made by Mr. Pitt in 1782, who said, that without reform it was impossible to save this nation from being plunged into new wars; that with-
989
Mr. Honywood
said, that the object of his constituents was—first, to obtain relief from the present weight of taxation, under which they were fast sinking; and next, to obtain Parliamentary Reform, with the view of preventing similar evils in! future. The distress of the country was great, and he believed in too many cases rents were paid out of capital, and not from profits of cultivation. That was not the first nor the fourth petition which had been sent from the county of Kent, in favour of a reform of Parliament; but the present great distress of the petitioners now made them more solicitous than ever to obtain reform. For himself he would say, that he had for twenty years been an advocate for reform, and the experience of each successive year had only given greater strength to his first impressions upon that question.
Sir Francis Burdett
said, that the question of reform having been agitated and agreed to at that meeting of the county of Kent, showed that the principles of reform were making way all over the country. He therefore was quite satisfied that hon. Members would at length become convinced of the absolute necessity of giving the people a greater weight in their representative system; and that the old apprehensions by which well-intentioned persons were deluded and prevented from supporting this principle could no longer be attempted with any chance of success. He was sorry, however, to see in this petition, in the greater part of which he cordially concurred, certain observations respecting the principles of what was called Free Trade, for it was not those principles, which had never been fully acted on, which caused their distress. They had, indeed, been called into practice so far as to derange the old system, without giving the country all the advantages of that new system of which they were nominally the basis. He was satisfied that when the principles of Free Trade were fully understood, and fairly applied, the people would see that they could not be injured by them, or that they had any reason for opposing them. The sooner misapprehensions upon
990
pari passu
The Petition ordered to be printed.
SUPPLY.]
The Chancellorof the Exchequer, having moved the Order of the
991
Mr. Bernal
begged to know if there was any truth in the report that it was intended to deprive the captains of his Majesty's ships of the power they had hitherto possessed to appoint midshipmen? He understood that something of that kind was to be introduced in the new regulations, which, besides being prejudicial to the service, he was sure would create great discontent.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that all the patronage the captains had enjoyed was to be continued with respect to the appointment of midshipmen; but they were to be deprived of the nomination of the first class of volunteers. One captain received a number of volunteers on board, and then perhaps in six months another was appointed, who received an additional number, and so they continued until the ship returned, when they were set on shore without any provision. To remedy this evil the Admiralty had taken the appointments into their own hands, resolving to receive none who were not afterwards to be provided for.
Mr. Hume
said, that before the Report was brought up, he wished to know! whether or not it was the intention of his, Majesty's Ministers to ask for a grant of money for works in Canada. He put this i question because an hon. friend of his, who had a motion standing relative to that colony, desired to know, and could not attend in his place to ask, and he thought, as well as his hon. friend, that no vote should pass till the general questions connected with that colony had been discussed. He thought that the right hon. and gallant General at the head of the Colonial Government should bring forward his propositions on the subject before any money was asked for. The complaints of the people of that colony were so numerous, and in his opinion so well ground-ed, that to vote money for the colony till the causes of them were removed appeared to him highly improper. In fact, unless some conciliatory measure were first introduced, he should resist the grant of any money whatever for Canada.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
would do every thing in his power to further the views of the hon. Gentleman, but he could! fix no day for the discussion of the general questions connected with Canada. He would postpone it as long as possible.
992
The Report was then brought up. On the question that it be read,
Mr. Maberly
wished, he said, to call the attention of the right honorable the Secretary of War to the Marine corps, which appeared to him expensive and unnecessary. It consisted of 4,000 men, though the gallant Admiral opposite had stated that 1,000 would be sufficient to perform the requisite duties. If it were said that they were wanted for garrison duty, that he would contend could be performed by the regular troops. If 4,000 marines were kept up for that purpose, they were unnecessary, or 4,000of the regular troops ought to be reduced. The reduction of these 4,000 men would be a saving of 200,000
l.
In reply to a question of Mr. Hume,
Sir G. Clerk
stated, that there was no separate charge for victualling the marines.
The Report of the Committee was read.
Mr. Hume
objected to the sum of 5,000
l.
l.
Sir Byam Martin
said, the system followed at present was different from the system formerly in use: captains had been substituted for masters; but as there were fewer of them, the expense was not increased, while the ships were much better taken care of.
Mr. Monck
objected to the vote for what is called "the widow's charity," which, he said, was a misnomer. In the ordinary acceptation of the word 'charity' meant a gift from the rich to the poor; in this case, however, the poor contributed to raise a fund for the benefit of the rich,
993
Sir G. Clerk
stated, that the amount of the pension was always determined by the rank of the officer when he died, and that: measures would be adopted to prevent the increase of this branch of expenditure.
Mr. Hume
stated, that the object of his hon. friend was, to see one principle adopted throughout the public service, according to which the widow of an officer should no more be pensioned than the widow of a private soldier. It seemed to him extremely hard that the widow of a soldier, who had served in all countries and climates for the greater part of his life, should receive nothing, while the widow of an officer, who had perhaps served only a few years, and never been abroad, should be provided for. At present the Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, in short, every branch of the public service, had its own peculiar system of granting pensions, which to him appeared very improper, and he should recommend that pensions be altogether abolished. They! encouraged marriage, which, in his opinion,' ought rather to be discouraged in the officers as well as in the men. The present system encouraged officers to many, and unless it were checked the charge for pensions must augment every year. It was the duty of the Government to make some alteration, and at least to have one general uniform system for granting pensions in every branch of the public service. The hon. Member also protested against the grant of 300
l.
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that pensions of that kind were no longer granted, nor had there been any granted to the widows of commissioners appointed since the year 1825. Before that time, however, they
994
Mr. Maberly
was of opinion that a report of the number of Pensions granted by Government should be annually laid on the Table of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said such a Report was to be laid on the Table.
Mr. Monck
did not object to the particular vote of 300
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
asked, what necessity there was to have flag officers at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, and Cork, particularly at Chatham, where there were never more than two or three ships. The salaries of these officers amounted to 12,000. or 14,000
l.
l.
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
replied, that these Admirals were necessary to carry on the public service, and as none but old and distinguished officers were appointed to these situations, they might also be considered as the reward of merit. He did not think that it would be possible to dispense with the services of such officers, or reduce the Estimate any lower.
All the Resolutions of the Committee were agreed to.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]
The Order of the Day having been read for the House: to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mr. Hume
declared that he would oppose that and every other motion of a similar nature, until it should be explained why a passage had not been opened for
995
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, that the hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that he had made any such promise as that alluded to. When he had been asked if any such opening would be made, his answer was, that he could not state until he saw the plans. When the plans were presented at his office they contained no such opening.
Mr. Hume
maintained, that an opening was promised by his Majesty's Government; but whether by the right hon. Gentleman or some other member of it, he did not recollect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
put it to the hon. member for Montrose, whether the present was the fittest occasion for the discussion of this question?
Mr. Lennard
observed, that the opening for which his hon. friend wished, would add greatly to the beauty of the street, than which nothing could be more unsightly than its present appearance. The wall which had been erected completely obstructed the view of the park. While he was upon his legs, he wished to say a few words on another subject. A few years ago the right hon. Gentleman promised that at the expiration of a certain period the interior of the Regent's Park should be opened to the public The time he conceived had now fully expired, and the public had a right to demand that the expectation should be realized. It was well known that there was a very dense population in the neighbourhood of the Regent's Park, to whom the liberty of walking over the whole of it, instead of being confined to the narrow roads by which it was bounded, would be a great convenience and advantage. The plantations had now grown up. If, however, any mischief to them were still apprehended, it would surely be very easy to give directions that some of the policemen should be on the spot, for the purpose of preventing it.
Mr. Maberly
referred to the leases granted to those who had built villas in the Regent's Park, in order to show that Government had no power to open the interior of the park to the public, unless
996
Mr. Arbuthnot
agreed with the hon. member for Abingdon, that it would not be in the power of the Government to throw open the whole area of the park to the public, but there was a portion of it— the hon. Member knew the part to which he alluded—which he (Mr. Arbuthnot) had intended to open to the public had he remained at the head of the department over which he formerly presided. What would be done now with reference to that part of the park he could not say; but he would say, if he had remained at the head of that department, he intended to open it to the public, [
hear
Mr. Protheroe
said, that every hon. Member who passed down to the House by Charing cross must have had his feelings and nerves annoyed in coming along that exceedingly dirty passage. There could, therefore, be no greater convenience, not only to members of Parliament, but to the public, than the making of an opening from Waterloo-place into St. James's park. He did not believe that a pledge had been given to that effect by Government, but he thought, upon the high ground of public convenience, that opening should be called for. He trusted that this passage would be made, and that also the area of the Regent's-park would be opened to the public. He trusted too that the noble lord now at the head of the Woods and Forests, and who, he was sure, was desirous to do every thing for the public convenience, would finally have the Regent's park thrown open to the public like Hyde park, and that also a passage would be opened, and a flight of steps made, from Waterloo-place into St. James's park.
Mr. Hume
said, whether or not a pledge had been given that this opening should be made, he trusted it would be for the public convenience. He concurred with the right hon. gentleman opposite that this subject could be mooted on a fitter occasion. Several votes connected with the parks must come under their notice, and the House would then have an opportunity for discussing this subject.
The estimates were then ordered to be referred to the Committee.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
997
Mr. Lennard
said, he differed from the hon. member for Abingdon as to the construction of acts of Parliament regarding the Regent's-park, and as to the terms of the leases upon which the villas in that park had been let. It was quite true that there were provisions in the leases to prevent the building- of any more villas there: but he could see nothing in the terms of those leases to prevent the Government from opening the area of the park to the public. He himself possessed a villa in the park; but he did not think that the convenience of the public at large should be postponed to that of the few individuals who had villas there.
Mr. Maberly
said, when a part of the park was opened to the Zoological Society, he took counsel's opinion on the subject; and that opinion was, that the Government had no right to make that grant; and he could assure his hon. friend that if he would consult counsel on the point, be would find that, according to the terms of the leases of the buildings in the Park, the Government had no right or power to throw it open to the public.
Mr. Warburton
condemned the mode in which some of the new buildings erected on the site of Carlton-palace had been leased to Mr. Nash. His interest was of course opposed to the public in favor of his own, and in that way the public convenience was neglected.
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, in reference to Mr. Nash becoming the lessee of some of these premises, the facts were simply these:— Mr. Nash made an offer for a lot of ground for the erection of five houses, at the end of the area in Waterloo-place, which could not be let. He took it on the condition of building those houses upon it, afterwards to be let to such tenants as the heads of the Woods and Forests might approve of. and Mr. Nash undertook to give, them at the prime cost. He (Mr. Arbuthnot) knew that Mr. Nash had subsequently let them at the prime cost.
Mr. Beaumont
wished to know whether there had been any public competition allowed for this ground—whether it had been set up to public auction, or whether, on the contrary, Mr. Nash had not been suffered to take it by a private bargain, and very likely at his own price?
Mr. Arbuthnot
said, the public was fully aware at the time that this lot of ground was to be let. It had not been put up to public auction, because in the
998
Mr. Beaumont
saw no reason why St. James's-park should be looked upon in the light of private grounds. He was sure it would be a source of satisfaction and pleasure to the Sovereign to see his subjects enjoying the comfort and recreation which that park would afford them. He sincerely believed, if the noble Lord opposite would make a representation on the subject in a proper quarter, that the convenience of the public would be fully attended to in that respect. He was sure the royal heart would be gladdened to see the inhabitants of this metropolis enjoying the recreations afforded by that park, and its rural scenery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that St. James's-park was an unfortunate instance to select for complaint, for within a very short period means had been taken to afford the greatest advantages to all classes of the public, by the improvements in that park. There was at this moment a road in progress on the south side of the park, which, when completed, would be of great advantage to the higher orders, and the opening of the interior of the park had been productive of the greatest advantages to all classes of society.
Mr. Beaumont
wished for nothing more than that every thing possible should be done for the accommodation of the public. —Agreed to, and the House went into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. G. Dawson
said, he proposed to take the vote for the Civil Contingencies upon account, as the amount was required for the carrying on the public service, and the House would hereafter have an opportunity of discussing the votes separately. He accordingly moved—"That a sum not exceeding 100,000
l.
Mr. Hume
would not object to taking this vote upon account now; but when the separate votes should come to be discussed, he would move a resolution, that it is expedient to effect a reduction in the diplomatic expenses of the country. He should object to voting 60,000
l.
l.
999
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it would be found that considerable reductions had been effected in this part of the public expenditure this year.
The Resolution was then put and agreed to.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
Sir G. Clerk
proceeded to move the remainder of the Navy Estimates, and commenced by moving a sum of 99,000
l.
l.
1000
Mr. Maberly
objected to voting 17,000
l.
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that Government
1001
Mr. Hume
said, he objected to the conduct of Government, because it was opposed to the principle that no foreign works should be executed without the consent of Parliament, unless upon cases of emergency. In confirmation of that opinion the hon. Member quoted the following Order of the Treasury on this subject, dated in 1791, and signed H. Dundas. "My Lords are of opinion that no Commander-in-chief or governor is authorised to incur any expenses for which money has not been already granted by Parliament, or which has not been previously approved of by his late Majesty, and his Majesty's order signified by this Board for that purpose. That, secondly, if any governor or Commander-in-chief shall be of opinion that any expense ought to be incurred for the good of his Majesty's ser- vice, he is previously to make a re presentation thereof to the proper office at home, which is to communicate the same to this Board that his Majesty's pleasure may be taken thereupon, and that a proper estimate may be laid before Parliament, to the end that such sums may be granted as Parliament should think necessary for that purpose."
The order went on to state that in case of any unforeseen emergency rendering it impossible to apply to Parliament, the governor or Commander-in-chief was to transmit information to the Treasury, with the reasons for incurring the expense, but not to incur it if it could possibly be avoided. He contended, therefore, that this regulation had not been complied with, that no case of emergency had been
1002
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted the general principle contended for by the hon. Member opposite; but he maintained that Government, had acted upon a case of emergency. After the explanation given by his hon. friend who had moved the vote, he did not in fact expect to hear it opposed. The hospital at Malta was found inadequate to provide for our sick when we had only 6,000 men on that station: when our force was raised to 8,000, Government felt it imperative, for the benefit of the service, to build a new hospital. The hon. member for Montrose was mistaken in saying that there was no estimate; there was an estimate transmitted in the regular course of business from the Admiralty to the Treasury. If it had been found that the hospital was too small for6000 men it was surely too small for 8,000, and the emergency which compelled the Government to make that addition to our force also compelled, it to provide an hospital.
1003
Lord Althorp
said, that he believed a new hospital was wanted at Malta, and therefore he did not blame Government for having built one. But it did not appear to him that there had been that sort of sudden emergency which justified Ministers in going to such an expense without the previous sanction of Parliament. At the same time, when the question was whether our wounded seamen should be provided with a comfortable hospital; instead of being carried to a bad one, up a steep hill, which must add to their sufferings, he could not object to the vote.
Mr. Croker
said, it was impossible for Government to delay any longer the building of a new hospital, after our force off that station had been increased. The estimates for it had been regularly submitted to the Treasury, which Board had not consented to the measure till the emergency arose which required a large additional force in the Mediterranean.
Mr. Warburton
said, that it appeared to him that the House was called upon to make this grant without any satisfactory estimate having been placed before it.
Mr. Croker
repeated his former statement, that all the necessary estimates had been laid before the Treasury in July last —that at that time they had been rejected, —but that, in consequence of the emergency which had rendered it necessary for us to send an increased force into the Mediterranean, it had been deemed necessary to proceed with the building of the hospital.
Mr. Maberley
proposed that this part of the vote should be postponed till the papers were printed.
Mr. Hume
wished to know what amount of money had been already drawn on account of this work.
Sir G. Cockburn
.— None has been drawn yet.
Mr. Hume
was glad to hear it—but still thought that Government had made but a very lame case of it.
The Question was then put; but before it was carried,
Mr. Hume
said, that there was another item in this vote to which he felt considerable objection. After voting a million and a half for new churches, he could not see any reason why the Committee should be called upon to vote 4,000
l.
Sir B. Martin
explained the circum-
1004
l.
l.
Colonel Davies
said, that the parish church was not more than two miles distant, and he therefore should support the hon. Member's objection to the grant.
Mr. Maberly
said, that there had been an intention at one time to get rid of this dock-yard altogether; if so, what occasion was there to build this chapel?
Sir G. Clerk
said, that there were so many local advantages about this yard, that he could assure the Committee that there was no intention to abandon it.
Mr. Hume
called upon the Committee to consider well what they were going to do. If they determined to make a dockyard at Pembroke, they would soon be called upon to vote money for the purpose of building fortifications to protect it, for the dock-yard could not protect itself. He should therefore propose to postpone the voting of this item of 2,000
l.
l.
l.
Sir B. Martin
said, the superannuations were allowed to chaplains on the same principle precisely, that they were allowed to other persons.
Mr. Trant
observed, that having a great
1005
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but
Mr. Hume
consented to withdraw his Amendment. He had another question, however, to put to the gallant officer opposite. How was it that he came to ask the Committee this year to vote 3,000/. for works upon the lakes in Canada?
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that this sum was wanted to keep up the works which were necessary for the repair of the ships we had on the lakes at the close of the American war. By the treaty then made, we had a right to keep them in repair, though we could not increase their number. It was impossible to say what the expense of these establishments might be in time of war; but it would never exceed 2,000
l.
l.
The Vote was then agreed to.
The sum of 210,000
l.
l.
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
Mr. S. Perceval
then rose, to propose the Ordnance Estimates to the Committee, but spoke in so low and indistinct a tone that the greater part of his speech was inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to say, that he should not have occasion to occupy much of the time of the Committee, as the duty which he had to perform was fortunately very simple. The reductions which had been made in the Ordnance Department in the year 1820 had been carried to the utmost point to which they could be well carried, with a due regard to the proper equipment and permanent efficacy of that branch of the public service: and therefore he should not have to detain them long by enumerating the retrenchments which had taken place in this department. Under the present circumstances of the country, it might seem to some hon. Members that the reduction of the Estimates this year was not such as they had reason to expect; but they
1006
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1007
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir J. Graham
congratulated his hon. friend, the Secretary for the Ordnance, upon the very clear and satisfactory manner in which he had staled the estimates of his department to the Committee. It must be gratifying to the House to see his hon. friend dedicating his time industriously and manfully to the public service, instead of eating the bread of idleness and cringing at the doors of that Treasury from which his father, who had achieved the
1008
Sir James spoke from what are usually called the Opposition Benches
1009
Old men forget; yes, all shall be forgot,
But we'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day.
producing the Report of the Finance Committee
1010
vice versâ,
1011
1012
l.
1013
1014
1015
1016
*
*
1017
1018
1019
Ajax flagellifer
a laugh
1020
1021
animus
"—tiifles, light as air,
Are, to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ"
l.
l.
hear, hear
Mr. Spencer Perceval
said, he rose on the present occasion with considerable diffidence, for he knew it was out of his power to compete with the hon. Baronet, in securing the attention of that House. If he failed, then, in convincing the Committee that they ought to reject the proposed reduction, he knew that his failure
1022
1023
1024
Lord John Russell
said, that if the House voted with the hon. Gentleman, it would be on grounds very different from any he had stated; for the hon. Gentleman seemed to despise not only the Finance Committee, but every Committee that had ever sat in that House. He could tell the hon. Member that Committees of that House were held in respect by all the Ministers of the Crown; the right hon. the Secretary of State had spoken of them with great respect, and even the Marquis of Londonderry had declared, in opposition to a motion for the appointment of a Committee on Finance, that their situation was so peculiar, and their powers so great, it was desirable not to make them too common. The hon. Member should recollect, that the Finance Committee of which he spoke so lightly had
1025
1026
Colonel Gordon
differed altogether from the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet on this question. He was a military man, and he felt it necessary to give his vote for the army. The House complained of the increase of military offices, and they should not complain of these offices, which were given them as privates. The office, he believed, was but a poor 1,200
l.
l.
l.
The Earl of Uxbridge
, in a tone so low as to be scarcely audible in the gallery, stated his conviction, founded on the opinion of the noble Duke, as well as of his father (the Marquis of Anglesea,) that the office of Lieutenant-general was abso-
1027
Mr. Perceval
, in explanation, expressed a high respect for every member of the Finance Committee, and declared he did not intend to impute ignorance, in the sense ascribed to it, to any member of that Committee. He only wished to suggest to the House that it was probable, as the committee was composed of unprofessional men, that it might have formed its opinion on insufficient grounds.
Mr. Liddell
felt it necessary to explain the vote he had given the other evening, and at the same time to guard himself against the inconsistency which the noble Lord seemed to dread. He had voted for the pension to the sons of Cabinet Ministers because he thought that having filled office they deserved the retiring allowance, and because he wished to show that Ministers deserved credit for having reduced these offices when so filled. He had voted with Ministers then, because, although he loved economy as much as any man, he loved justice more. He had read the Finance Report with attention, and came down prepared to vote for the Amendment of the noble Baronet, but after hearing what had fallen from the noble Lord, and after weighing the high testimony that there was in favour of continuing the office, he was compelled to vole against the hon. Baronet.
Lord Howick
spoke in favour of the Amendment. He protested against the House being led by the opinions of the Duke of Wellington, and he thought that the power of doing without the service of the Lieutenant-general for some months was the best proof of the unnecessary nature of the office. His opinion was formed on facts, not on the opinions of other men, and therefore he should vote for the Amendment.
Sir Henry Hardinge
said, he thought with the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) that the testimony of the noble Lord, or his noble friend, if he would allow him to call him so,—and well he might if great respect and long acquaintance could justify the use of the term,— his noble friend's testimony, derived as it was from his noble father, well deserved the attention of the Committee. The
1028
1029
l.
1030
Lord Althorp
said, he had no doubt that the Duke of Wellington and the right hon. Gentleman had given their evidence in perfect sincerity, and were at the time convinced that they were correct in their opinions; but he contended that the House had a right to be satisfied with respect to the reasons on which their opinions were founded, without meaning to throw reflections on the evidence, or to arraign the motives of those by whom such was given. In the present instance the committee was satisfied that the reasons given for preserving the two offices were insufficient, as they found that the duties of the Lieutenant-general could very well be performed by the Master-general, as they had often been before. What were the duties which the Lieutenant-general had to perform, exclusively of what he performed as a Board officer? None, except it was those of the Master-general, when he was absent. In that case he admitted that the Lieutenant-general was an efficient officer. But if it were the business of Government to provide for the absence of their officers, they ought to have a deputy for every office. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the average times of absence of the Master-general during a certain period of years; but he did not think that that would do away with the plain fact, that the Master-general was absent for fourteen months together. It had been stated that the Finance Committee preferred this Board to any other Government board. The reason of that was, that every officer had distinct duties to perform, with one single exception, and that was the Lieutenant-general. He knew that the duties now assigned to this officer were ably performed by the noble Lord who held the office, but he was decidedly of opinion that the office either of the Master-general or of the Lieutenant-general was unnecessary. The noble Lord concluded by expressing his' intention of voting in favour of the Amendment.
Lord E. Somerset
said, he did not rise to
1031
Mr. Maberly
stated, that notwithstanding the majority which the Government had in the Finance Committee, that Committee had come to the resolution of recommending the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-general. He conceived that the duties of that officer could be better performed by one of the Generals of the Artillery, than by officers of the line; for they were such as required some scientific knowledge. In his opinion it would be economical to appoint an artillery officer to do the duties.
Lord Morpeth
informed the House, that notwithstanding the authorities it had heard quoted in favour of the office in question, there were also some which could be adduced of an opposite nature. Lord Moira, in 1810, said that the Lieutenant-general had no duties to perform beyond what he performed as a Board-officer, except in the case of the absence of the Master-general. It appeared that Ministers in that House were inclined to adopt the doctrine broached elsewhere, and to hold committees cheap. The only recommendation for specific reduction given by the Finance Committee was with respect to the office under debate, and that recommendation had been neglected. He considered the diminution in taxation which the House must make ought to make it more earnest than ever in reducing the expenditure.
Mr. Peel
said, no man was more disposed than he was, to give full credit to the hon. Baronet, who moved the Amendment for the most perfect sincerity, yet he was sure, that the hon. Baronet would not desire to be exempt from that ordinary rule of debate, by which all that was said by one party was not taken for granted by their opponent, but submitted to that close
1032
1033
1034
l.
l.
l.
1035
l.
l.
1036
hear hear!
1037
Mr. C. Grant
said, that his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) had himself fallen into the error of which he had accused his hon friend the Member for Cumberland, who brought forward this Motion. In the speech with which he had just favoured the House, his right hon. friend had drawn their attention to any thing rather than to the particular question on which they were to be called upon to vote. His right hon. friend had mixed up a great variety of
1038
1039
l.
s.
1040
Colonel Wood
contended, that his right hon. friend who spoke last had not proved that this office was unnecessary. He complained of the right hon. the Secretary of State diverging from the subject before the House, but he had done the same thing himself. His right hon. friend, with many other Members, laid great stress upon the opinion of the Finance Committee, but as the evidence taken before that Committee had been printed, he could not see why the House at large was not as capable of forming a judgment on that evidence as the twenty-one hon. Members of whom the Committee had been composed. Now it should be recollected, that when this question was formerly brought under the consideration of the House, there was a majority of above 200 Members against a minority of about 92, negativing the recommendation of the Committee. Let it also be remarked, that that decision was come to the year before last. It was natural to suppose, therefore, that its justice was acquiesced in, as the hon. Member for Montrose would certainly not have passed it over last year, when the Estimates were under consideration. Indeed, thehon. Baronet, in bringing forward his present proposition, was, in his opinion, rather poaching upon the hon. Member for Montrose's manor. As to the distress on which so much had been said, he believed it was in a great measure going away. At that hour he would not open a new subject, but he would name one place highly interesting to the agricultural com-
1041
Mr. Charles Wynn
would shortly state the grounds of his vote. Whether the sum which it was proposed to save was large or small, it was the duty of the House to apply to the consideration of it the principles of economy. But then it ought to be an economy well understood. For his part, he believed that the first and truest economy was to provide for the most efficient discharge of the duties of the Board in question. That those duties could not be discharged so efficiently without the existence of the office which it was now proposed to abolish was the undoubted opinion of all by whom that office had been held. The right hon. Gentleman had relied much on the circumstance of the holder of the office having been fourteen months absent in Portugal; but he ought to recollect, that during those fourteen months the duties had been discharged by increased exertion on the part of the other chief officer of the department. That increased exertion was such as a man of talent might employ upon an emergency, or under peculiar circumstances, but he could not be expected always to continue such exertions. Besides, if that were an argument for the abolition of this office, there was scarcely any office that might not be in like manner abolished. The duties of the office of First Lord of the Treasury had been discharged during the illness of the Earl of Liverpool by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other chief officers of the Government; but was that a reason why we should have no First Lord of the Treasury? He recollected that when Mr. Fox was indisposed, the business of his office was performed by Lord Spencer and others; but was that any reason why the office which that eminent statesman then held ought to be abolished? Surely no one would
1042
Sir James Graham
, in rising to address the House in reply, could not but take the advantage of congratulating them on the fact (if it could be realised) of the decrease of public distress. He could not, however, fail to observe the equivocal proof given by the hon. Member for Breconshire, of the decrease of the public distress. The hon. Member, as a proof of his assertion, had told them that the price of corn had risen in Mark-lane. Why, there was no circumstance which so aggravated the public distress as that. It was the high price of corn, contrasted with the low rate of wages, which pressed upon the labouring population with such fatal effect. He should not, however, upon that question, and at that hour, go further into the question of the cause of the present distress; and after the able speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. C. Grant), he should feel it almost superfluous to say anything in reply to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. One observation, however, he would make. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his surprise at the cheer which he (Sir J. Graham) had given to the remarks made upon the punishment (so he must call it) inflicted upon General Clinton. But if the right hon. Gentleman thought that cheer a matter of surprise, he (Sir J. Graham) was still more surprised at the cheer which he believed the right hon. Gentleman had given to the remark of the hon. Member for Breconshire, that this Motion had not been brought forward in the course of last year.
Mr. Peel
said, the hon. Baronet was mistaken, he had not cheered.
Sir James Graham
, in continuation, was glad to hear the denial, for he should indeed have been sorry that the strenuous support that side of the House had last
1043
1044
Mr. Peel
utterly disclaimed having cheered any observation which tended to reflect on Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House for not having brought forward this Motion last year.
Sir H. Hardinge
denied that the constitution of the Board of Ordnance had been altered since 1828. The number of military officers belonging to it was the same now as before that period.
The House then divided, when there appeared—Against the Amendment 200; in its favour 124—Majority in favour of Ministers 76. The Resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Buxton, J. J.
Attwood, M.
Buxton, T. F.
Burrell, Sir C.
Bankes, H.
Burrell, W.
Cave, O.
Baring, Sir T., Bart.
Cavendish, W.
Baring, F.
Carter, J.
Baring, W. B.
Calthorpe, Hon. A.
Beaumont, F. W.
Canning, Rt. Hon. S.
Blandford, Marquis
Calvert, N.
Buck, L.
Clifton, Lord
Benett, J.
Clive, E.
Bernal, R.
Colborne, N. R.
Brownlow, C.
Davies, Colonel
Burdett, Sir F.
Davenport, E. D.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Dawson, A.
Birch, J.
Denison, W. J.
Bright, H.
Denison, J. E.
1045
Du Cane, P.
Pendarves, E. W.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Philips, Sir G.
Dundas, Hon. Sir R.
Philips, G.
Duncombe, Hon. W.
Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Dick, Q.
Price, Sir R.
Dickinson, W.
Protheroe, F.
Ebrington, Viscount
Robarts, A. W.
Ellis, Hon. G. A.
Ramsden, J.C.
Encombe, Viscount
Ramsbottom, J.
Euston, Lord
Rice, T. S.
Fane, J.
Rickford, W.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Fortescue, Hon. G. M.
Robinson, Sir G.
Fyler, T. B.
Robinson, G. R.
Gordon, R.
Russell, Lord J.
Grant, Rt. Hon. C.
Rumbold, C. E.
Grant, R.
Sefton, Lord
Heneage, G. F.
Scott, Hon. W. H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Honywood, P.
Smith, W.
Howard, H.
Smith, V.
Howick, Viscount
Smith, R.
Hume, J.
Smith, J.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Stanley, E.
Keck, L.
Thomson, C. P.
Kemp, T. R.
Thompson, P. B.
Killeen, Lord
Townshend, Lord C.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Tomes, J.
Labouchere, H.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Waithman, Alderman
Lambert, J. S.
Wood, Alderman
Lawley, F.
Wood, C.
Lester, B.
Wilbraham, G.
Littleton, E.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Lennard, T. B.
Warburton, H.
Lloyd, Sir E. P.
Whitmore, W. W.
Lumley, J. S.
Wells, J.
Maberly, J.
Whitbread, S.
Maberly, Col.
Wetherell, Sir C.
Marshall W.
Wigram, W.
Martin, J.
Warrender, Sir G.
Marryatt, J.
TELLER.
Marjoribanks, S.
Graham, Sir G.
Milton, Lord
PAIRED OFF.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Calvert, C.
Monck, J. B.
Tennyson, C.
Morpeth, Lord
Newport, Sir J.
Nugent, Lord
Rowley, Sir W.
Ord, W.
Osborne, Lord F.
Parnell, Sir H.
Baring, A.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday March 30, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns Presented. Contracts of Timber for the use of his Majesty's Dock-yards made since January 1st, 1810. Correspondence between the Board of Trade, the Board of Control, and the Directors of the East India Company, with letters addressed by these Directors to the Government of India since July 26th, 1828, relative to the cultivation of Cotton and Tobacco in the territories of the India Company.
Petitions Presented. Praying for the opening of the Trade to Chins—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from the Corporation of Perth:—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Linlithgow:—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from Stirling:—And by the Duke of DEVONSHIRE from the inhabitants of the Town of Derby, and from eighteen places in the County of Derby. Praying for an amelioration of the Criminal Code—By the Duke of DEYONSHIRE, from the Banters and Merchants of
1046
COMMERCIAL. TREATIES.]
The Earl of Aberdeen
laid on the Table a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation which his Majesty had concluded with the Emperor of Austria and signed at London, December 21st.
Earl Stanhope
objected to this and the other similar Treaties, which were founded on what was called the Reciprocity System. There was, in fact, no reciprocity, for all the advantage was on one side; that is, all was in favour of the foreign power, and against this country. Treaties for the encouragement of mutual commerce were highly advantageous; but these Treaties were for the encouragement only of the trade of other nations, and the ruin, of our own trade. When petitions were pouring in from all parts and from all the different interests of the country, complaining of distress, it was surely a bad time to sacrifice the interests of the ship-owners and others of our own country, in order to promote the interests of the foreign shipowner. It would be impossible for the British ship-owner to compete with the foreign, particularly with the ship-owners of the United States, on this system of reciprocity. It ought always to be kept in view that foreign vessels in general could be built and equipped at one half the expense that attended the building and equipping of British vessels. He profited by that opportunity of entering his protest against these ruinous measures.
The Earl of Aberdeen
admitted that this was not a Commercial Treaty of the description which would be satisfactory to the noble Earl with his view of the subject; but he was very far from admitting that this country would derive no advantage from it. With respect to the distresses of the country, and the distress of the shipowners particularly, these distresses did not arise in any degree from the alteration made in the Navigation Laws. Even if the increase of British shipping had been suspended of late years, still that would be no sure criterion that the alteration bad done harm, although a plausible argument might have been drawn from that circum-
1047
Viscount Goderich
did not think it necessary to enter upon the discussion of the subject at length, on the present occasion, as his noble friend had intimated that the whole matter would be, at a future period, brought under the consideration of Parliament. But he had some time ago moved for certain Returns, from which it appeared that since this reciprocity system was adopted, the British shipping had gone on in a constant progressive course of increase, as compared with the shipping of all the rest of the world, except Norway, which owing to particular circumstances in its situation had increased its shipping faster than England. In particular it had been predicted that British shipping would be sacrificed to Prussian shipping; but the fact was, that the British shipping almost to the exclusion of Prussian shipping, monopolized the trade between the two countries. The Returns he had previously moved for, ended with the year 1828; but he had little doubt that the increase had gone on in the course of the last year. Some spoke of these Treaties as if they were merely speculative schemes resorted to by Ministers without any kind of necessity. But that was far from being the case; for, as we had levied very high duties on the shipping of foreign states, they retaliated by imposing very heavy duties on ours, and in that way we were sure to have the worst of it. The adoption of this reciprocal system was therefore a matter of necessity. If it had not been adopted, there could scarcely be a doubt but that the situation of this country would have been much worse than it actually was. By its means the British shipping had been enabled to compete with the shipping of all the world. At present the trade carried on by British shipping with the United
1048
Lord Ellenborough
said, that he had at first much the same view of the reciprocity Treaties as the noble Earl opposite. But he found from the Return that British shipping had gone on regularly increasing, and it was with great satisfaction that he felt himself bound to declare that he now thought he had been mistaken in his first impressions. He was not aware that the subject was to be discussed, or he should have come prepared with documents to justify his change of opinion.
Earl Stanhope
said, that the Returns to which noble Lords alluded, included all steam-boats employed as passage vessels; and he was yet to learn that either the wealth or the naval power of the country was increased by the visits of the Londoners to Margate. His question was, whether we were carrying on a profitable or an unprofitable trade; and he contended that our trade was unprofitable. To say that it was not, because it was not altogether given up, was like saying that there was no agricultural distress because the farmers had not abandoned their farms. It was a plain matter of arithmetic that the English ship-owners could not compete with foreigners who built and navigated their vessels at half the expense of the English ship-owner. He wished to have an inquiry into this subject, for if the information which reached him were correct, he believed that our ship-owners were keeping their ships a float at a great loss.
SUPPLY OF THE PRECIOUS METALS.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, to move an Address to his Majesty, praying that he would instruct the Consuls to the different States of South-America to make inquiries into the state of the South American Gold and Silver Mines, and to transmit to this country all the information on the subject which they might be able to collect. His wish was to procure, as far as possible, accurate information concerning the supply of the precious metals. He did not anticipate any objection to his Motion, and it would not, therefore, be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with any lengthened re-
1049
1050
The Earl of Aberdeen
saw no objection to the Address proposed by the noble Marquis. The truth was, that the Consuls had already been acting on instructions of a somewhat similar kind; but perhaps it might be of advantage that their attention should be directed more specifically to the points mentioned by the noble Marquis.
Lord Ellenborough
doubted whether the Motion of the noble Marquis would answer the purpose which he himself had in view. It appeared to him that it would be requisite not only to know what was the amount of produce of the American mines, but also to know whither it went. Within eighteen years no less than 45,000,000
l
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that there was a constant flux and reflux to and from India, so that it was scarcely possible to trace where the produce went. There could be no doubt that the increase of civilization, population, and taste for elegant luxuries, had occasioned a much greater expenditure of the precious metals in latter times than formerly. The chief fact however was to ascertain the produce.
The Earl of Malmesbury
had no objection to the Address, but he wished to make an observation on the subject of the great expense occasioned to the public by the salaries of these consuls. He had paid some attention to the subject, and he found that the expense amounted to 97,000
l
l
l
1051
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that he had been paying some, attention to the subject, and he believed that he should, at no distant period, be able to submit a proposal to the House about this matter. But it would never answer to make the whole of the allowances to the consuls consist of fees; for if at any long period of a year the commerce of their stations should be suspended, the consuls might be reduced to great distress if they had nothing to look to but the fees. But in 1825, the old system had been very much objected to, and the fees had been abolished. But whether the change had been advantageous might be doubted; and perhaps the best plan might be to make the allowances payable partly in salary and partly in fees, guarding as much as possible against abuses. He hoped to bring forward a plan to diminish the expense. As to these South American States, almost the whole of our relations with them was of a commercial nature; but in every case where a minister was sent out, the office of consul-general was made to cease.
The Earl of Malmesbury
expressed his satisfaction at the explanation given by his noble friend.
Viscount Goderich
said, that in 1825 great objection was made to the system of fees in the other House, and by merchants out of doors, and the consequence was the abolition of the fee system. Great caution ought, he considered, to be observed in the appointment of vice-consuls, and they certainly should not be merchants—this was more peculiarly necessary in a country wherein our relations were rather commercial than diplomatic.
The Earl of Aberdeen
was unwilling then to enter into any further particulars, the more especially as the matter arose incidentally.
Lord Holland
asked if the consuls sent to the north of Africa were appointed by the Colonial or the Foreign Office.
1052
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, the consuls to Egypt were appointed by the Foreign Office—those for the Barbary States by the Colonial Office.
Lord Holland
saw no reason why the whole of these appointments should not vest in the Foreign Office.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that he did not wish the consuls to be wholly dependent on fees. He would give them a salary, more particularly as they were liable to be called on to perform services like that to which the present Motion related.
Motion agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 30, 1830.
MINUTES.] Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS brought in a Bill to consolidate the Laws relating to the pay of the Royal Navy. Read a first time.
The Fever Hospitals (Ireland) Bill was read a second time on the Motion of Lord FRANCIS LEVESON GOWER.
Returns laid on the Table. Accounts of all sums received by the Corporation of the Trinity House from the Thames Pilots, with their names:—Account of the Fee Fund of the Court of Session (Scotland). The number of persons charged with Criminal Offences, pursuant to an Address of March 29th.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. F. LEWIS, an account of the Imports and Exports of Wool, since the passing of the Act allowing such Exports:—of the number of packs of Playing Cards charged with duty in 1827 and 1829:—On the Motion of Mr. HOLDSWORTH, of the quantity of Coals carried Coastwise into the several Counties of England and Wales distinguishing the quantity imported into each County; and the amount of Duty for 1829; also the amount of Drawbacks, if any paid for Coals consumed in the Mines:—On the Motion of Mr. MANNING, an Account of the Nett Amount of the Duties of Customs on Merchandise of all kinds imported since January 5th, 1820, distinguishing the Amount of each year; of the gross Amount of Duties of Customs charged on Sugar imported from the Mauritius and the West Indies for the same period, with the Amount of Drawback, also the Nett Amount of the same Duties for the same period:—On the Motion of Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, of the Number of Causes set down on the Lord Chancellor's Paper and remaining unheard, specifying the time of setting them down; also the same on the Vice-Chancellor's Paper, and on the Master of the Rolls' Paper.
Petitions Presented. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—By Mr. DOUNIE, from Guild of Merchants, Stirling:—By Mr. LITTLETON, from Lane End and Lane Delph:—And by Mr. ADAM STAY from Linlithgow:—By Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, from the Inhabitants of the Gorbals. For the abolition of the Practice of Women burning themselves in Hindostan—By General GASCOYNE, from various Congregations of Protestant Dissenters in Liverpool. For an Amelioration of the Criminal Code—By Mr. LITTLETON, from West Bromwich—By Mr. FYLER, from Coventry:—by Mr. LEGGE, from Banbury,:—By Mr. MUNDY, from the Merchants and Bankers of the town of Derby. For a Duty on the Importation of Foreign Lead—by Mr. WILLIAM DUNCOMBE, from the Proprietors of Lead Mines in Nedderdale. For the Repeal of the Duty on Tobacco, by Lord F. OSBORNE, from JOSEPH Cox. By Mr. LITTLETON, from Tipton, against the Truck System. Against throwing open the Trade in Beer—By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Licensed Victuallers of the Staffordshire Potteries:—By Sir CHARLES HASTINGS, from the Licensed Victuallers of Leicester:—By Mr. FYLER, from the Licensed Victuallers
1053
DISTRESS AND CRIME.]
Mr. Hume
, in presenting a Petition from the inhabitants of North Nibley, complaining of great Distress, and praying relief; stating that of 1600 persons, 800 were receiving relief, observed, that it was impossible to doubt the existence of great and overwhelming distress when such facts were continually brought before the House. The petitioners justly observed, that whether their distress was caused by legislative measures or not, there could be no doubt that it was greatly aggravated by taxation. He believed that nothing but a reduction of taxation, and the abolition of the Corn-laws, and all other monopolies would give the people relief. The evil consequences of those laws were every day becoming more apparent, and they could not possibly be preserved. In looking at the papers on the Table, it was impossible to avoid concluding, that the great increase of crime they unfortunately proved was chiefly to be attributed to taxation. In each of the five years ending with 1809, the number of persons committed for trial was, on an average, 4,692; between 1820 and 1824, that number was increased to 13,005; in 1825, the number was 14,437: it had progressively increased every subsequent year, and in 1829 was no less than 18,675, being upwards of 6,000 more in 1829 than in 1823, or an increase of 50 per cent in six years. He found, on looking over these accounts, that not more than one individual sentenced to death out of three was executed, and that thirty out of 100 of those committed were acquitted. In Scotland he believed the persons acquitted did not bear a larger proportion to those committed than one in ten. That might be the consequence of the different methods of administering the law in the two countries: but there could be no doubt, that the great increase of distress was the cause of the vast increase in petty larcenies which these returns shewed.
Petition read, and laid on the Table.
SUGAR DUTIES.]
Mr. C. Grant
wished, as he saw his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his place, to call his attention to the subject of the
1054
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was ready to do all in his power to bring the subject of the Sugar Duties before the House as early after Easter as possible. The state of the public business might be such as to prevent him bringing it on very early; but he would, as soon after Easter as possible, inform his right hon. friend when he should bring in the bill.
DUTIES ON COALS.]
Sir John Newport
presented a Petition from certain Inhabitants of Dublin, complaining of the duty on Coals as an infringement on the Act of Union, and praying that it might be repealed. The right hon. Baronet supported the prayer of the Petition, and confirmed the petitioners' statement that the tax was an infringement of the Act of Union. When Mr. Orde's proposition was submitted to the Irish Parliament in 1785, some duty of this kind was contemplated, but at the time of the Union it was distinctly held out to Ireland that she should receive as a been and as an encouragement to her manufactures, coals duty free; while England was still to suffer under the tax now laid on coals carried coast-wise. That promise might be found in one of Lord Castlereagh's published speeches. He lamented, however, to say that the infant manufactures of Ireland had never been relieved from this burthen. After a period of thirty years, for so long a time had elapsed since the Union, he found this duty preserved, and as the Duke of Wellington said, must be preserved: he was at a loss, however, to know on what grounds, since it would be preserved by violating the pledged faith of the Government. If the Legislature were not disposed to cherish the Irish manufacturer by its favour, it ought at least
1055
CROWN LANDS.]
Mr. D. W. Harvey
, in rising to redeem the pledge he had given at the close of the last Session, to bring under the notice of the House the present state and management of the Crown Lands, expressed his regret that it had not fallen into the hands of some more distinguished Member, who might relieve the dryness of the subject by adorning it with the graces of eloquence. His regret was somewhat lessened by having observed that the greatest talents had of late led men into the greatest inconsistencies, and that, at present, ordinary minds, acting under honest impressions, might be of the most substantial advantage to the country. He only claimed to be one of this class; he pretended to none of the advantages of learning, and could claim none of the support which faction or party sometimes lent to individuals. He presented himself to the House as a representative of the people, to bring under its notice a source of the national revenue which had been greatly perverted, and required to be judiciously applied to be made available to the public service. There was scarcely a part of either our domestic or foreign policy which had been less inquired into; for, with the exception of one examination under the authority of a committee, in 1786—with the exception of that solitary examination, the subject had not been inquired into by the House since 1705, shortly after the accession of Queen Anne. It could not be said, therefore, that this was one of those subjects which had grown tedious by repetition. He did not regret that circumstances had deferred his Motion, as it had given time to display a glimmering of anxiety on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, if not to promote reform themselves, at least not to check those who were reformers. He was glad to see that they had recognised public opinion, and he neither would damp the hopes nor falsify the pretensions which had been raised by their late reductions. The right hon. the Member for Liverpool had stated the other night, much to his satisfaction, that one source to which we might look for the improvement of our revenue was the Crown-lands. He wished at the outset to state, that the object of his Motion was to move for a committee to inquire into the present state
1056
l
l
l
l
1057
in capite,
l
l
l
l
l
l
1058
l
l
l
l
l
1059
l
l
s.
d
1060
l
l
s.
d.,
l
l
l
l
s.
l
l
1061
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1062
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1063
l
l
l
l
1064
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1065
l
l
l
1066
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s.
d.,
1067
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1068
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1069
l
l
l
s.
1070
l
An Hon. Member.—When was the lease granted?
Mr. D. W. Harvey
. —The lease began in 1802, when the value of land was much greater than at present. This land was first let in 1771, on a thirty years' lease, at a rent of 60
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1071
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1072
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s.
l
l
l
l
1073
l
l
l
s.
d.,
l
s.
d.
l
s.
d.
l
s.
d.
1074
l
l
l
l
s.
d.,
l
l
s.
d.,
l
1075
l
l
l
l
1076
l
l
l
l
l
Lord Lowther
—It was sanctioned by Act of Parliament.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
, —I know that there was an Act of Parliament to sanction it, but I likewise know that you may get an Act of Parliament for any thing. Then there was 21,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Loud cries of "'Hear.
l
l
l
1077
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1078
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s.
l
1079
l
l
l
l
l
s.
d.
l
l
l
l
l
1080
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1081
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Sir E, Knatchbull
trusted, that his noble friend would pardon him if he immediately followed the hon. member for Colchester, but he begged to be allowed to make a few observations relative to Sunk Island, to which the hon. Member had alluded. He had been requested to address the House upon that point by the present lessee of the Crown, who perhaps was known to many Members—he meant the Rev. John Lonsdale. He had no personal connexion with the rev. gentleman, and had only known him accidentally from having resided in the parish of which he had been the rector. He admitted the
1082
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1083
l
Lord George Bentinck
said, he felt called upon to explain the real nature of the transaction in which his noble father (the Duke of Portland) was concerned, and which had been misrepresented by the hon. Member. The right hon. member for Liverpool could bear witness that when his father wished to dispose of his interest in the living of Mary-le-bone, it was valued by an eminent land-surveyor at 46,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Lord Lowther
next addressed the House, but in so low a tone that he was indis-
1084
l
l
l
l
1085
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1086
l
l
1087
l
l
l
l
1088
l
l
1089
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1090
l
l
l
Colonel Davies
said, he knew not what impression the speech of the hon. Mover had made on the House, but of this he was sure, that it would make a deep impression on the nation at large; and he conceived that every thinking man must come to this conclusion, that it was a matter of very great importance that a very rigorous investigation should be instituted with respect to the proceedings of this Board. He thanked the hon. Member for the very able and clear statement he had made, and for the great research which he had displayed. The noble Lord complained of the hon. Mover for having adopted so wide an extent of observation: but without going back so far, applying himself to the triennial Report of the Commissioners only, he thought he should be able to show, that if abuses existed formerly in this department, they had not ceased when that Report was brought out. He wished it to be plainly understood, that in what he was about to say, he meant not to cast any imputation on the noble Lord, because he believed that the noble Lord was not in office when that to which he was going to call the attention of the House took place. What he had to reprehend applied not to him, but to his predecessors. From what appeared in that Report, it was evident that the revenue of the Crown, as now managed, was most unproductive; so far at least as the public interest was concerned. There seemed to be a most improvident expenditure, and not a single shilling was brought into the Exchequer. He could show that no surplus of the land revenue appeared for the last
1091
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
—"Can such things be,
And overcome us like a summer's cloud,
Without our special wonder?"
1092
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1093
l
l
Mr. Arbuthnot
next addressed the House, but in so low a tone of voice as to preclude the possibility of giving a clear and connected account of what fell from him. The hon. Gentleman was understood to say, in reply to the observations of the preceding speaker, that the hon. Member had not stated fairly the opinion of the Commissioners of Land Revenue Inquiry in 1786. It was true the Commissioners in one part of their Report expressed an opinion, that under favourable circumstances the income of the Land-revenues and Crown estates from all sources might finally amount to 400,000
l
l
1094
l
l
l
l
1095
l
l
l
1096
Colonel Davies
said, in explanation, that he did not mean to find any fault with what had been done under Mr. Arbuthnot's direction.
Mr. Hume
supported the Motion. Fault had been found with the course pursued by the hon. Member, but he thought that he had done right in going back to the ancient state of things, for had it been otherwise, the hon. Member would have been charged with not understanding his subject. He did not intend to charge any one with actual corruption, but the very nature of the office threw open opportunities which were better avoided. The importance of the measure brought forward by the hon. Member was indisputable, and yet the benches of the House showed how little attention was paid to it. The other night, when the question was only about 900
l
l
1097
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1098
Mr. Huskisson
said, the hon. Members who had spoken on the other side seemed to regard this property as quite at their disposal. The hon. Member who spoke last accordingly would sell it all off to pay the National Debt; but this plan, though it might appear feasible to him, was attended with one great difficulty: the House could not dispose of these lands. By the Act of the year 1786, the manner in which the Crown-lands could be disposed of was regulated, and when they were sold, the proceeds were ordered to be invested in a particular manner. The Parliament had no right to dispose of (he hereditary revenues of the Crown without its consent; and the Parliament and the Crown were not at liberty to dispose of it beyond the life of his present Majesty. With respect to the observations made by the hon. Member, relating-to the forests, and to timber for the Navy, they seemed to him to be unfounded, and the hon. Member to be not very well informed on that subject. He was ready to admit that from the time of King William up to a period about twenty years ago, the royal forests had been much neglected. The situation of the country then, and the wants of the Navy, induced the Government to turn its attention to the subject, and to carry into execution the Acts of King William. The royal forests were then enclosed and planted, and there were now 40,000 acres of land covered with as fine trees, and in as good a condition, as any forest land in the country,
1099
s.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1100
l
l
l
1101
l
l
l
l
l
1102
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1103
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1104
l
l
l
1105
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he had advocated no such thing.
Mr. Huskisson
resumed: At least the hon. member for Montrose said so; but nobody acquainted with the circumstances affecting the various royal forests was ignorant, that in a great number of instances the Crown did not possess the right to the soil, and that Parliament was not entitled to take any steps with reference to the matter, otherwise than at the suggestion of the Ministers of the Crown. Both the hon. Members had fallen into an inconceivable blunder when they talked of selling the waste parts of the royal forests at the rate of 5
l
1106
Sir John Sebright
only rose to complain that the passage from Waterloo-place into the Park was not to be kept open. He had no wish to enter into the discussion of the general question then before the House, but he was most desirous to obtain an assurance from Ministers that there should be a footway preserved from Pall Mall into St. James's park. He attached indeed great importance to this subject, because he thought that the convenience of large numbers of the community was always a matter of importance. After expending hundreds of thousands of pounds on ridiculous buildings at the end of the Parks, he considered that it would be very hard if the public were to be denied this great convenience. Regent-street had become a great thoroughfare, which ought therefore to be continued right across the Park. The expense of making a footway would be a mere trifle.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that he believed the public would not be satisfied if they were deprived of the accommodation referred to by the hon. Baronet. The only extenuation of the neglect which he thought visible in that point was, that it showed an impartial disregard to the convenience of the higher as well as the lower orders; for there was perhaps not a single Member of either House who would not find that path a convenience; unless some explanation were given, or unless the way were made, he would certainly move for information to ascertain by whose direction and for what purpose the public wishes were opposed. With respect to the important Question brought before the House by the hon. member for Colchester, he must say that he thought the defence of the Government made by the right hon. the member for Liverpool was satisfactory, and he was glad to hear him express such liberal views as to the mode in which the forests ought to be managed. With respect to the Duke
1107
Mr. Ridley Colborne
said, that he had last year asked a question about the passage into the Park from Waterloo-place, and about a new opening into Kensington Gardens; and he had received such an answer as satisfied him and his friends around him that both openings would be made. Considering that they would be advantageous to the public, he hoped that the resolution would be carried into effect.
The Solicitor-General
contended, that the hon. member for Colchester had misunderstood the meaning of the statute of Queen Anne, which he seemed to think vested the whole property of the Crownlands in the public, and gave the Parliament a right to dispose of them, so that his object in moving for a committee was to obtain a recommendation to sell the Crown property.
Mr. Hartley
"said, No.
The Solicitor General
said, the honourable Member had carefully enumerated how much each part of the Crown property would fetch, whence it might be fairly inferred, that he meant to sell it. In fact, however, the Act of Anne did not confer upon Parliament the right of disposing of the Crown property, or of the Church-livings in the gift of the Crown, any more than it gave the power of revising private property, or the adowsons possessed by individuals. That Statute did not divest the Crown of the property; it said that, the Land-revenue should go in aid of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and forbad the alienation of lands, or the granting leases beyond a certain period. It was not until the statute of George 3rd,
1108
Mr. Harvey
said, in reply, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had supplied him with an argument in favour of a committee, of which he was not before aware, for the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised a doubt whether the property were not absolutely vested in the Crown. He would not enter into that discussion, but it was time, if that were the case, that the public should be disabused of the error of supposing that this revenue was as much under the control of Parliament as the Excise or the Customs. He was particularly surprised at what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he had been surprised at many things he had heard that night,—for that hon. and learned Gentleman had a few nights before expressed an opinion, that the revenue of the Crown-lands might be improved, and now he spoke of the management of them as quite perfect. There was one point on which he was certainly in error. He spoke of the Crown-lands soon maintaining the dignity of Royalty; but the most valuable part of them, that in the neighbourhood of all the improvements to which he alluded, had within ten years been let on lease for ninety-nine years, and till the expiration of the leases, would yield nothing more than at present to the Crown. His only object in moving for the committee, and he did not care how it was attained, was, to make the Land Revenues of the Crown available to the service of the country. The right hon. member for Liverpool seemed to be in error in the construction he put on the Act of 1794, for it said
1109
1110
The House divided; For the Motion 46; Against it 98; Majority 52.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Poyntz, W. S.
Baring, W. B.
Price, Sir Robert
Beaumont, T. W.
Protheroe, Edward
Benett, John
Pusey, Phillip
Bentinck, Lord Geo.
Rickford, Wm.
Birch, Joseph
Sebright, Sir J.
Bernal, R.
Smith, W.
Brownlow, C.
Townshend, Lord C.
Colborne, Ridley
Waithman, Alderman
Davies, Colonel T.
Warburton, Henry
Dawson, Alex.
Whitmore, W. W.
Ducane, P.
Wilson, Sir R.
Dundas, Sir G.
Wood, Alderman
Dundas, Thomas
TELLERS.
Euston, Lord
Harvey, D. W.
Fergusson, Gen. Sir R.
Hume, Joseph
Gordon, R.
PAIRED OFF.
Graham, Sir J.
Burdett, Sir Francis
Guise, Sir B.
Denison, W. J.
Honywood, W. P.
Davenport, Edw.
Howard, Henry
Ebrington, Lord
Jephson, Chas. D. O.
Howick, Lord
Knight, Robert
Osborne, Lord F.
Lamb, Hon. George
Hobhouse, J. C.
Lambert, J. S.
Marjoribanks, S.
Lennard, Thomas B.
Baring, F.
Lumley J. S.
Rumbold, W.
Martin, J.
Lloyd, Sir E.
Macdonald, Sir James
Rowley, Sir W.
Monck, J. B.
Russell, Lord John
Morpeth, Viscount
Robinson, Sir G.
Palmer, C. F.
Thomson, C. P.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Wood, Charles
IRISH CONSTABULARY.]
Lord Francis Leveson Gower
rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the appointment of Constables in Ireland. The noble Lord stated, that the principal provision of his Bill was to take away from the local Magistracy the appointment of Constables, and to vest that appointment in the Government of Ireland. He meant by making that alteration to cast no imputation on the Irish Magistracy; but it was found necessary to take the first nomination of constables out of its hands, and place it in those of the executive Government. He should propose, therefore, that in future this appointment should vest in the Government, and he should also propose that a new class of officers, to be called sub-inspectors, should be appointed. The object of appointing those officers was, to ensure a more ready and efficient superintendence over the constabulary force than at pre-
1111
l
Mr. Spring Rice
expressed some alarm at the proposition of his noble friend, and though he was thoroughly persuaded of his good intentions towards Ireland, he could not look without apprehensions at a measure that was to take away from the local magistracy, and place in the hands of the Government the appointment of between 4,000 and 5,000 persons, distri-
1112
l
Mr. Jephson
said, he was anxious that the constabulary force should be improved, but he regretted to see the disposition of the Government to deprive the magistracy of Ireland of its legitimate influence, nor did he think the substitution of the police constable for the magistrate, as the medium through which the Government was to obtain information of the state of the country, would be advantageous. He knew that the constable at Mallow was directed to send communications to the government without consulting the magistracy, and on one occasion he had made such a communication which might have been attended with injurious consequences. That town was one of the most quiet towns in Ireland, but the constable, taking all his information from a disappointed Orangeman, represented it as agitated by party spirit and in a disturbed state. If, therefore, the noble Lord meant to rely for information as to the state of Ireland on
1113
Mr. Trant
was so much opposed to the principle of the measure, that he was inclined to object
in limine
Mr. Robert Gordon
expressed his satisfaction at hearing such sound constitutional doctrines from his hon. friend. He too looked on this Bill, and the bill relating to the importation of arms into Ireland, with considerable alarm. He thought there was in both the measures an indication that the Government was apprehensive for the continuance of tranquillity in Ireland. Unless the Bill were supported by some stronger reasons than had yet been urged in its favour, the noble Lord would certainly find it difficult to procure the assent of the House to it. In reference to the police of London, it was necessary to observe, that the expenses of it were wholly
1114
Mr. Chichester
inquired, if the sub-inspectors were to be substituted for the pay-clerks; and if they were to give security for the performance of their duties?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
deprecated further discussion at that late hour, but he was obliged to remark, that the appointment of sub-inspectors would cause no additional expense whatever, and therefore the objections on that score were groundless. As to the force being unconstitutional, he could only say that an objection of that nature was urged when it was first established; but whether unconstitutional or not, it had been productive of much good. His hon. friend would perhaps consider that well before he acted on his determination to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Alexander Dawson
was bound to express his conviction, that as long as the appointment of constables was left in the hands of magistrates, who had always servants to provide for, improper persons would be appointed. He approved therefore of the Government taking the responsibility on itself.
Mr. George Dawson
said, he was sure that the proposed alteration would be very beneficial to Ireland. The constabulary force was rendered in a measure inefficient by the present mode of appointing constables, which left the way open to party feelings and to much corruption. As to the expense, he was not prepared to say that it should not be wholly borne by the parishes of Ireland, in the same manner as the local police was supported by the parishes of England. At present he knew that no expense was more unpopular in Ireland than that of the constabulary force, but if the Grand Juries were invested with the power of controlling that expense, they would be less repugnant to increasing it. At present the law said, that there should be sixteen constables for each Barony, and this number, though in some places perhaps totally unnecessary, the Grand Jury had no power to reduce. He was surprised
1115
Mr. Trant
had never objected to the constabulary force, but to the Government taking the control of it from the local magistracy, and assuming it all into its own hands. As to his opinions, they remained unchanged, and he opposed the present measure on the same grounds as he had opposed the measure of last year, looking on them both as tending to subvert the Constitution.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Wednesday, March 31, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions Presented. By Lord DUNDAS, from Guisborough, in Yorkshire, praying for a Revision of the Penal Law:—By Lord KING, from the Unitarians of Chichester, praying (or an Alteration in the Marriage Laws:—By the Duke of MONTROSE, from the Gorbals of Glasgow, praying for the Opening of the Trade to China:—By Lord WHARNCLIFFR to the same effect, from Birstal, Holbeck, Horbury, and Checkheaton clothing districts of the County of York.
The Indemnity Bill, and the County Palatine of Durham Dill were read a third time, and passed.
Returns Presented. Account of the Orphans Fund, and other Annual Accounts, from the Chamber of London.
TITHES.]
Lord Suffield
presented a Petition from the Hundred of Diss, in the county of Norfolk, praying for an alteration in the mode of the payment of the Clergy by Tithes. The whole of the Petition, his Lordship stated, was well worthy their Lordships' attention; but the petitioners stated in general that the present mode of paying the Clergy by Tithes was injurious to religion, and contrary to sound policy. It was injurious to religion on account of the irritation frequently occasioned by it between the incumbent and the parishioners; and it was contrary to sound policy, because it had a tendency to prevent improvement and the extension of agriculture, and so far to lessen the means of employment, for the labourer. It was a cause of injustice also; for a farmer might be disposed to lay out some capital in the improvement of land, in the hope that it
1116
Ordered to lie on the Table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, March 31, 1830.
MINUTES.] A New Writ was moved for a Burgess to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Dorchester, in the room of the Hon. A. W. ASHLEY COOPER, who had accepted the Office of Steward of East Hendred.
Petitions Presented. By Mr. BURRELL, from Brighton respecting the Duties on Beer. By Lord FRANCIS OSBORNE, from the Merchants and other Inhabitants of Wisbeach, praying that the Severity of the Criminal Code might be mitigated.
Accounts Presented. Annual Accounts from the Chamber of London.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH DIVORCE
The House resolved itself into a Committee. Counsel appeared at the Bar in support of the Bill, and several witnesses were examined to prove its allegations.
After the examination had gone on for a considerable time
Mr. Hume
rose to move its adjournment. The Chairman, he said, ought to report progress, and ask leave to sit another day. He did not think any advantage would arise from continuing the examinations at that hour.
Sir H. Hardinge
objected to that course. This was the first divorce case ever so sifted by that House. Lord Ellenborough, however, would have no objection to the case being minutely investigated.
Mr. R. Gordon
supported Mr. Hume's Motion for an adjournment. The House really was too thin to proceed with the examinations at present.
Sir H. Hardinge
proposed, that Miss Steele's examination should be taken. That lady was a witness of undoubted respectability, and he should wish her evidence to be taken at that time. He had every desire that the case should be gone into most fully; for the more it was examined, the more, he was convinced, it would appear that Lord Ellenborough was
1117
Mr. Hume
opposed proceeding any further at that time. He could assure the House, that when he first came there it was not his intention to ask a single question, nor had he done so until the apparent, the evident contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses were so great as to induce in his mind a suspicion of connivance. He really had never read the evidence that had before been given, and he should not have interfered at all, but for the cause he had stated. He wanted to know what evidence had been given, for he really had not as yet read anything of it? It seemed from what he had heard to-night, that all the servants knew of these occurrences for some months; in fact, that they had been the topics of common conversation in the family. Now, he wanted to know what the servants that had been examined had said, and whether more servants could not be called to explain all they knew about the matter? He had hoped to-day to have been home by five o'clock, but he had been kept here about this business until that hour; and now he was obliged to go away, for he had a very pressing engagement.
Sir H. Hardinge
. pressed the hon. Members to go through the examination of Miss Steele. There were several Members present, and among them some members of the profession of the law, quite competent to conduct the examination.
Mr. Hume
said, there were not forty Members in the House, and he did not think, with such a thin attendance, they ought to go into the examination of witnesses, some of whom it was evident had received bribes, and their testimony was therefore suspicious.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that the fact that a witness had received bribes did not of itself vitiate his evidence.
Mr. Alderman Wood
observed, that surely the gallant Officer did not mean to say that the evidence of such persons was worthy of belief.
Mr. Gordon
again observed on the very thin attendance of Members, and said that
1118
[Mr. Hume and Sir C. Wetherell left the House.]
Sir H. Hardinge
then observed, that if Members who had taken an active part in the examination absented themselves, it was impossible to go on. He repeated that he wished the case to be most fully investigated, satisfied as he was, that the result would be favourable to the Bill; but after the hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. and learned Member had withdrawn, he felt he could not conveniently press the examination further.
The further hearing of the case postponed to the next day.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, April 1, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns Presented. Account of the weekly amount of Wheat purchased in the Markets of Liverpool and Manchester; with weekly Returns of Wheat from Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, and Warrington. Account of the number of Vessels which had passed the Sound during 1829.
Lord STANLEY, General GASCOYNE, Sir T. ACLAND, and Mr. BASTARD, brought up a Bill for amending the Liverpool Harbour and Pocks, together with several other Private Bills, to which the House of Commons had agreed; all of which were read a first time.
Petitions Presented. By the Earl of DERBY, from the Owners of Victualling Houses in Great and Little Bolton, Lancashire against any alteration in the Licensing System, By the same noble Lord, from the Protestant Dissenters of Hanover-street Chapel, Pall-mall Chapel, Cockspur-street Chapel, and twenty other Meeting-house Congregations in Liverpool, praying for the abolition of Burning of Widows in India, and other unchristian practices—By the Bishop of Chester, similar Petitions from Congregations of Dissenters at Rochdale and Bretherton. By Lord KING, against the Com Laws, from the inhabitants of Kidderminster. By Earl GOWER, from Newcastle-under-Lyme. and other places in Staffordshire, praying that the Trade to China, might be thrown open. By the same noble Lord, from Shelton, Burslem, and other places, for the abolition of Slavery. And by Lord HOLLAND, from Protestant Dissenting Congregations at Over-Darwen, Lancashire, against the Burning of Hindoo Widows; and also for throwing open the Trade to China.— Referred to the Committee on East-Indian affairs.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of MALMESBURY, of Commitments and Criminal Convictions, in the different counties of Ireland during the last seven years; and also of the different counties of Scotland.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.]
Lord King
said, he had been intrusted with a Petition respecting the Administration of Justice in this country, which for several reasons was entitled to an attentive and serious consideration. It was most numerously signed, and by persons of the highest respectability, resident in the metropolis. Amongst the signatures would be found that of the most eminent lawyer at the Irish bar, (Mr. O'Connell) and the peti-
1119
Petition laid on the Table.
IRELAND.—DUTY ON COALS.]
The Marquis of Anglesey
said, he should solicit the attention of the House, and of his Majesty's Ministers more particularly, to a Petition which he had the honour to present from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Catherine, Dublin, signed by 111 Merchants, Manufacturers, and Traders of that City, praying for a remission of the duty on Coals imported into Ireland. That such a petition should have been intrusted to him was matter of regret, as he could not, without pain to himself, and without risk of his health, address their Lordships at any length upon the subject, whereas other noble Lords would have been more efficient in its advocacy, although none could be move sincere in zeal. It ought to be recollected that Ireland had not the advantage of those inexhaustible collieries which this country enjoyed, as the ablest engineers had given it as their opinion that in Ireland, though not destitute of Coals, the Coal-mines were scarce, and that the fuel
1120
l.,
1121
l.
l.;
l,
l.
Petition read and laid on the Table.
TITHES.]
The Marquis of Anglesey
, presented a Petition from certain landowners in Wexford, against the present Tithe-system, as it existed in Ireland. The Petitioners complained of the hardship of being compelled to pay the ministers of a Church with which they had no connection, and from which they derived no benefit. The Tithe-system in Ireland was of no use, as the petitioners thought, except to enable the Clergy of the Established Church to wallow in wealth, luxury, and extravagance, inconsistent with their Christian profession. The system, as it operated in Ireland, had also a most mischievous effect on the morals of the people, for it was the source of many assassinations and other crimes.
The Petition laid on the Table.
DISTRESS.]
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
presented a Petition from Shepton Mallet, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. The right rev. Prelate supported the prayer of the Petition, and vouched for the correctness of its statements. By every principle of humanity and justice that House was bound, he said, to institute an inquiry into the causes of the distress, for the legislature should treat the people as a father would treat his children, Sound policy also demanded it, for by doing so, the legislature would earn the gratitude of the people. It was impossible for any language of his to do justice to the heroic fortitude with which they had submitted to their distress;
1122
Petition laid on the Table.
Earl Beauchamp
presented a Petition from Worcester, signed by 2,800 persons, complaining of Distress, and praying for a revision of the Currency, and Parliamentary Reform.
Earl Stanhope
bore testimony to the general existence of the distress complained of, and read extracts from a letter, which, he said, was written by one of the cleverest men he was acquainted with, to justify his opinion. One-third of the unentailed estates in Scotland, he was informed, might be found in the market; and Scotland, instead of being prosperous, as had been stated, was in great distress. The people about Glasgow, he was informed, were living chiefly on provisions imported from Ireland; and on a line of road near Berwick, there were several estates unoccupied. The distress at Leeds had been denied in the teeth of a petition signed by 50,000 persons; and the writer of the letter informed him, that the statements of that petition were too true. The increase of Tolls, which had been quoted in another place as a sign of prosperity, had no foundation; in fact, during the last four years the Tolls in the neighbourhood of Birmingham had decreased from 3,990
l.
l.
1123
s.
The Marquis of Bute
denied that distress existed so generally in the country as the noble Earl (Stanhope) seemed to
1124
Earl Stanhope
, in reply, said no doubt land was a better mode of investment in Scotland; but it was not a little singular that, under those circumstances, so large a number of landed proprietors in that country should be anxious to sell their estates. He repeated there was great distress in the country, and in one county (Worcester) there existed great irritation and exasperation amongst the lower orders against the higher, and if some remedy was not found to remove the distress, that exasperation would increase to an extent to be dreaded.
Petition to he on the Table.
POOR-LAWS (SCOTLAND.)]
Lord Napier
brought in a Bill for the better regulation of the Poor Laws in Scotland. The noble Lord said, as some misunderstanding-existed with respect to the object of this Bill, he wished to state, that there was nothing whatever in it subversive of the fundamental principle of the Scotch system of Poor-laws. He had brought in a bill on the subject last Session, but had since remodelled the whole; and introduced a variety of improvements.
Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, April 1, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Tanjore Commissioners' Bill was read a third time and passed. A message from the Lords announced that their lordships had assented to Catterick Bridge, and Durham Road Bill, and several other Private Bills without Amendment:— On the Motion of the SOLICITOR GENERAL, a Bill for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors
1125
✶
Returns Presented. By Mr. Secretary PEEL, the Convention of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Austria:—By Mr. G. DAWSON, the correspondence between the Commissioners of Charities, and the Trustees of Morden College.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HOME DRUMMOND, of the quantity of Home-made Spirits that paid Duty in England in each of the four years preceding January 5th, 1826, and in each of the four years subsequent to that date:—Of the quantities of Rum which paid Duty during each of the years in the same two periods:—Of the reserved Hereditary Revenues of the Civil Establishment of Scotland in each year, from 10th October, 1821, to 10th October, 1829, with the payments made there out, distinguishing Pensions:—A Copy of a Report made by the Committee of the Trustees for the encouragement of Manufactures of Scotland, to the Trustees during the last six months, containing a Statement of the establishment and Funds of the Board.
Petitions Presented. By Mr. MARSHALL, from the Tallow Chandlers of Leeds, against the Excise Duties on Tallow, from the Inhabitants of Stanningley and Mirfield, against the Renewal of the East India Charter—Referred to the Committee.
ST. GEORGE'S AND ST. GILES'S SELECT VESTRY BILL.]
Lord J. Russell
brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill.
On the Question that the Report be agreed to,
Mr. Hume
l.
l.
minimum, and
l.
Mr. Hobhouse
begged leave to second
✶
ante p.
1126
l.
Sir T. Fremantle
could not agree with the hon. Members, as the measure in all its bearings had been thoroughly discussed in the committee above stairs. He trusted that the House would refuse to alter the rate fixed upon by that committee. In another part of the Bill it was arranged, that where houses were rated under 30
l.
Sir R. Wilson
objected to the principle of the rate fixed by the Bill, as it was an undue attempt to do away with the franchise of a large body of inhabitants. The Select Vestry Committee was to make a Report that night, and he therefore looked upon the present attempt to pass this peculiar Bill, before the general Report was brought up, as an attempt to take an unfair advantage of the ignorance of the House. He was so opposed to the Bill, that he should propose, in the event of his hon. friend's Amendment not being successful, that the Bill should be read that day six months. The Bill was one of so aristocratic and unjust a nature to the poorer rate-payers, that he trusted the House would not sanction it.
Mr. Ward
would vote for the Bill as it stood, confident that its principles were the most advantageous to the parishes at large. The Bill, at present, was absolutely necessary, because, as the affairs of the parish stood, no rates could be raised to pay the poor, and he believed it to be well calculated also to meet the differences that had so long existed in the parish.
Lord J. Russell
said, that there had never been an Elective Vestry in these parishes, and therefore the present Bill
1127
l.
minimum
l.
minimum.
l.,
l.
The House then divided on the Amendment. For it 23; Against it 57;—Majority in favour of the original Bill 34;
Mr. Hume
Mr. Hobhouse
begged leave to suggest to his hon. friend, that as the House would appear to be against the Bill, it might be as well to withdraw his Amendment, and propose another, by which every ratepayer should have but one vote. By the Bill, as it. stood, the payer of 30/. had one vote, he of 60
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
would adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend, and would propose that no voter, be his rate what it might, should have more than one vote under the present Bill.
The Gallery was cleared for a division.
During the absence of strangers from the gallery three divisions took place, the first on the question that 30
l.
The Bill ordered to be engrossed and read a third time to-morrow.
1128
ELLENBOROUGH DIVORCE BILL.]
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into further consideration the Ellenborough Divorce Bill—Sir George Clerk in the Chair. The following witnesses were examined, Miss Margaret Steele, Mr. Freshfield, John King, and Thomas Kaims. After the examination of these witnesses was concluded, and it being understood that no further witnesses would be examined,
Mr. Hume
said, he supposed that the Chairman would now report progress, and lay the evidence before the House, in order to have it printed. He presumed that after what had taken place, after such contradictions and inconsistencies as had been extorted from the different witnesses, nobody would think of pressing this matter to an immediate decision. For his own part he was so astounded by the inconsistency of the testimony of the different witnesses, not only with the statements of one another, but also with their own statements, that he knew not at present on what part of it he ought to rest. He could not see how far each witness was to be credited or discredited; and therefore, considering the hurried manner in which the evidence had been elicited from the witnesses, and the indistinct and almost inaudible tones in which several of their answers had been given, he submitted that it would be better that the evidence should be printed, with a view of giving, not only those who were present at the examination of the witnesses, but also those who were absent, an opportunity of judging how far the evidence bore out the allegations in the Bill.
The Chairman
said, that the usual practice in cases of this kind was, to report the Bill as amended to the House, and to bring up the evidence along with it. When that was done, then it was competent for any hon. Member to move, first that the evidence be laid on the Table, and then that it be printed. If the House should be of opinion that the evidence ought to be printed, they must wait till it was printed before a day could be fixed for the third reading of the Bill.
Sir Henry Hardinge
On the Chairman putting this question,
Mr. Robert Gordon
asked whether there was a clause in the Bill making a provision for Lady Ellenborough?
1129
Sir H. Hardinge
answered in the negative.
Dr. Phillimore
said, that it was not customary to introduce such a clause as that the hon. Member alluded to.
Mr. Hume
said, that if he had made up his mind on the various points which were suggested by the evidence which had arisen in the course of this investigation, he might be inclined to make no objection to this Motion. But he begged leave to remind the Committee, that it was competent for them to strikeout of this Bill the clause giving the relief which the noble individual prayed for. He thought that it was necessary to report progress, in order to get the evidence printed. Any other course would be like stealing a stage in the progress of the Bill.
Sir H. Hardinge
came forward to the Table with great warmth, and striking it forcibly, expressed his surprise at hearing any hon. Member talk about stages in a bill of this description. To use any unnecessary delay in passing this Bill, after it had been sifted in so unusual—he might almost say, in so unprecedented—a way, would be hurting the feelings and trifling with the honour of both the noble families who were interested in its progress. He did not mean to blame the course which the examination had taken: he was highly satisfied with the part which the relatives of Lady Ellenborough had taken in the course of it: but still, recollecting the peculiar constitution of that House, its popular construction, and its incompetency to examine witnesses upon oath, he was convinced that it was not proper to let a Bill like the present hang in its progress through it. They ought, therefore, to report this Bill without amendment to the House: and if there was any part of it to which the hon. member for Montrose was inclined to object, he could move to strike it out upon the motion for its third reading.
Mr. Hume
assured the Committee that he had no wish to hurt the feelings, or to trifle with the honour, of cither of the noble parties who were interested in the progress of this Bill. He had stated yesterday, that when he entered the House he had not the slightest acquaintance with any of the circumstances connected with the present case. He had no previous intention of taking any part in it. The course which he had pursued he had taken almost involuntarily, in consequence of
1130
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that this discussion was quite unnecessary, as the question had been already decided, that the bill should be reported to the House. [
Cries of "No."
The Chairman
said, that he had put the question, and that he understood it to have been carried; but, as there appeared to be some doubt upon the subject, the best plan which he could follow would be to put the question again. On his doing so,
Mr. Tennyson
said, that he rose to express his concurrence in the feelings which had been so properly expressed by his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. He came into the House yesterday in complete ignorance of the circumstances of this case: but owing to the facts which were then elicited from the various witnesses, he felt it to be his duty to take a part in the investigation. He hoped that he had quite as much delicacy towards the noble parties implicated in this transaction as the gallant officer had; but he could not lose sight of the singular fact, that there had been no investigation into the circumstances of this case in a Court of Common Law, and that it was an unprecedented occurrence that a Divorce Bill should come under their consideration without its resting upon a previous verdict, with damages in favour of the applicant. That occurrence devolved upon the House a most serious and important duty. It bound them to institute a severe and rigorous inquiry into the whole transaction. He did not mean to blame Lord Ellenborough for not instituting such an inquiry, it was
1131
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was sure that nothing was farther from the intention of his right hon. and gallant friend than to impute improper motives to any of the hon. Members who had taken part in this investigation. He was quite willing to admit that, as there was no opposing party to this Bill, it became a duty incumbent upon the House to see that there were the ordinary circumstances deemed necessary to justify a legislative measure of this description. The hon. Gentleman opposite had told them that it was unprecedented to introduce a Bill of this nature into the House unsupported by the verdict of a jury. He believed that the rule in these cases was, that the record of such a verdict should be produced, or that good reason should be shown why it was not. Last year there was a case of precisely the same sort with the present, and that arose from the party against whom the action for damages should have been brought having left England, as in this case, before it was possible to serve him with the necessary process. No one appeared upon that occasion to show cause against the Bill, and it passed accordingly. With respect to the Bill before them, he knew no more of the transaction than hon. Members opposite till he came into the House yesterday. He had interposed upon this occasion, because he was quite certain that his right hon. friend had no wish to cast any imputations upon others.
Sir H. Hardinge
observed, that in what he had said when he last addressed the Committee, he had no intention to cast any imputation upon hon. Members. He had cast no imputation upon the mode of examination, though it was unusual; indeed he should have been glad if it had been carried further; for the further it was carried, the more honourable would the conduct of Lord Ellenborough appear. He had only complained that the hon. member for Aberdeen had proposed a delay, which in his opinion was quite unnecessary.
Sir C. Wetherell
commenced his obser-
1132
1133
Cries of "No, no; that has been explained."
Sir H. Hardinge
said, he had already disclaimed any such intention.
Sir C. Wetherell
: Well, as the gallant officer had been misunderstood, he would not press his observations on that point any further. The gallant officer had said that this inquiry was uncommon, but he seemed to have forgotten that the circumstances which had given rise to it were also uncommon, and that it was precisely on account of the peculiarity of those circumstances that it was necessary to make it. He believed that every Gentleman who then heard him would agree with him, that to add one moment's pain unnecessarily to either of the noble parties to this Bill, was a course which would give quite as much pain to the hon. Member who made such addition, as to the noble parties themselves, and would meet with the severest reprobation and contempt from the House itself. He could not, however, refrain from stating, that though this case came before them labouring under a defect under which no case could labour which came to them based upon the verdict of a jury, it was even now, at the conclusion of the examination of the witnesses, left so naked with respect to the conduct of the husband, as to render it the duty of every member of Parliament to make himself a juror to try that question which, in ordinary cases, was decided by a jury for him. "We are here, Sir," continued Sir C. Wetherell, "as a jury empannelled to try all the circumstances of this case. That is clearly the path of our duty, and I trust that we should not shrink from pursuing it. Participating, as I do most fully, in all the delicacy of feeling for which the right hon. and gallant officer takes to himself so much credit, I must still be permitted to protest against pursuing the course which he has chalked out for us. I beg most particularly to point out to the House that it is its clear, its paramount, its absolute and undeniable duty, to investigate this case fully, freely, fairly and impartially. I am glad that the inquiry has been pushed as far as it has
1134
1135
Lord Nugent
thought, that as the case was now closed in evidence, every Gentleman who had listened to that evidence would feel that he owed it no. less to his own feelings, than to the honour of the parties implicated, to take the earliest opportunity of stating his opinion as to its effects. He did not regret that the Committee had entered into this investigation; for though he had come into the House in total ignorance of the evidence which was to be laid before it, he now felt himself called upon to declare, that it had left upon his mind, as far as that evidence went, the most satisfactory conviction that not even the shadow of a charge of collusion or misconduct was imputable to Lord Ellenborough. As far, therefore, as his opinion was concerned, he was prepared to give to his Lordship the relief which he now sought, and he trusted that that relief would be given with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Hume
protested against being called upon at this period to give any opinion on the last point mentioned by the noble Lord who preceded him. Hearing the evidence as rapidly and as indistinctly as every Member of the House must have heard it, he confessed his inability to give any opinion upon it at that moment. He must read it over before he could pretend to be roaster of its voluminous and contradictory character.
The Bill, with the evidence taken before the Committee, was ordered to be Reported.
The Speaker
having resumed the Chair,
Sir G. Clerk
brought up the Report, and laid the evidence on the Table of the House.
Mr. Hume
then moved, that the evidence taken before the Committee on Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill should be printed. He was not aware that any objection could be taken to this proposition,
1136
Mr. Warburton
seconded the Motion. He could have wished to have been spared the pain of this investigation; but as it had been commenced, it was necessary, for the sake of public morality, to proceed with it, and to have the evidence printed. He had been in the House last night, and had witnessed the singular series of contradictions which the witnesses for the Bill had given to each other's testimony; and he therefore was of opinion, that unless the question was to be decided by the twenty Members who heard the evidence of last night, and by those twenty Members only, it was indispensable to print the evidence which had been taken by the Committee.
Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that in his opinion this was a case which addressed itself particularly to the feelings of the House. As to the point of form, this Motion was clearly in contravention of it: yet if it should be the feeling of the House that the evidence ought to be printed, he would not object to it, even though the delay of printing it would add three or four days of suspense and anguish to the families of the noble Lord and Lady whose interests the Bill affected. He saw no necessity for printing the evidence, but he would not oppose the Motion.
Mr. R. Grant
declared it as his opinion, that in a case of this peculiar importance to the moral welfare of the community, (he House would scarcely perform its duty if it did not order the evidence to be printed. Deprecating the idea of adding the slightest degree of torture and suspense to any party, he must say that not only the most ample and cautious deliberation, but also the appearance of it, was due to themselves, to public morality, to public justice, to the gravity of their proceedings, and to the feelings of the parties concerned and their immediate relations. The want of a verdict in a jury court gave the case a peculiarity which called for more than ordinary circumspection and deliberation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said,
1137
Mr. Tennyson
said, that the right hon. Gentleman would be correct in his opinion, if only those who heard the evidence were to vote upon the Bill; but twenty Members alone were present when the evidence was given, and he need not say that a great many more would decide the question. The evidence ought to be printed. Divorce was a remedy out of the reach of the lower classes, and naturally regarded on this account with jealousy by the great body of the people. It ought to be recollected, too, that Lord Ellenborough was a member of that other House whose decision was the only suggestion to precede their judgment. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose the printing of the evidence, without which it would be unbecoming in them to give a vote upon the question.
Sir Henry Hardinge
declared, in explanation, that his only wish was, to prevent unnecessary exposure, and that more for the sake of the unfortunate lady, whom he had formerly known well, than from any consideration in the remotest degree connected with his Lordship, that he had raised his voice upon the occasion; but if it were the general sense and feeling of the House that this evidence should be printed, he certainly would not oppose it.
Mr. Nicolson Calvert
declared himself quite satisfied with the evidence, and stated that the sooner the affair was concluded the better it would be for all parties.
Mr. Lennard
said, his mind was made
1138
Mr. Harrison Batley
did not think it would be right for the House to give their decision without having the evidence printed.
Mr. Home Drummond
observed, that the House was acting judicially, and thought that in deference to the opinions of many Members, and the dignity of their proceedings, they ought to make these proceedings as judicial as possible. He had no doubt upon the case; but he wished to have the evidence printed.
Sir G. Clerk
said, his right hon. friend and he had no objection to the evidence being printed. He could state most broadly, that no friend of Lord Ellenborough's could do otherwise, as far as he was concerned, than wish for a publication of the entire transaction.
Sir H. Hardinge
had expressed himself most infelicitously if he had given the House to understand that in consideration of his Lordship's interests or feelings he had any objection to having the evidence printed.
An Hon. Member declared himself satisfied of her Ladyship's guilt; but regretted that no provision was made for her. He suggested the introduction of a clause which should prevent her from being in the condition of a pauper.
Sir G. Clerk
said, that such a clause was never introduced into such Bills.
Sir H. Hardinge
, as one of the Cotrustees to Lord Ellenborough's marriage settlement, said, that such a provision had been made as had received the approbation of the lady's family.
Evidence to be printed.
TRIAL BY JURY IN SCOTLAND.]
he Lord Advocate
said, the subject which it was his duty to introduce to the consideration of the House was one of the utmost importance, It affected the general ad-
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
l.
l.
l.
1144
mensa et thoro,
1145
1146
1147
l.
s.,
l.,
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
l.,
l.,
l.
Customs
£1,376,000
Excise
2,839,000
Making a total of
£4,215,000
1154
In the Jury Court the saving would be
£11,000
In the salary of the Judge Admiral
800
In the salaries of three Judges in the Commissary Court
1,800
In the salary of the Justice General
2,000
In the salaries of two Judges of the Court of Session
4,000
In the salaries of two Judges of the Court of Exchequer
4,000
£23,600
1155
The Question was put from the Chair.
Sir Michael Shaw Stewart
said, although he could not but regret the delay that had taken place since notice was first given for the introduction of this bill—a delay that could not but be inconvenient to the Lord Advocate himself, and to all the Members connected with Scotland, as
1156
1157
l.
l.
1158
l.
l.
l.
1159
1160
cheers
Sir G. Warrender
said, unless the effect of the present measure were to produce a considerable improvement and reduction in the judicial establishments of Scotland, he should be the last man to concur in its adoption. But he thought it would be beneficial as far as it went, and felt grateful for it. He fully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Baronet on the subject of Fees: he himself had received communications, stating that the middle classes in Scotland wore frequently deterred from applying for justice in consequence of the enormous amount of fees. The salaries to clerks derived from fees amounted to 24,000
l.
1161
l.
1162
1163
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1164
Mr. Fergusson
said, he should abstain at the present moment from giving any opinion on most of the subjects that had been brought before the House by the learned Lord; for, unlearned as he was in the laws of his country—he meant Scotland—he should like to be better acquainted with the opinions of professional men before he hazarded his own. He was capable, however, of forming an opinion of the Lord Advocate, and he begged to say that no one could doubt that the motives of that learned Lord were as pure and as honourable as his exertions were praiseworthy. At the same time he might observe, that he could hardly conceive of any form of case, in aid of which the trial by twelve jurymen as to points of fact, would not be most useful: he therefore thought that it was worthy the attention of the learned Lord to consider whether these trials should be confined to the presidency of two Judges only, as it could not be denied that many of the other Judges were quite competent to the task of presiding over a jury trial. With respect to the reduction of the Court of Admiralty, he thought that that might safely be accomplished, as the causes that came before that Court might as well be tried by the Sheriff or the Court of Session; and, indeed, with respect to maritime cases, it was much more fit that they should come before the last-mentioned Court. With respect to the alterations in the Ecclesiastical Court he was not so well satisfied, as he thought that two Judges ought to be left there in order to give them a jurisdiction. He did not think that the Judges of the Court of Session any more than the Judges of Westminster-hall, could try and determine ecclesiastical causes as well as men who had been trained in that particular department. He did not think that questions of marriage, divorce, and legitimacy, could be safely transferred to such Judges. He, for one, could not agree in the proposition laid down by the learned Lord, that they ought to check litigation by adding to the expense; and as long as
1165
l.
l.,
l.
1166
Mr. Home Drummond
said, he could not give a silent vote on that occasion; the measures now brought forward were so much in accordance with those he had recommended last session, that he should give them his cordial support. It gave him great satisfaction to see those measures introduced; and he thought they reflected the highest credit on his hon. and learned friend and the right hon. Secretary of State. They could not justly be charged with being rash innovations, for almost all of them had been under discussion for half a century. Upwards of forty years ago the three points of dividing the Court of Session, of introducing into it trial by jury, and reducing the number of Judges, had been recommended in a very able pamphlet, by a Judge of that Court, the late Lord Swinton, than whom no man ever wrote from a more sincere desire to discover the truth, or more uninfluenced by every other consideration than the public good. The measures introduced by his hon. and learned friend, however, had met with so much approbation in the House, that he did not think it necessary to enter into any arguments to enforce their claims to
1167
1168
Colonal Lindsay
was understood also to approve of the measures, but to dissent from the objections which had been made to increasing the Judges' salary. He did not believe that the rent of land in Scotland had fallen 40-per-eent; and when ever the proposition to increase the Judges' salaries came before the House, he should give it his strenuous support. The salary ought to be raised so as to tempt men of the highest talents to accept the office, and enable them to subsist like gentlemen while they devoted their time to the public service. He was anxious to see public men well paid.
Mr. Hume
was also anxious to see public men well paid, but he was afraid that
1169
1170
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
was happy to find the system so good, that the hon. Member could find out nothing else to blame but that the Judges of Scotland mixed with other classes of society, and engaged in some other business. Among the employments to which the learned Member objected was the being appointed on the Commission to inquire into Academical Instruction; and he stated as an aggravated offence that they were the presidents of charitable Institutions, and the Managers of Infirmaries. All the fault he could find with them was, that they mixed with their fellow citizens. The hon. Gentle-man said, that English Judges did not do such things; but he had sent for the Red Book, and on opening it at the Lying-in-Hospital, he found that Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Gazelee were Vice-Presidents [
honorary, said Mr. Hume
Mr. Hume
said, he could show that they went farther; some of them might be found amongst the Members of Select Vestries.
1171
Mr. Peel
resumed; the hon. Gentleman charged the Scotch Judges with addicting themselves to secular employments, and instituted comparisons between them and the English Judges, unfavourable to the former, and then he sought to aggravate the charge by saying that the English Judges went a length the Scotch Judges had never been known to go. If that were really and seriously brought as a charge, and sustained in the manner which he had just described, he must be allowed to say that his experience afforded but few parallels to such a mode of parliamentary discussion. It was indeed new to him to hear it brought as matter of accusation against judicial persons, that they were found mixing in deeds of charity with their fellow-citizens at large. The case of the English Judges, to which he had adverted, was certainly such as lay open to no reasonable objection; and he was quite satisfied that the hon. Member for Westminster, who sat opposite, could bear testimony to the benefits which their interference conferred upon the charities with which they were connected. It happened that in Scotland some of them had been appointed Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the state of Academical Education, and he should gladly learn what there was in the judicial office to unfit them for such a situation; and he might be allowed to add, that they deserved great credit for the willingness with which they undertook those duties, and the efficiency with which they discharged them. As to the immediate object of the present Motion, he should reserve to himself the right of addressing the House on it at some future occasion —possibly when it came to be discussed in the Committee. As he had a Motion of his own to bring on that night, he might be excused from then saying more.
Mr. Hume
, in explanation, said, that he did not find fault with the manner in which the right hon. Secretary had treated his argument, seeing that he was himself much in the habit of treating the reasonings of his own opponents with quite as little ceremony; but he hoped the House would allow him to re-state his argument in a manner that would protect it from the attack of the right hon. Gentleman. He instanced the way in which the Scotch Judges spent their leisure as a proof that they had too much idle time on their hands—or if not too much, that they had
1172
Sir C. Forbes
certainly thought it not fair that Scotch Judges should be kept at a salary of 2,500
l.,
l.
Mr. Maxwell
said, that the people of Scotland would have reason to feel deeply indebted to Government for having lent their aid in bringing forward the present measure. No doubt there were those who would regard it with distrust and alarm— for some minds were so constituted that they could not help regarding every reform as an innovation, and every change
1173
The Solicitor General
felt great pleasure at witnessing the introduction of the present measure. He wished to see the time of the Scotch Judges fairly occupied; but it would be unjust towards them, and mischievous to the public, to overpower them with business. It was not to be disputed that they, like all men, were entitled to that fair allowance of time for their domestic concerns, and for their amusements, he would add, which was alike just towards them and advantageous to the public, The salaries could never be such as would equal the sums obtained by the very highest men at the Bar; but neither should the Judges be selected from the middle classes of the bar: the public ought to have the services of eminent men in the profession, and of the best lawyers, and that could not be had without liberal payment. It was also important that not only should they live respectably, and in such a style as would command the respect of those whose interest they had to decide on, but they should possess such an income as would enable them to effect such savings as might place them above all anxiety with respect to their families, and enable them to devote themselves solely and exclusively to the duties of their situation—giving themselves, head and heart, to the public service. He entirely approved of that part of the measure which went to put an end to the Commissary Court; it would obviously be most convenient and advantageous to transfer its jurisdiction to a superior Court. Besides, by putting an end to that Court, the public service was relieved from the charge of the various Officers and Ministers belonging to that Court. Something had been said of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland; he was not favourable to its abolition—it was the most ancient Court in
1174
1175
Mr. R. Gordon
denied, that Ministers were entitled to much praise for having given their support to the present measure. In doing so they did nothing more than their duty—it was their first and most imperative duty to get rid of unnecessary offices, and more especially was it the duty of the present Government, seeing the circumstances of the country and the pledges which the Ministers of the Crown had given to Parliament. An hon. Member, on the opposite side of the House, had said, that the happy days of Scotland had passed away—that it no longer possessed those prompt and powerful advocates so devotedly at its service in former times; hereby the removal from Scotland of the means of corruption was calculated rather to raise than to depress that country. They had been told of the recent appointment of the Lord Chief Baron, and it was stated as a circumstance highly meritorious in that appointment, and cancelling all the evils of the office, that the person appointed to fill it was in the habit of sitting on that side of the House. It was of little importance, in his opinion, whether the individual appointed to that place were a Whig or a Tory—if the office were a useless office it ought to be abolished, no matter who filled it; whether it were conferred as a reward for past services, or a lure for future sub-serviency, If the office were useless it ought to be abolished. As to the particular measure then under consideration, he hoped and believed that it would give general satisfaction; he was
1176
The Lord-Advocate
, in reply, expressed his gratification that the measure had appeared so generally satisfactory. The most important suggestion that bad been thrown out was, the remark of his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-general, respecting appeals. He (the Lord Advocate) should certainly look into the subject; but he could tell him that one main cause of the number of Scotch appeals arose from the advantages which appellants had in carrying a cause from a court where the Scotch law was known and easily applied, to a tribunal where it was, comparatively speaking, unknown. With respect to the proposed augmentation of the Judges salaries, in his opinion that was necessary, and would be beneficial to the country.
Leave given and Bill brought in under the following title: "A Bill for uniting the benefits of Jury Trial in Civil Causes with the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and for making certain other alterations and reductions in the Judicial Establishments of Scotland."
LAW OF FORGERY.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
was not disposed at that hour to persevere in the Motion with respect to the Law of Forgery, of which he had given notice, but that he felt it absolutely necessary to do so in order to the successful introduction of any Legislative measure which might have the chance of passing into a law during the present Session. In the course of the prosecution of the task he had undertaken,—namely, the Revision and Amendment of the Criminal Law— the crime of forgery had appeared to him to occupy a most important station in the list of offences, and to it he was now anxious to direct the attention of the Legislature. Before he stated the object he had in view in the amendment of the laws respecting forgery, he hoped the House would permit him to present them with a slight view of the existing laws on that subject, and the way in which they arrived at their present extent. Originally there was no statute law relating to forgery. Up to the time of queen Elizabeth the punishments for forgery were inflicted under the common law; and it was not until the fifth year of the reign of that Queen that a
1177
l.,
l.,
l
l.
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
"Bacon, like Moses, led us forth at last,
The barren Wilderness he past,
Did on the very border stand
Of the blest Promised Land,
And from the mountain-top of his exalted wit,
Saw it himself, and showed us it."'
l.
1183
1184
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, that though he could not but be disappointed at some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there was much in his statements which met with his cordial approbation. It was but justice to him to declare, that he had introduced very many, and very great improvements into our criminal law. The right hon. Gentleman had, in former years, swept away a multitude of capital enactments, in which the crime on the one hand, and the penalty on the other, were so utterly at variance, and in such monstrous disproportion, that those laws never
1185
1186
Mr. Lennard
also expressed the great satisfaction with which he had listened to' the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone further. He did not, however, distrust the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore looked forward with hope to a future period when more would be done. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of fixing on a secondary punishment as an obstacle in the way of abolishing the punishment of death. Now, although hard labour in the country might not be a fitting punishment, he did not see why hard labour in the West Indies, or other colonies, might not be so. In his opinion, the fear of it would operate more effectually to deter from the commission of crime than the fear of capital punishment. Among other things, the country was greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for this, that he had relieved the question of the mitigation of the Penal Code from the odium of being considered a party question. He remembered the time when every proposition similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman was considered to be made in hostility to the Government and the laws. The right hon. Gentleman had the high credit of having destroyed all such prejudices.
Mr. Spring Rice
1187
Mr. Alderman Thompson
would not acknowledge any difference in the offences of forging Bank Notes and Bills of Exchange. Immense sums were employed in London in the discount of bills, and every protection ought to be given to them against forgery.
Mr. Trant
thought, the country would be disappointed on learning that a greater mitigation, or rather the total abolition of the punishment of death, had not been proposed. He declared that were he a juryman, and had to give his verdict on a man who had been guilty of sheep-stealing, he would rather commit the minor crime of perjury, by giving a verdict contrary to his oath, than, by condemning the man, be accessory to what he considered nothing short of the crime of murder.
1188
Mr. Martin
could not make up his mind to the total abolition of the punishment of death; but if such a measure were to be adopted, it should at all events be carried slowly into effect. He had, therefore, heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement with great satisfaction.
The Solicitor General
said, he should be sorry if the measure of his right hon. friend should be construed into a preliminary for abolishing the punishment of death. He believed great alarm would be excited in the country if it was understood that this was only a preparatory step to that measure. Whatever might be the opinions of enlightened persons, the country at large was not prepared for the abolition of capital punishments. If the measure was found to work well, then the House might go a little further.
Mr. Benson
was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as the state of feeling in the country would allow him.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which being done by Mr. Peel, it was read a first time, and the second reading fixed for Monday, the 26th of April.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 2, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Suits in Equity Bill was read a second time. The Smugglers' Families Maintenance Bill was also read a second time. Lord. J. RUSSELL, and other Members of the Commons, brought up the St. Giles's Vestry Bill, which was read a first time.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY,
[who said that seeing by the Votes of the other House that a Bill had been introduced into it for Altering and Reforming the Court of Session in Scotland, which would bring the whole subject of the Court of Session necessarily under their Lordships' consideration, he would move for a return]
of the state of the Court of Session Fee Fund, established by the 50th Geo. III. cap. 112, from the 21st June, 1821, to the latest period.
Petitions Presented. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the inhabitants of Pudsey, Bowling, and Bierley; from Stanninglyand Alverthorp:—By Lord HOLLAND, from Swannington, in the County of Derby:—By Lord AUCKLAND, from Hunslet, Gomershall, Soothill, and Shipley;—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Arbroath, for the holding of the Assizes for the West Hiding of the County of York, at Wakefield:—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the inhabitants of Henley, Shepley, and Dalton, for the Amelioration of the Criminal Code:—By the BISHOP of LONDON, from the inhabitants of the Tower District, and from Spratton, and Crcaton:—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, from Lewes, and by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Warrington, for the removal of Disabilities from the Jews:—By the Duke of NORFOLK, from the Jews inhabiting the West of London, Chatham, and Rochester.
1189
[The noble Duke said he warmly supported the prayer of these Petitions.]
By Lord KINO, from the Jews inhabiting the Southern District of London; and by the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Jews of Portsmouth. For inquiring into the Corporation and Crown Lands of Ireland:—By Lord KING, from Thomas Flanagan. Against Suttees—By Lord AUCKLAND from Dissenting Congregations at Southport, and North Meols:—By Earl GOWER, from Dissenting Congregations at Shelton, Burslem, Lane End, Lane Delph, and New-castle-Under-Lyne. And for the Extension of the Poor-laws to Ireland:—By the Earl of DARNLEY, from John Lawless.
GREECE.]
Lord Holland
The Earl of Aberdeen
could not exactly fix on a time when he should be able to produce the papers; but he had hopes that he should be able to do so soon after the holidays. The noble Earl stated in reply to a further question from Lord Holland, that as to the cause of the delay, there were some points still to be settled; but the three Powers were acting in complete concert.
AMENDMENT OF THE LAW.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
1190
The Lord Chancellor
replied, that he had no intention to propose a measure of the kind at present, and the reason was, that the Amendments suggested by the Real Property Commissioners were so much connected with each other, that it was hazardous to legislate on one point until they had a general view of the whole, and this had been suggested by the Commissioners themselves in their first Report. But the noble Marquis might be assured that he would pay every attention to the subject.
ALGIERS.]
The Marquis of Clanricarde
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, that the two Governments were in communication on the subject, and that Ministers had not observed any indisposition on the part of the French Government to afford the most satisfactory explanations.
EAST RETFORD WITNESSES' BILL.]
The Marquis of Salisbury
rose to move the third reading of the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill. It had been so much the practice to pass bills of this kind under similar circumstances, that, he thought it would pass as a matter of course, and therefore he had not given long notice before he brought in this Bill. He certainly had no intention to smuggle it through the House, for he had not anticipated opposition, especially from the noble Lords opposite. Now he understood that a noble Lord (Holland) on the opposite side meant to oppose it on account both of its principle and its provisions. He had, therefore, thought proper to inquire into the practice of their Lordships' House, and he found that it had been the practice to pass bills of that kind, under similar circumstances, for nearly a century. It had happened in three instances lately, and it would be impossible to get the witnesses to attend to give evidence in a case of this kind, unless they were indemnified from the conse-
1191
1192
Lord Holland
did not mean to accuse the noble Marquis of attempting to smuggle the Bill through the House, but he regretted that the attention of the House had not been more prominently directed to it in an earlier stage, although he freely acquitted the noble Marquis of an attempt to take the House by surprise. The noble Marquis had said that his opposition had come rather late; and he admitted that he ought to have urged his objections when the Bill was brought in, or on the second reading, and if he had done so, it would have been so much more for the advantage of his argument; but, unfortunately, his attention had not been called to it. The noble Marquis had supposed many grounds for his opposition to the Bill, and had endeavoured to upset them, apparently much to his own satisfaction. The noble Marquis had started many hares, but he had not started the real game, which he would find too strong to deal with. His objection was not so much to the principle of the Bill, nor to its provisions, as to the time, the manner, and the circumstances. The bill with reference to which this Bill was brought in, was called a bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption at the Election of Members of Parliament for the Borough of East Retford, and he maintained that the examination of witnesses at their Lordships' Bar would be not only useless,
1193
1194
1195
onus probandi
1196
1197
The Lord Chancellor
wished to state shortly his objections to the Amendment of his noble Friend. He would not enter into the general topics connected with Reform, which had just been handled; but he must be allowed to say, that when the noble Lord referred to that well-known maxim of Lord Bacon, it was much to be regretted that he did not add the following words:—"It were good, therefore, that men in their innovations should follow the example of time itself, which indeed innovateth greatly, but quietly, and by degrees scarce to be perceived." The great point in the case was, whether bills of this kind should be considered as bills of Pains and Penalties. The case of Cricklade was so considered both by Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, and was argued in that House upon principles altogether different from those which the noble Lord took up. The ground on which he would contend for the examination of witnesses was this—there was vested in the electors of East Retford a certain right which they had abused, and he had yet to learn how their delinquency could be shown otherwise than by an examination of witnesses. The House of Commons had appointed a Select Committee from out of their own body, but was that House satisfied with the Report of their own body? So far from being so, they examined witnesses themselves; and upon what grounds, then, could their Lordships avoid doing that which the Commons thought necessary? In the case of Penryn the House of Commons had a Select Committee, and examined witnesses themselves; yet their Lordships had examined witnesses at their own Bar, and arrived at a different conclusion from the House of Commons—the witnesses on the latter occasion having been examined on oath. The cases of Barnstaple, Grampound, Penryn, and Cricklade—every one of them supported the views which he took in opposition to the opinions of his noble friend, and established them beyond all controversy. The necessity for examining evidence being once admitted, their Lordships' ought, according to all principles of law, to pass such a bill as
1198
Lord Wharncliffe
said, that if an exanimation of witnesses were necessary, they must of course have a bill like that now proposed. Upon that point he apprebended there was no difference of opinion; but the question was, whether their Lordships ought to examine witnesses at all. To that he for one was extremely unwilling to become pledged. The preamble of the Bill stated that it was necessary to examine witnesses at the Bar of that House; and his objection was, that this expression seemed to impose the same course upon their Lordships upon all similar occasions. It would form a precedent which their Lordships would be obliged to follow in cases where there might be no necessity for examining witnesses. The question had already been before the regu-
1199
1200
prima facie
Lord Wynford
thought their Lordships would act inconsistently with justice if they neglected to call evidence in a case like the present. It had been said by one noble Lord, "Wait, and see if any of the witnesses refuse to answer the questions put to them, before you pass a bill like this." He differed, however, from that noble Lord, and in this respect there was a shade of difference, too, between him and his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He would say that their Lordships ought not to wait to see if the witnesses would take this objection, for it was the duty of their Lordships to protect witnesses unasked, and to take care that neither the counsel nor any of their own body should press a man to give answers which would criminate himself. Again, it had been asked, "how do we know that any witnesses will be in this situation?" There would be very little difficulty in answering that question, for the evidence taken before the other House was upon their Lordships' Table; and their Lordships had only to look at that evidence in order to be assured that many witnesses would be in that situation. The question then was this—would their Lordships refuse to extend to these witnesses that protection which every court of justice in the country gave to every witness that came before them? The noble Baron (Lord Holland) opposite, in his very ingenious speech, had described the elective franchise as a trust. The more general, and, allow him to say, the more correct, description was "a trust with an interest." That it could not be sold was certain; but where property gave the right of voting, that property was saleable, and a man was in all cases allowed to hold out this right as a circumstance which enhanced the value of the property, If the right were
1201
a laugh
1202
s
s
d
A fortiori
1203
Lord Holland
explained: He thanked the noble Baron (Wynford) for the lecture he had been pleased to read him on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and for the statement of the perfect acquaintance he had with his (Lord Holland's) views and wishes. He was not aware, however, that he had ever promulgated those views and wishes to the noble Baron, either publicly or privately; but sure he was, that rendering this House the bar to all improvement of this kind, was the true mode of producing that convulsive and violent reform which every man must dread. He expressed his obligation also to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, for finishing his (Lord Holland's) quotation from Bacon, by a passage much more to his purpose than that which he had himself cited.
The Earl of Carnarvon
considered this as a great public question, and trusted that their Lordships would not, without evidence, take a step which made an alteration in the Constitution. He agreed that general measures, such as those which had been instanced by his noble friends, might be passed without evidence, because they were to be determined by the dictates of public policy. So, there would be no necessity for evidence in support of an alteration in the representation of the Scotch counties; but, if it were proposed that the representation of one county—say the county of Lanark—should be altered, there would be a necessity for evidence, because that would be a particular, not a general measure. If, in such a case, their Lordships refused to hear evidence, he thought their Lordships would commit an outrage on the Constitution, and be guilty of a dereliction of their duty, The question before them was, whe-
1204
1205
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, his noble friend opposite had recommended that to which he was most strongly opposed. That recommendation was, that they should adopt the proceedings on evidence with which the Members of the House of Commons themselves had not been satisfied—that was, the Report of the Select Committee. If they were not satisfied with that Report, surely their Lordships ought not to be less exact.
The Bill read a third time without a division.
Lord Holland
afterwards entered the following Protest against the Witness Indemnity Bill, in the matter of East-Retford.
1. "Because the provisions of the Bill pre-suppose an insufficiency of evidence, and the consequent necessity of resorting to extraordinary means to procure it, in the matter of a Bill lately brought up from the Commons, and entitled, "An Act to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford," whereas the decision of the other House of Parliament, founded first upon the report of a tribunal, appointed by Act of Parliament to try elections, and armed with all necessary powers for that purpose; and, secondly, upon the result of their own inquiries, raises a reasonable presumption, at least, that grounds sufficient to enable us to come to a sound determination on the legislative measure before the House may be obtained without a special suspension of the ordinary rules of evidence, and an anomalous purchase of truth by an extension of impunity to offenders.
2. "Because the recourse to such a preliminary act of power for the purpose of procuring evidence, implies (and the preamble directly asserts), before any petition has been presented to this House against the East Retford Bill, that an examination of witnesses at the Bar is absolutely necessary; and thereby sanctions a notion, in my opinion, erroneous, mischievous, and unconstitutional—namely, that the Bill that has lately passed the House of Commons, and all other measures of a like nature, are bills of Pains and Penalties, partaking of a judicial character, and requiring all that special and cautious regard to legal forms which distinguishes this House in the discharge of its judicial functions, and which it widely and mercifully extends to such legislative acts as
1206
ex vi termini
1207
3. "Because, if the House of Lords were to establish the practice of proceeding as usual in private bills, or in bills of Pains and Penalties, as indispensable in bills of regulation and reform in matters of election, great delays would ensue and various impediments be thrown in the way of such wholesome reforms as the lapse of time and the exigencies of the country are
1208
(Signed) VASSALL HOLLAND."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 2, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Four-per-cent Annuity Bill was read a Second lime, on the Motion of Mr. G. DAMSON, A Hill to Amend the Constabulary Act, (Ireland), was brought in by Lord F. L. GOWER, and read a first time. The Minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee on East India Affairs, up to April 1st were laid on the Table by Mr. COURTENAY.
Returns laid on the Table. The Monies Demanded and Allowed to the High Sheriff of every County in England, ending Michaelmas, 1828:—Of Hops Imported and Exported during the last year: Of Excise and Customs' Duties collected in each district of Ireland, during the last ten years:—Of Timber Imported during the last four years:—Of the number of Quarters of Malt charged with duty, and amount of Duty on Beer, during the last ten years:—Of the quantity of. Spirits charged with Duties, and imported into England from Scotland and Ireland, in the last ten years:—Of Amount of the Duties collected on Leather in Ireland:—Of the Amount of Excise Duties on Paper in Ireland, with the Expense of Collecting them:—Of the Amount of Duties received by each Collector of Excise, throughout the United Kingdom, and of Payments made by each, and of money remitted by each to London:—Of Duties Collected on Coals imported into Dublin from January 1822 to January 1830:—Of Sums paid into the Stamp Office for Duty on Fire Insurances, and on Marine Policies:—Of the Tonnage of Vessels entered into and cleared out of all the Ports of Ireland in the last seven years:—Of the quantity of Spirits imported from Scotland by land:—Of Papers relating to the office of Coal Meter (Dublin):—Account of the Trade of Southwold for the last twenty years:—Of the number of Midshipmen promoted to be Lieutenants, of Lieutenants to be Commanders, and of Commanders to be Post Captains, between January 1827, and January 1830:—Of Gentlemen appointed to first Commissions, and of promotions in the Marines for the same period:—Of Officers holding Brevet Rank in the Marines, and of those who have sold their full or retired pay:—And Account of the Pilot Fund of the Corporation of the Trinity House.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICK, An Account of the Number, Distribution, and Expense of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, during the last three years:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of the Duties performed by the Barons of Exchequer, (Scotland) in relation to the Public Property |and Hereditary Revenue of the Crown; and a Copy of the Memorial presented by JOHN DENNSON, Master of the Patriot, of Aberdeen, to the Lords of the Treasury, praying for a return of 63
l
Petitions Presented. For an Amelioration of the Criminal Code, by Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, from the Merchants, Bankers, and other Inhabitants of Truro:—By General GASCOIONE from the inhabitants of Hoddesdon. Against Suttees, by Mr. LITTLETON, from several Congregations of Dissenters in different places in Staffordshire. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. By the same Hon. Member, from Drighlington, for the Emancipation of the Jews:—By Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from the Jews of Portsmouth:—By the Marquis of BLANDFORD, from the Jews of Rochester and Chatham. For the repeal of the House and window Tax
1209
THE NEW HAY-MARKET.]
Lord Lowther
brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill; and moved that it be re-committed.
Mr. Byng
said, that he intended to oppose the measure, because it would be injurious to many of his constituents occupying houses in the Haymarket. It would remove the market so far from its present site as to be a great inconvenience. With respect to those who complained of it as a nuisance, it should be remembered that they came to the nuisance, and not the nuisance to them. He had no objection to the noble Lord establishing another market in the spot he had selected, but he begged of him to allow the old one to remain.
Lord Lowther
said, that there could be no question that the Market, as now situated, was a nuisance; and in moving it they were only following the example of other towns. Not above half-a-dozen persons would be affected by it. It was true that the inhabitants had come to the nuisance, but at the same time, within the last few years, the nuisance had greatly increased. The distance to which he proposed to remove the market was not great, as it was only on the other side of the New Road, and consequently equally convenient for the West end of the town.
The Bill re-committed, and ordered to be taken into consideration before a Committee of the whole House on Monday, April 5th.
ST. GILES AND ST. GEORGE BLOOMSBURY.]
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that in consequence of what had passed in the House on the previous evening, a meeting of the Parishioners had been held this morning, and a Petition against the Saint Giles's and Saint George's Vestry Bill was immediately agreed to. It was signed by upwards of one thousand inhabitants, with their names and addresses, so as to bear the closest scrutiny. The Petition entreated the House, that if they persisted in disfranchising 1,856 of the inhabitants, they would, at least, not allow a gradation of voting, the consequence of which would be—giving to 400 of the higher ratepayers the same powers as those possessed by 1,600 of the lower rate-payers. The petitioners also stated, that if Parliament would consent to lower the rate one-half, so as to give a vote to those who were rated at 15
l
1210
Mr. Ward
observed, that his only wish was the restoration of the harmony and good feeling of the parish. When he had stated that nine of the parishioners had relaxed in their opposition, he had founded what he said on what he had observed in the Committee up stairs; and he certainly had, on the occasion to which he alluded, understood that several gentlemen, when the rate entitling parishioners to a right of vote was reduced to 30/. had withdrawn that opposition which they had formerly entertained towards the measure.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
had kept himself free from all parties in this question, though he lived in the parish, in order that he might be able, in the House and in the Committee, to give an unbiassed vote. His feeling, however, was, that these parishioners had a right to what they asked; because he should ever contend, that every man had a right to vote what should be done with his own money. This was the very spirit of the Constitution, and they were bound to support it as long as they
1211
l
The Petitions were read; they prayed that they might be heard against the Bill, by themselves, their counsel, and agents.—Ordered to lie on the Table.
Lord John Russell
moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Hume
would at that eleventh hour endeavour to have a Bill, so objectionable in its nature, if not re-committed, rejected by the House. The Petition which had been the result of the meeting held that morning, and which had been signed, as his hon. friend had stated, by upwards of 1,000 respectable
bonâ fide
l
l
l
l
l.;
1212
l
l
The Speaker
said, that course could not now be adopted. There were three modes of proceeding open to the House. Either the third reading might be negatived; or the third reading might be postponed to that day six months; or an Amendment of any clauses might be proposed, but that must be after the Bill had been read a third time.
Mr. Hume
Lord J. Russell
observed, that his only reason for having anything to do with this Bill was in the hopes of restoring the peace and quiet of the parish That was the only interest either he or his family could have in the matter. In the commencement he had been anxious to have nothing at all to do with the Bill; but it was stated to him that his undertaking it would open the chance of a reconciliation between the parties, and he therefore thought that it would have been wrong in him to refuse. He had, therefore, undertaken it; but on this understanding, that he would not be bound by the principles of the Bill. AH the differences between the parties were settled before the Bill came under the consideration of the committee, and those three points were laid before the committee for their decision. He himself abstained from giving any opinion on the subject, and only laid the facts before them. The committee decided in favour of the principle as it stood in the Bill, and against that contained in Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. That that so happened was the fault of those hon. Gentlemen who did not attend in the committee, and now came down to the House to complain of the step that had been taken. By the decision of that committee (all the petitions having been investigated by it) he felt bound, though, perhaps, it was not exactly what he himself
1213
Sir F. Burdett
thought it was desirable that the House should assent to the Amendment of his hon. friend, and give all the parties an opportunity of coming to an understanding with each other. He disapproved of the Bill, and thought it would have been better to abide by the principles of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act.
Sir Thomas Fremantle
opposed any further delay. Sufficient concessions had already been made in the committee, and further delay would only increase the disagreement of the parties. There was no chance of their agreeing together, and therefore he hoped the House would at once decide the question. The Bill as it then stood was a very fair measure.
Mr. Baring
declared that it was his intention to vote for the postponement. It was very desirable that some uniformity should be introduced into the proceedings of that House in relation to the parishes of London. Last year they had passed a bill for St. Paul's, Covent-garden, with one qualification, and now they were going to pass one for St. Giles's with another qualification. The House was bound to look that its enactments conformed to each other, and he should vote for delay, with a view to making this. Bill like other bills.
Colonel Davies
remarked, that in St. Paul's, Covent-garden, already one principle prevailed; in St. Andrew's, Holbom, another; and in St. Anne's a third; so that it was impossible for the House to introduce a uniformity of enactment into the several parishes; if any hon. Member would move to substitute 20
l
l
Mr. Byng
hoped the Bill would be postponed till after the Easter holidays. The concession spoken of by the hon. Baronet opposite was only on one point. There were four points in dispute, and one only had been conceded to those who opposed the Bill; and that was the least important, viz.—that the election of the vestry should be annual, instead of biennial. If the Bill were not postponed till after the Easter holidays, he should feel it to be his duty to vote against the Bill altogether.
1214
Lord Nugent
supported the Amendment.
Mr. Tennyson
said, he did not know what was meant by concession; but the Bill, as it then stood, contained one of the most monstrous propositions he ever remembered. Almost 2,000 persons were disfranchised by it, and 400 individuals were to have as many votes as 3,000. He hoped the Bill would be postponed.
Mr. Bramston
denied, as it was only a question of degree, that the principle of disfranchisement was at issue; at the same time, as he wished to see the House unanimous, and all parties satisfied, he should like to see 20
l
l
The House now grew impatient, and called loudly for the Question. The gallery was accordingly cleared, and on the division the numbers were—For the Amendment 36; Against it 70; Majority 34.
Mr. Hume
next proposed, as an Amendment, that every person rated at the sum of 25
l
The Speaker
stated, that from the manner in which the Amendment was worded, the effect would be, that no person could possess more than one vote.
Lord John Russel
said, that the friends of the Bill had reduced the qualification for a vote from 30
l
l
Mr. Hume
declared he had not heard of any such agreement as that alluded to by the noble Lord.
The House divided on the Amendment—Against it 48; For it 26; Majority 22.—The House also divided on another Amendment, the object of which was to limit the number of votes possessed by any individual to three, which was lost by the same majority.
Bill read a third time and passed.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL.]
On the Motion of Sir G. Clerk, the report on Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill was brought up. The hon. Member moved that it be read a third time next Monday.
Mr. Tennyson
wished the third reading to be deferred to a later day. He was not prepared, without first reading the evidence through, to give his vote on the Bill.
Mr. A. Ellis
protested against the haste with which hon. Members were hurrying the Bill through the House. He was not
1215
Sir G. Clerk
said, there was no disposition on the part of the supporters of the Bill to hurry it through the House. But a most ample inquiry had been entered into, and he thought a very general feeling existed in the House that, after the evidence was ordered to be printed, as little delay should take place as possible. The House would adjourn on Wednesday or Thursday next for the holidays, and it was desirable, he conceived, to have the fate of the Bill decided before that period. The evidence would be printed and in the hands of Members by Monday next; but if any hon. Member should then state that he had not had sufficient time to consider it, he should be ready to postpone the third reading of the Bill till the next day.
Mr. S. Rice
thought it would be extreme injustice to the parties concerned, to postpone the third reading until after the holidays; but he suggested that it should take place on a later day than Monday next—namely, on the following Wednesday or Thursday.
On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, the third reading was then fixed for next Tuesday.
SHIPPING INTEREST.]
Mr. Sykes
rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to present to the House a Petition from the Ship-owners of the town of Hull. He was confident that the petition would meet with every consideration and attention from the House. If the subject to which the Petition related would of itself be sufficient to fix the attention of all the Members present, the claims of the Petition on their consideration would be enhanced by their knowing that it came from a body of well-informed and well educated gentlemen, who were perfectly cognizant of their own interests and rights, and in his opinion as well qualified as any hon. Gentleman in that House to form a correct judgment upon the subject to which the Petition referred. These gentlemen were associated together in a society called the Ship-owners' Society. From time to time they had laid their petitions most respectfully before the House, and they now again approached it with a respectful statement of their condition,
1216
1217
1218
d
1219
1220
Average Rate of Freights, Provisions, and Wages, from 1821 to 1824 and from 1826 to 1829, all inclusive. [The. year 1825 was omitted, as being one of feverish excitement and unusual speculation.]
FREIGHTS.
per ton.
From 1821 to 1824.—
Memel
£1
3
3
Petersburgh
4
1
10
America
2
4
6
Total
7
9
7
From 1826 to 1829.—
Memel
1
0
1
Petersburgh
3
10
9
America
1
15
9
Total
6
6
7
Difference
1
3
0
l
s
d
PROVISIONS And WAGES,
From 1821 to 1824—
Beef
£4
19
4
Pork
3
10
3
Bread
0
13
9
Wages
2
17
6
Total
12
0
10
From 1826 to 1829—
Beef
5
15
3
Pork
4
1
10
Bread
0
18
10
Wages
3
0
0
Total
13
15
11
Difference
1
15
1
Percent increase
14
11
4
l
s
d
1221
Mr. Marryat
said, I have listened with attention to the statement of the hon. Gentleman who presented the Petition, and I can affirm, from my own knowledge, that the distress of the Shipping-interest is by no means exaggerated. The Shipowners were the first interest to experience that distress which has since unfortunately pervaded all classes: they have suffered long, and most severely. The evidence of this may be found in the present indifferent construction and parsimonious equipment of those vessels, which formerly stood preeminent in the commercial marine of the world. I remember the time when a British ship was insured at half the premium asked upon the foreigner. Now, from the causes I have stated, a foreign vessel is often preferred to the British. Notwithstanding this, I am afraid that it is not possible to grant effectual relief by legislative measures. In my judgment, the distress is to be ascribed to the natural approximation to the low prices and profits of foreign nations, which has arisen from the free intercourse since the peace. It is well known that the price which our surplus commodities command in the foreign market regulates the price at home. We have more shipping than we can employ in our coasting and colonial trades (which are, in fact, our home market as regards shipping.) The surplus ships seek employment in foreign trades, where they must of necessity navigate upon terms as low as foreign ships. These low freights bring down the freight of British ships at home
1222
Mr. Robinson
said, he had been particularly requested by the petitioners to support the prayer of this Petition, and he rose to discharge that duty with very great pleasure. The petitioners complained, that since the period when they asked for a Committee of Inquiry—namely, the Session before last, when that committee was refused, the depression which then existed in their trade, so far from getting better, since that time had gone on continually increasing; that the diminution in the value of their property had proceeded at rapid strides; that the rate of freights had become still lower; and that their ships were employed now in many instances without any profitable return. It became the House to consider whether this important national interest should be consigned to ruin without any effort being made to afford it relief. His hon. friend, in presenting the Petition, had said, that the petitioners did not point out any particular remedy for their distress. They certainly did not, because they were of opinion that, without inquiry, it would be presumptuous on their part to dictate to the House the species of remedy which they conceived should be employed for the removal of the distress. It was for the House to institute an inquiry, and to apply the proper, remedy. He recollected that in the course of an incidental discussion upon this subject last Session, the hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) said, that he did not believe that the Shipping-interest was so much depressed as it was described to be, for that we went on building ships, and he could not be satisfied that the Shipping-interest was in such distress while that was the case. He was obliged, however, to deny the correctness of that statement at the time, and he would refer the hon. Member to an account of the number
1223
Ships.
Tons.
1827
1,719
207,088
1828
1,440
163,946
1829
1,185
128,752
1830
1,075
110,681
1224
1225
1226
primâ facie
Mr. William Duncombe
said, that the object of this petition had been so fully and ably stated by the hon. and learned member for Hull, that he did not feel it necessary to say many words in support of it. But as he had presented petitions of a,
1227
Mr. Alderman Waithman
supported the petition, and expressed his concurrence with what had fallen from the hon. Member who had presented it. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would take the subject into his consideration with a view of affording relief.
Mr. Hume
rose also to express a hope that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would take some notice of the statements which had just been made to the House, He was one of those who thought that some relief might be granted to this particular branch of trade. One of the objects prayed for in the petition presented by his hon. friend, the member for Hull, was certainly within the power of the Government. It was quite possible for the Government to reduce the rates paid by merchant vessels for lighthouses—rates which put about 18,000
l
l
1228
l
l
Mr. Herries
thought, that the House would have been more surprised if he had entered into a discussion like the present, containing such various topics, and embracing so wide a field, on the presentation of a petition, than it now was on hearing the hon. member for Aberdeen taunting him for his silence. Had it not been for the appeal made to him by the hon. member for Montrose, he should not have risen for one moment to address the House on the present occasion. It was to vindicate himself from the possible imputation of any want of respect to the hon. member for Hull, who had presented this petition, and
1229
1230
1231
Mr. John Stewart
referred, in confirmation of the assertions of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, to a declaration contained in the Report recently made by the Committee on commerce to the Congress of the United States. That declaration was as follows:—"When the present and past condition of our navigation are contrasted,—when we compare the increase of British and American tonnage before and since the war, and show the rapid growth of the commerce of the British North American possessions, we shall learn to comprehend the advantages of a system of free trade, and we shall perhaps feel no small degree of alarm, lest our fatal restrictions should have already driven us too far in the rear of all our rivals for national power and naval ascendancy." Attached to that report was a comparative statement of British and American tonnage actually employed; and from that statement it appeared, that for the last few years the increase had regularly been on the side of British, and the decrease on the side of American, tonnage. The hon. member for Worcester had quoted the number of foreign vessels entering inwards as a proof of the mischief arising to the Shipping-interest from the reciprocity system; but the evidence which the hon. Member had brought in support of his position did not appear to him to be altogether satisfactory. For his own part, he believed that all foreign shipping was in a much worse situation than our own. The distress of the Shipping-interest was not the malady of our country, but of the times. He believed that the further we advanced in experience, the more should we be convinced that the doctrines advanced upon this subject by his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, were doctrines founded on sound policy and the most philosophical principles of political economy. They were the seeds which would hereafter ripen into a plentiful harvest of national wealth; and to their prosperous results might be applied the beautiful expression of Virgil—
"Tarda venit seris factura nepotibus umbram.''
Mr. Robinson
said, that he must be permitted to make one or two remarks on the observations which had fallen from the right hon. President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that there had been—not that there is—an increase in the amount of British tonnage entered inwards and cleared, outwards.
1232
Mr. Herries
, in reply, stated that he had spoken of the increase in the amount of our tonnage from returns made up to the latest period. He had stated that the amount of British tonnage entering inwards and clearing outwards for the last four years was superior to the amount for the four years immediately preceding the year in which we made the alterations in our commercial system; and he now said, that the amount of men, tonnage and ships entering inwards and clearing outwards, during the last year, was greater than ever it was at any former period. Take the amount, for instance, for the years 1828 and 1829. In 1828, hte number of ships entering inwards was 13,436, their tonnage was 2,094,357, and the number of men employed was 119,141. In 1829 the number of ships entering inwards was 13,659, their tonnage was 2,184,535, and the number of men employed was 122,185. Thus the difference in favour of the year 1829, for ships entering inwards, was, in ships, 223, in tonnage 90,178, and in men 3,044. In 1828, the number of ships clearing outwards was 12,248, their tonnage was 2,006,397, and the number of men employed was 119,143. In 1829 the corresponding numbers were—ships 12,636, tonnage, 2,063,179, men, 119, 262. Thus the difference in favour of the year 1829, for ships clearing outwards, was, in ships 388, in tonnage 56,782, and in men 119-Surely this would satisfy the hon. Member for Worcester. He had also spoken of the comparative average amount of ships, tonnage, and men entering inwards and clear-
1233
Mr. Robinson
again contended, that in the return which he had seen there were 642 vessels of registered tonnage less this year than there were last.
Mr. Trant
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman included steam-vessels in his account.
Mr. Herries
answered, No.
The Petition laid on the Table. On the motion that it be printed,
Mr. Sykes
returned thanks to his hon. friend, the Member for Montrose, for having excited the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, by his observations, to give some reply to the statements of the petitioners. He thought that this question would have been left in a very unsatisfactory condition indeed, if it had not elicited from his right hon. friend the observations which he had just made. His object in giving notice of his intention to present this petition to-day, was to apprize Ministers of the importance which he attributed to it, and to call upon them to declare their sentiments upon it. If his light hon. friend had persisted in his original determination to keep silence, the greatest dismay would have fallen upon the petitioners. It would have pleased him much more if his right hon. friend, instead of dealing in general professions of the attention which be and his colleagues were always ready to
1234
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE COUNTRY.]
Lord J. Russell
said, that he would take the present opportunity of putting a question to his Majesty's Ministers with respect to the Foreign Relations of the Country. In his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, at the meeting of Parliament in the present Session, the House had been informed that certain things were pending with reference to Greece, and that when the arrangements were complete, Parliament would be duly informed of the fact, and that the papers connected with those arrangements would be laid before the House. Nothing of the sort had as yet been done. Since this declaration, a speech of the King of France had appeared in all the public Newspapers, in which his Most Christian Majesty informs his two chambers, that the negotiation with respect to Greece had come to a close, and that a Prince had been chosen by the common consent and agreement of the Allied Powers to preside over the destinies of Greece. Although the Prince was not named in his Most Christian Majesty's speech, it was perfectly understood by every body that the allusion was to his Royal Highness Prince Leopold—and he was sure, that a choice more perfectly calculated to ensure the future happiness of Greece, and to establish permanently her pacific connexion with the rest of Europe, could not be made. But this announcement on the part of the King of France to the Chamber made him anxious to inquire of the right hon. Gentle
1235
1236
1237
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he could assure the noble Lord that his Majesty's Ministers were anxious to produce the papers which related to the negotiations regarding the future condition of Greece at as early a period as they could, consistently with that which must be the leading object of all statesmen—the permanent interests of this kingdom, and those likewise of that country in whose affairs we had been induced to interfere. He had the satisfaction of stating that the parties who signed the Treaty of the 6th of July, 1827, had conic to a resolution respecting the government of Greece, and the relations it was to hold with other powers; and he had also the satisfaction to say, that they were in perfect accord as to the Prince to whom the Sovereignty of that country was to be committed. On these main points, the future government of Greece, its future condition (which, he was happy to declare, was to be one of unqualified independence), and lastly, the selection of the Prince who was to preside over its destinies—on all these great points there was the most complete concord, and the most perfect unanimity between the Allied Powers who had signed the Treaty of the 6th of July. That concord had existed from the beginning, and up to this moment was uninterrupted. But there were some points of a subordinate nature, on which negotiations were still pending, and until they were brought to an end, the noble Lord himself must concur with him that it would not be for the public interest to produce the papers; he was sure, however, that at no distant moment, he should receive the commands of his Majesty to lay them before the House. He was also sure that this would be done at the earliest possible time consistent with the interests of England, and the permanent welfare of Greece. The noble Lord had stated that he approved of the domestic policy pursued by the Administration, but that he viewed the foreign policy with some suspicion and distrust. Now, he could not help thinking that the distinction arose from the circumstance that there was not the same opportunity of giving that immediate explanation respecting the course
1238
cheers
Lord J. Russell
asked if the negotiations then pending related to the affairs of Greece, or to those of the Ottoman Porte?
Mr. Secretary Peel
stated, that they were negotiations between the three Allied Powers on the one hand, and the Prince designated as Sovereign of the country on the other. The right hon. Gentleman, after a short pause, gave a further explanation of what, he said, was a very important point which he had inadvertently omitted, in replying to the questions of the noble Lord. He was unwilling to leave it in that degree of uncertainty which might seem to warrant the correctness of the noble Lord's opinion. The noble Lord said, that from something which had passed in that House, he had been led to understand that in August last we were upon the verge of a war, in order to protect Turkey from the attacks of Russia. Now he could not acquiesce in the correctness of the noble Lord's inference. He was not aware that the country was on the verge of war at the period alluded to, and still less for the purpose of protecting Turkey or Constantinople from the Russians.
Lord J. Russell
said, that he had been led to this opinion in consequence of what
1239
Sir G. Cockburn
said, the noble Lord had mistaken the nature and tendency of the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It had been simply stated, that because in August our force in the Mediterranean had been increased from six thousand to eight thousand men, and from six to nine sail of the line, there would be a necessity for an increased accommodation in the Seamen's Hospital at Malta. Nothing had been breathed respecting the country being upon the verge of a war.
Mr. Hume
said, the statement was, that a case of emergency had arisen which warranted the Admiralty in venturing to increase the expense of the particular item in question, even without the sanction of the House. He could assure Gentlemen opposite, that among persons sitting on this side of the House the impression created, not only by what fell from the Secretary of the Admiralty, but by the observations of another right hon. Gentleman, now in his place, was, that such a danger as that described did exist last August.
1240
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that he had stated that applications had been made to increase the establishment of the Naval Hospital at Malta beyond its amount, when there were only six thousand men in the Mediterranean, because circumstances had induced Government to raise that force to eight thousand men, and such being the case, they necessarily required a more extensive establishment, and an augmentation was made in the Naval Hospital.
Sir J. Wrottesley
entirely acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of having given any ground for supposing that a war was impending in August; but from what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty, he must say that the strong impression upon his mind at the time was, not only that it had been likely that the hospital would be called into action to a greater extent than usual by reason of the augmentation of force in the Mediterranean, but that it had been necessary to provide for the contingency of having a certain number of wounded men to take care of; and it struck him at the time as being rather extraordinary that a communication so important as he considered that to be, should have come from a Gentleman not in the Cabinet.
Lord Howick
observed, that the exact words made use of on such an occasion are important; and he believed he could state them pretty accurately. The right hon. Secretary said, that in the month of July the Lords of the Admiralty thought no increase in the hospital at Malta would be necessary; but that in August, there being a prospect of the fleet being called into immediate action, it was requisite to augment the hospital.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, it was stated that in July there was no intention of augmenting the establishment; but that in August, an increase having taken place in the Mediterranean fleet instead of a decrease, it was necessary to augment the hospital. Nine sail of the line were upon the station: it was impossible to tell what might be the result, but he did not say there had been a probability of war.
The conversation dropped, and the Motion for the adjournment of the House at its rising till Monday was agreed to.
SUPPLY—REPORT—CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
having moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee,
1241
Mr. P. Thomson
said, it had been his intention to take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the important subject of the collection of the Revenue. His own wish was, that, a committee should be appointed to inquire into the extraordinary amount of the charge of collection: however, he understood that Government intended to make an inquiry into the subject themselves. If this were confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should feel disposed to wait till the result of that inquiry was known. He now asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if steps were to be taken by Ministers for the formation of a commission to investigate the matter, and if such were the case, whether we might expect any report or information on the subject before the close of the Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
flattered himself that he could give a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's question. On the night of the Budget he had intimated that it was the intention of Government to have two commissions—one to inquire into our colonial expenditure, the other to investigate the collection of the revenue. The commissioners would shortly commence their labours, and he had no doubt that before the period mentioned by the hon. Member, they would have advanced so far as to be enabled to lay some information on the subject before the House.
Mr. W. Smith
called the attention of the Secretary for the Colonies to the propriety of procuring certain returns, connected (we believe) with the number of deaths in the colonies. The returns, though ordered, had not been laid before the House, and unless the right hon. the Secretary wished otherwise, he should move that those orders be complied with forthwith.
Sir G. Murray
explained the circumstances under which the subject had been introduced last Session. An hon. Member had moved for a return of the deaths at Sierra Leone; and combining the un-healthiness of this colony with others, he proposed that similar returns should be produced respecting them. But there were many objections to this. Hon. Gentlemen would at once perceive, in the first place, that as some colonies were healthy at one season, or one year, and the contrary at another season and, at another year, there was
1242
[Mr. Alderman Waithman rose to present a petition; but he was declared out of order, and compelled to sit down.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
then brought up the Report of 100,000
l
Mr. Hume
asked, what was to be the course of proceeding respecting the Estimates. He was surprised at the Civil Contingencies taking precedence of the Ordnance Estimates. When were the Miscellaneous and Irish Estimates to be brought forward.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the vote for Civil Contingencies was merely on account. As to the course he intended to pursue, he proposed first to go on with the Ordnance Estimates; then the Army Extra ordinaries; and lastly, the Miscellaneous and Irish Estimates, in the usual course.
Mr. Hume
asked, if Wednesday was to be a Supply day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the object was, to finish the Ordnance Estimates before Easter. He hoped to get through them to-night, or at furthest on Monday.
On the question that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Burrell
said, that he himself, the worthy Alderman behind him, and others, had waited four or five hours to present petitions; he thought they should be afforded the opportunity of doing so before any other business was entered on.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was reluctantly compelled to press his Motion.
SUPPLY.]
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
1243
Mr. Perceval
proposed that 8,933
l
Mr. Hume
said, he rose to offer a few observations which could no longer be of any use, since the vote upon which he proposed to touch had been already agreed to. The thrice-told tale about the Ordnance had now become very stale indeed; and from the recent vote, which decided upon the continuance of an unnecessary office, it was perfectly obvious that no reduction in this department was to be expected. He was now fighting in a cause altogether desperate; still he would trouble the House with a few words. There was one extraordinary thing to which he desired to call their attention. The expenses of the Ordnance Establishment, in 1796, were only 18,700
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1244
l
l
l
l
Mr. Perceval
observed, that the speech of the hon. Member appeared to be entirely directed to the vote that had been carried the other night; and he thought that the hon. Gentleman must candidly admit that he had made but a rambling statement, from beginning to end. He therefore trusted that he should be excused if he did not follow him accurately and convincingly through every portion of it. The hon. Gentleman had compared the present state of the Ordnance with that of 17.96; but he must be aware that since that period an immense increase of business had been imposed upon the department. That was a ground, therefore, on which censure could not, with justice, be founded. The duty at the present time was increased,—it was trebled; and he would ask, could those who were at the head of the department prevent it from being so increased? The whole subject had been gone into with great detail by his right hon. friend (Sir H. Hardinge) in his evidence before the Finance Committee; and the expressed opinion of his right hon. friend was, that in reality a great saving had been effected. The hon. Member had compared the establishment of the Ordnance with that of the Navy; but he seemed to have forgotten that the former department, in many respects, had much to do on account of the Navy department; all which ought to be taken into consideration. The whole of the Colonial business, as far as garrisons and artillery were concerned in particular, had been thrown on the Ordnance department since the year 1823. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the duties of the chief clerk in the office of the Surveyor-general. That individual had been in the service for fifty years; his exertions had been most meritorious; his salary was not more than commensurate to his labours; and on his retirement, his allowance would
1245
l
l
Mr. Poulett Thomson
remarked, that in the Estimates there were four clerks at 550
l
l
Mr. Lennard
said, he wished to know whether there was any estimate of the expense that would be incurred by removing the clerks to Pall-mall; for at present the question appeared to be one of expense only? The right hon. Gentleman, in his evidence before the Finance Committee, seemed to favour the supposition that the removal itself would be expedient. He was also of opinion, that the business might be done at a less expense.
Mr. Maberly
said, there was no reason whatever—notwithstanding the assertions of hon. Members opposite, who seemed to think that these two offices possessed some repelling power—why they should be kept separate. A removal as to the Store-department had already taken place; then why not in this case also. It was in every respect improper, that two establishments, which related to the same department, and ought to be under one roof, were thus divided, Letters were continually sent to and fix because the two parts were separate. The Finance Committee, in looking at this question, had proceeded on principle; for what
1246
Sir Henry Fane
said, he was unwilling to trouble the House, but he was obliged to do so by the observations of the hon. member for Dover, relative to the clerks in the Surveyor-general's office. Looking to the various duties which were to be performed, forty-seven clerks were not too much; and he could assure the House that all of them were occupied. It had been said, on a previous evening, that the only business of the Ordnance was to superintend the cutting of jackets and the contracts for pipe-clay: with respect to his own department, he begged to say that the duties were much more serious and important. The details of business connected with the barrack department were very numerous. He had to examine accounts of almost all business which could be named, and even of much which could not be named in that place. With respect to the enormous amount of salaries, all he could say was, that the gentleman to whom allusion had been made had been in the service for more than fifty years, and had always shown himself a most meritorious officer.
Mr. Hume
said, there were many general officers who had served equally long, and who did not receive a third of the pay; therefore either the one was over-rated, or the other under-rated. At the same time he was bound to say, that no department could be in better order; and as to the individual, he appeared to be as fit as possible; and if the union and consolidation which he had introduced had been adopted by the Board, he thought that the whole department would now have been in much better order. As regarded the barracks, two good clerks were sufficient to do the work, for all
1247
Sir Henry Fane
answered, that in his department all the clerks were at the Tower. He could assure the Committee that it would be a convenience to every member of the Board to have all the clerk brought together; but the question of expense had been looked to. The offices at the Tower were admirably suited to the purposes required; the Secretary of the hoard was the only officer that had a residence.
Mr. Hume
, would recommend then that all the gentlemen should be sent to the Tower. If the Tower could not he brought to Pall-mall, then Pall-mall must be sent to the Tower.
Mr. Perceval
observed, that according to the calculation, there would be an expense of l,560
l
l
l
Colonel Sibthorp
said, it was his intention, not having understood that the votes on the salaries of several clerks had been passed, to have divided the House on almost every one of them. He thought, in the present state of things, and looking to the great and growing distress of the time, that these clerks were too well paid, when their remuneration was compared with that of the really hard-working classes of society. Therefore it was his wish to divide the House on these votes. There was no less than 44, 138
l
l
l
l
1248
l
l
Sir H. Hardinge
thought, that the salary of 1,100
l
l
Colonel Sibthorp
had not intended to question the respectability or abilities of these gentlemen; but he thought that the state of the country called for reduction.
Colonel Trench
said, he could bear testimony to the merits of those individuals. There never was a more admirable or efficient body of public servants. He contended also that the offices at the Tower and at Pall-mall could not be dispensed with.
Mr. Lennard
wished to see the salaries of the principal officers reduced, and not that of the clerks, who did all the duty. He regretted that the office at Pall-mall was not yet abolished.
Sir H. Hardinge
thought the discussion quite superfluous, as the vote for those offices was passed.
Mr. Maberly
was of opinion that the subject was yet open to discussion. There was not sufficient business to employ both the offices at Pall-mall and at the Tower, and they ought to be consolidated. With very little trouble the house at Pall-mall might be made to contain all the Ordnance offices. The real reason why neither of these establishments was done away with was, that the gentlemen at the Tower would not go to the office at Pall-mall, and the gentlemen at Pall-mall would not go to the Tower. He hoped another year would not pass without one or other of them being compelled to change their residence. As to Mr. Angell he was quite ready to bear his testimony to the efficiency and value of that
1249
Sir G. Clerk
having been in the Ordnance, and having still the misfortune to hold office (though this might make him a suspected witness in the estimation of the hon. member for Cumberland), felt himself called on to give his opinion. He admitted, that if they had then to form the offices in question, they might be conveniently consolidated; but at present there were two buildings for the two offices, neither of which would be sufficient for both. It would not be possible to collect all the members of both these offices either at the Tower or at Pall-mall, without erecting additional buildings. If the office were to be removed to the Tower, the whole of that must be remodelled to provide convenient offices; and what would the hon. member for Aberdeen say, if the Ministers were to ask for a sum of 30 or 40,000
l
l
l
l
Mr. Hume
was willing to drop that subject, though he had heard no reason why the two offices should not be consolidated; but he should like to know if the sum of
1250
l
Colonel Peel
was as anxious as any man to reduce the salaries of officers, but he must hear some more convincing arguments than had been urged by the Gentlemen opposite, before he could vote with them. Sometimes they complained of the salaries of the inferior clerks being reduced too low, and now they say they are too high: when those hon. Gentlemen became consistent they might perhaps command his vote.
Mr. Hume
was not aware of the inconsistency alluded to by the hon. member for Norwich, though he must admit that it would be very inconsistent in him ever to expect that hon. Member to vote with him. Passing by the hon. Member and his observations, however, he wished to know if 14,000
l
Mr. Perceval
could not hold out any hope of reduction in that particular. The salaries of the officers were fixed a few years ago; the office could not be dispensed with, the whole of the barracks and ordnance stores of Ireland being placed in charge of the office at Dublin. It had also a continued correspondence with the chief office in London. Unless the hon. Member were to sweep barracks and all the establishments for the army out of existence, he could not sec how these various offices of inspection and account could be dispensed with.
Mr. Hume
wished also to inquire, if the office of Inspector of the manufacture of gunpowder at Feversham was to be continued. He admitted that gunpowder must be had, but he doubted the utility of the means the Government employed to procure it. The inspector had a house at Feversham, the manufacture was at Waltham Abbey, the office of accounts was at Pall-mall, and the store was at the Tower. Were these the ingredients for manufacturing gunpowder?
Mr. Perceval
could give the hon. Member a satisfactory answer on this point; the office was to be done away, and arrangements to carry that into effect were in progress.
The vote of 8,933
l
The next question was, that a sum of 87,464
l
1251
Mr. Hume
objected, on account of it being extremely inconvenient to vote all the items included under that sum together.
Mr. Perceval
said, that the items were all set forth in the Estimates. The expense for the stations at home and abroad were kept distinct, and the total of all the stations was the sum of 87,464
l
Mr. Hume
was aware of that, but the arrangement was inconvenient, because some Members objected to one item and some to another, and either they were compelled to forego all opposition or to vote against the whole sum, which many did not like to do. In his opinion the votes for the home and for the foreign stations should be taken separately.
Mr. Perceval
reminded the hon. Member that the present Estimates only differed from those of former years by the expense for the Irish barrack-masters having been brought under the head of Ordnance-stations. The home and foreign stations had always been placed together.
Sir John Wrottesley
gave the hon. Gentleman credit for the best intentions, but he must call his attention to the inconvenience of the arrangement. The vote was for 87,464
l
l
l
l
Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that the change had been made in the Estimates, he believed, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Callington, and in obedience to what was understood to be the wish of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House.
Mr. Perceval
had no objection to divide the votes to suit the convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. Maberly
was of opinion, that the Ordnance stations should be separated from the Barrack-masters' expenses.
Mr. Hume
suggested that the hon. Member should move for a vote for each item as it was placed in the Estimate.
Mr. Perceval
l
l
1252
Mr. Hume
thought, that the vote was open to all the objections which had already been made to the other, and he should move as an Amendment, to substitute for this the sum of 17,430
l
On the Question being put on the Amendment,
Mr. Lawley
said, that was probably the most convenient time for him to bring a subject under the notice of the Committee, on which he had previously presented a Petition from the town of Birmingham. He wished first to express his opinion, that the plan of manufacturing arms by the Government was an injudicious one. It was a sound principle of political writers that a Government should not undertake to manufacture for itself. It never could hope to inspire its servants who were paid by a salary, with that zeal and exertion which were dictated by individual interest; and, therefore, it was at all times better that it should buy what it wanted than attempt to make it. An example of the consequence of acting on the opposite principle had lately fallen under his notice: 10,000 musket stocks, of the manufacture of the Government, had lately been sold for 5½
d
s
s
l
l.;
l
l
1253
1254
l
l
Upon the Question being put,
Mr. Perceval
wished to explain, as far as he could, the principle upon which the
1255
s
s
d
s
d
l
l
s
d
l
s
s
d
1256
Mr. Littleton
hoped the Committee would support the Amendment, and thereby express its reprobation of the erroneous, and unjustifiable, and extravagant policy pursued by the Government, with respect to the supply of an article which should be left to the free competition of skill and capital. He admitted the general merit of the Ordnance Department, but in this instance he thought it acted on improper principles. This was confirmed by an admission made before the Finance Committee, that during the war we had been obliged to bring arms from abroad. When the hon. member, the Secretary to the Ordnance, attempted to justify his policy by the fact that the price of arms had fallen since 1812, the date of the Government establishment at Enfield, he seemed to forget the far greater fall of prices which had taken place within the same period in all kinds of manufactures and articles of commerce. Had the supply of arms been, as it ought to be, left to competition, their price would be much lower, and the public be considerably a gainer. This would appear the more manifest if the price of commodities now, as compared with that in 1790, be considered. Bolt-locks, to take one manufacture in the iron trade for an example, which sold in 1790 for 2
s
d
d.;
d
d
1257
Mr. Perceval
admitted the great general reduction of price mentioned by the hon. Member, but the fall in the price of gun-barrels was so coincident with the establishment of the Government manufacture, it taking place very shortly before 1812, that he could have no doubt that it ought to be attributed to that establishment. The Government reduced the prices of the contractors by proving to them that it could manufacture cheaper than they charged.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
thought the hon. member for Warwickshire had made out a case which demanded the support of the Committee. He saw no reason why the Government should keep up its establishments at Enfield and Lewisham, to the injury of the good understanding between the Government and the manufacturers. The trade at Birmingham in this branch had been very dull since 1815, and when there was a little improvement in 1818, the Order of Council, prohibiting the exportation of arms, interposed and put a stop to it. He was of opinion that the Government could always buy cheaper than it could make, and therefore he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Maberly
said, that Government would always find it better to depend on public competition for what they wanted than to manufacture on their own account. This vote, therefore, concerned a great principle in the management of public affairs. He was fully persuaded that such establishments as those at Enfield and Lewisham,—if all they cost were laid before the public—would be found very expensive. He should like to see the real outgoings of such establishments compared to the value of the work performed at them, and he believed, if such accounts were laid before the House, of all the articles manufactured by the Government, it would be found that they cost five, six, or even some of them twenty times as much as they could be bought for ready made. The Government establishments had their store-keepers, their chapels, their chaplains, their surgeons, their inspectors and sub-inspectors, all of whom had retiring allowances, and ought to be included in the cost of the manufacture. From these charges the private manufacturer was quite exempt, and to him, therefore, it seemed beyond all doubt a most unwise policy in the Government to be a manufacturer.
Mr. Whitmore
entirely concurred in the opinion of his hon. friend. He was persuaded that the Government establishments
1258
Sir H. Hardinge
said, there were only four articles manufactured by the Government, and these chiefly with a view of putting down that competition which, during the war, had raised prices upon the Treasury. It had a manufactory of small-arms, by which it had reduced the price of that article very much. It manufactured gunpowder, and had saved by that, 300,000
l
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that this plan of preventing combination would be ineffectual, as on a sudden emergency of war, the workmen would themselves combine against their employers in these Government factories. The observations made on the prices of articles, as compared with the prices in 1812, must be fallacious, because that price was altogether an artificial one. Nothing was better proved by experience than the fact that the Government could not manufacture as cheaply as it could buy. Besides, Government manufactures discouraged trade, and damped the ardour of enterprise in individuals. By the latest version which had been given of the utility of the manufactory at Enfield, it seemed to be kept up in order to shorten soldiers old muskets for the use of the Navy. Now this was, in his opinion, an idle recommendation of that establishment, for water-carriage cost so little that these muskets might be sent to Birmingham for a mere trifle. Prices there
1259
s
Mr. Lawley
stated, that he already had had a conference with the Duke of Wellington, in company with a deputation from the gun-makers, but no benefit had resulted from it; and he was afraid that none would result from any appeal to the Government as long as it held to the opinion that it was able to manufacture cheaper than individuals.
Mr. Perceval
did not contend that the Government could manufacture cheaper than individuals; but at a cheaper rate than they charged the Government. The establishments were useful, therefore, in keeping down the prices of the private manufacturers. As to sending muskets to be repaired at Birmingham, the expense of carriage would be more than the expense of cutting them down.
Mr. Hume
did not support this Amendment out of any regard to a particular place; but on the broad principle that the Government ought to buy at the cheapest market. He did not object to these establishments that they were merely useless; but they entailed an endless expense for retiring allowances, and superannuations for clerks, and quartered an army of assistants and supernumeraries on the public.
Sir Ronald Ferguson
was in favour of Government keeping the manufacture of arms under its own eye. He had seen, while in the field, quantities of arms made at Birmingham rejected as useless. The soldier too was obliged to keep his arms in order after he received them, and he had known a private put to the expense of 10
s
1260
s
Mr. Attwood
thought it was more likely that the arms the gallant General had seen rejected had been manufactured at En-field than at Birmingham. He should like to see the vouchers for the 98,000
l
Mr. Perceval
.—That was effected by reducing the price, and bringing about an alteration in the mode of making the contracts.
Mr. Attwood
.—That saving was made by expending about half a million of capital, raised by taxes on the people, so that the people paid to enable the Government to compete with themselves, and drive down their proper rewards; they derived no benefit from the Government plan.
Sir Ronald Ferguson
explained, that at the period he alluded to, muskets were not manufactured at Enfield, and those he spoke of had the Birmingham mark.
Mr. Attwood
admitted, that at the breaking out of the war the manufacturers of Birmingham were not so expert as they afterwards became.
Mr. Littleton
also observed, that since the period the hon. and gallant General alluded to, a proof-house had been established at Birmingham, and the whole manufacture was as well carried on as possible.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were, for the Amendment 40; Against it 80;—Majority 40.
The vote for the sum of 17,432
l
The next vote was, "That a sum, not exceeding 28,744
l
Mr. Jephson
inquired whether the offices of Naval and Ordnance storekeepers in the neighbourhood of Cork might not be consolidated. There was one at Cove, and another at Ballyncollig, ten miles from Cork, and one, he thought, might be spared.
Mr. Perceval
replied, that such a consolidation would be impossible, as the duties of the respective offices were essentially different. One belonged to the Naval department, and the other to the Ordnance.
Mr. Hume
saw no reason why stores of
1261
Sir H. Hardinge
denied that the Finance Committee had come to any definitive resolution on the subject, though he knew that the Committee adopted consolidation as a principle, and recommended it generally. Both the Duke of Wellington and himself had explained before that Committee, that the charge of the Ordnance and the Naval Stores at the same station could not be placed under the same person. The Ordnance and the Barrack departments had been consolidated, but it would be impossible to have the Naval and Ordnance stores, at Cork for example, under the same management. The question had been discussed at great length in the Finance Committee; consolidation had been carried into effect as far as possible, and he saw no utility in renewing the discussion at that time.
Mr. Maberly
admitted that the Finance Committee had not come to any resolution on the subject, but he reminded the gallant officer, that it recommended the reductions of stations generally. For his own part he saw no reason why the Ordnance and Naval stores might not be placed under the care of one person, and if the gallant Admiral would confer with the gallant General, if the Ordnance would give up its patronage in one place, and the Admiralty its patronage in another, he had no doubt a great many useless places might be done away, and a great saving effected.
1262
Mr. Robert Gordon
thought, in opposition to the gallant General, that the Committee of that House was the proper time and place to discuss the subject. There was a storekeeper at Cork, another at Cove, and a third at Ballyncollig, four miles from Cork, and he should like to know why the stores at these three places might not be taken charge of by the same person, even supposing that it would not be convenient to have them collected on the same spot.
Sir Henry Hardinge
did not mean to imply that a Committee of Supply could not discuss the question, but to state, that as it had been discussed in the Finance Committee, and as there were great doubts how far the Ordnance Department could take charge of stores for the Navy, he did not suppose the Committee of Supply could discuss it with advantage. As to the three storekeepers mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, there were large buildings at Ballyncollig, which required the care of a responsible person. Cork was an important station, whence troops were embarked for the West Indies, and being four miles distant from Ballyncollig, required a storekeeper and other officers. Again, Cove was eight miles from Cork, and these stores were kept for the men-of-war which frequented that port. If Ballyncollig could be moved to Cork, and Cork carried down to Cove, one storekeeper might serve, but while there were stores and buildings at the three places to be taken care of, he did not see how that could be done by one person. He would only further observe, that by the evidence given before the Finance Committee, it appeared that the number of storekeepers in 1828 only exceeded by three the number in 1792.
Mr. Hume
observed, that the Finance Committee being informed that there were ninety-eight stations came to this resolution, "That the number of stations appears great, but this Committee is not competent to give an opinion how far any of them can be reduced; they therefore recommend the Ordnance Department to institute an inquiry, in order to see what reductions can be made." He wished to know, whether or not that recommendation had been attended to.
Mr. Perceval
said, two deputy storekeepers had been reduced, and the work of reduction was going on.
Mr. Hume
would next remind the Ordnance Department, that Enfield and Waltham Abbey were close to each other, and yet there were separate storekeepers,
1263
l
l
l
l
Mr. Perceval
explained, that the individual who was storekeeper at Waltham Abbey was, for many years, at Ballyncollig, and had a right to some situation. He was a gentleman of great merit, and yet he would not undertake by himself to be wholly responsible for the works at Waltham Abbey. His services were valuable, but if he retired he would be entitled to the whole of his salary. The storekeeper of Enfield certainly lived at Waltham Abbey, but he did not sec any difference which that made, when his services were necessary, as he could assure the hon. Member they were, to that establishment.
Mr. Hume
repeated his statement, that reductions ought to be made, but as he would, above all things, avoid granting superannuations, he would not press for them.
After some controversy relative to the distance of the station of Ballyncollig from Cork, the vote was agreed to.
A sum, not exceeding 41,388
l
A sum, not exceeding 5,390
l
The Report brought up, and ordered to be received on Monday.
BEER DUTY.]
Mr. R. Gordon
wished to know, from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Majesty's Government had come to any determination relative to a point which had excited much interest among persons engaged in the brewing trade, and upon which several memorials had been presented to the Government,—namely, the ad vantage which would arise to the publicans if they were permitted to brew Beer, from the present period until the 1st of October, without paying duty, such Beer to remain under bond until the 1st of October.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was of opinion, that considerable inconvenience would result to those engaged in the trade
1264
ARMS BILL (IRELAND).]
On the Motion by Lord Francis L. Gower, that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Robert Gordon
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill. He was aware that it was similar to an Act passed last year, and which had just expired, but the present Bill was to be in force seven years, and some of its provisions though they might be consented to for one year when the country was disturbed, became intolerable through such a period as seven years. By the Bill, arms must be registered, and a license taken out to possess them. No man could have more than two pounds of gunpowder in his house without an express license—a clause that made him suppose Ireland was in a state of rebellion, or at least that the Government regarded the inhabitants with great suspicion. The Act was passed last Session without an observation, but if it were suffered to do so this year, it would reflect great discredit on the Gentlemen connected with Ireland.
Mr. Spring Rice
claimed for himself the merit, being one of those Gentlemen, of not having been inattentive to the Bill; but he saw no good reason for opposing the second reading of it. There were some of its regulations which he did not approve of, but he thought that they should be discussed in the Committee.
Mr. Jephson
observed, that there was a clause in the bill imposing a penalty of 500
l
Bill read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, April 5, 1830
MINUTES.] Returns presented. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the Sixth Report of the Appeal Committee. An Account of all Sums paid for Freight, Demurrage, &c. on Ships employed by the East India Company in the China' Trade from 1822 to 1828.
1265
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY, of the Sums received on Account of the Fee-fund, Scotland, and how appropriated. On the Motion of the Earl of SHAFTSBURY, the Twentieth Report of the Commissioners concerning Charities, on the Motion of the Earl of ROSSLYN, Account of the Quantity of Coal, Culm, and Cinders exported from the different parts of England and Wales in 1829, distinguishing the Quantities sent to foreign Countries, and carried Coastwise:—An Account of the! Imports of the same Articles, with the Amount of Duty paid:—An Account of the selling Prices of different Coals in the Port of London during the year 1829.
Petitions Presented. By the Earl of DERBY, from the Dissenting Congregation Meeting at Canon-street, Preston, against Suttees. By the Duke of GORDON, from the Corporation of Glasgow, for a free-trade to China:—By Viscount MELVILLE, from the Merchants' Company of Edinburgh:—By the Earl of HARROWBY, from the Manufacturers of Hanley and Shelton, Staffordshire:—And by the Karl of CARLISLE, from the Inhabitants of the Clothing Districts of Batley, Idle, Bolton, and Eccleshill, all to the same edict.—All these Petitions referred to the Committee sitting to inquire into the affairs of India. By the ARCHBISHOP of YORK, from the Inhabitants of York, playing for a revision of the Penal Code—
[These petitioners, the right rev. Prelate said, expressed their gratitude for what had been done, but they humbly suggested that death should not be inflicted as a punishment for crimes against property.]
By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from the Coal-owners on the river Dec, praying for a repeal of the Duty on Coals:—And by Viscount GODERICH, from Siptor, praying for the abolition of the Truck System of paying Wages.
SPIRITS.]
Viscount Goderich
said, in presenting a Petition from a Mr. Williams, a Magistrate of Lee, in Kent, complaining of the consumption of ardent Spirits, and praying for its discouragement, and stating that the abolition of the Beer-duty would have no effect in that way;—that he did not agree with the worthy magistrate on this subject, but he had no objection to present the petition. In his opinion, throwing open the trade in Beer would tend very much to diminish the consumption of ardent Spirits.
EAST INDIA COMPANY'S MONOPOLY.]
Lord King
presented a Petition from Taunton, Somersetshire, praying that the trade to China might be thrown open, and the East India Company's Monopoly abolished. The petition, his Lordship said, was signed by a great number of most respectable persons, and they thought that it was high time for them and others, who wished the opening the trade, to bestir themselves, as they began to suspect that there was a leaning on the part of Ministers towards the renewal of the Charter. It was like the case of an expiration of a beneficial lease, where the stewards suffered themselves to be cajoled by the lessees. The petitioners thought it was high time to press on Government the necessity of attending
1266
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, April 5, 1830
MINUTES.] A Bill was brought in by Mr. DAWSON to repeal the Duties on Leather. The East Retford Witnesses' Bill, on the Motion of Mr. DAWSON, was read a first time. The Marriages Validity Bill, on the Motion of Mr. COURTENAY, was also read a first time.
Returns laid on the Table. Of the number of Public Meetings held in London by the Commissioners of Bankrupts. Of Imports and Exports between 1798 and 1830. Of the number of Ships that have passed the Sound. Of Cotton Goods exported, and of Printed Cotton which paid Duly from 1814 to 1830. The Report of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the East India Committee up to April 5th.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HART DAVIS, of all Probates of Wills and Letters of Administration issued in Wales. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Amount of Cess levied in each Royal Burgh of Scotland:—The Dates of the Promotion and Entry into the Navy of Robert Crosbic, James Hope, and Hugh Goold, stating also the length of their services afloat:—Of Persons receiving Compensation Allowances for the loss of Office until otherwise provided for. On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE—Of all Exchequer Writs issued by the Solicitor of Stamps against Persons dealing in Drugs, from June 21st, 1829; of the further proceedings in those Writs; of the Sums paid as Fines in consequence of the Prosecutions under them, and of the manner in which it was appropriated; as well of Prosecutions which have been dropped. On the Motion of Sir JAMBS GRAHAM—An Address to his Majesty for the English Consuls to obtain and transmit home information of the Quantity of the precious Metals obtained in South America from 1790 to 1810, and from 1810 to the present time. On the Motion of Lord TULLAMORE, several Communications between the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Irish Loan Commissioners, and the Directors of the Grand Canal Company, relative to an advance of Money for extending their Navigation to Kilbeggan:—Of the Sums advanced out of the Consolidated Fund on the recommendation of the Irish Loan Commissioners, with the nature of the Securities taken for the payment of the Principal and Interest of the Loan. On the Motion of Mr. BELL, the number of Ships and Vessels belonging to the British Empire, exclusive of the Colonies, specifying and distinguishing the number under 50, 100, 200, 300, 100, 500, 800, 1200, and above 1200 tons respectively, and of the Number of Steam Vessels. On the Motion of Mr. SPENCE, various Accounts relative to the Money paid into Chancery. On the Motion of Sir M. W. RIDLEY, of the Duty received, and Drawback paid on Class, from January 1828 to 1830, distinguishing the sorts of Glass and amount of Duty paid in Ireland;—And on the Motion of Sir MICHAEL. SHAW STEWART, a Table of the Fees of Conveyancing and General Law Business adopted by the Writers to the Signet (Scotland).
Petitions presented. For a Free-trade to India—By Mr. CW. WYNNE, from Woodhouse, Yorkshire:—By Mr. HUME, from the Magistrates and Town Council of Arbroath:—By Mr. MUNDY, from the Inhabitants of Derby and the Inhabitants of Swanwick:—By Lord LOWTHER, from Armley:—By Mr. ARCHBALD CAMPBELL, from the Shipowners of Dundee, and from the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow:—By Mr. BLAIR, from the Incorporated Trades of Kilmarnock. For the Abolition of the Cornlaws, by Mr. HUME, from the Inhabitants of Kidderminster. For the holding of the Assizes for the West Riding of the County of York at Wakefield, from the Inhabitants of Shepley and of Farnley Tyas, by Mr. Wm. DUNCOMBE. Against throwing open the retail Beer Trade, from the Publicans of Newark, by Mr. WILLOUGHBY:—By Mr. STANLEY, from the Inhabitants of Middleton:—By Mr. BRANSBY COOPER, from the Innkeepers of Gloucester,
1267
VICE-TREASURER OF IRELAND—NEW WRITS.]
Mr. Planta
Mr. Hume
said, he was very sorry to hear of the appointment. The office was one of those which he had expected would have been abolished. He expected that any opportunity which occurred to abolish it would have been eagerly embraced, as it might have been dispensed with ever since the Union. It was to him most extraordinary that Government should have filled up the vacancy when there was a Resolution on the Table of the House, that every part of the expenditure which could be saved ought to be saved. There might have been some delicacy towards removing the hon. Member who held the office; but when he was removed by another appointment he did expect the office would have been done away. He had heard the report of the appointment, but he could not believe it. People could not expect that one Member of Parliament should be sent to the colonies from a useless office, and that another should supply his place at home. He was sorry to hear the Motion, but he could not, of course, oppose it.
The Speaker
was ordered to issue a New Writ accordingly for the county of Kerry.
Mr. Planta
next moved for a New Writ to return a Burgess to sit in Parliament for Corfe Castle, in the room of G. Bankes, Esq., who had accepted the office of one of the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury.—Ordered.
A New Writ was also ordered to be issued for East Looc, in the room of Henry Hope, Esq., who had accepted the office of Groom of the Bed-chamber.
1268
LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE.]
Mr. Hume
said, that he was sorry not to see the hon. Member in his place who had charge of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill, as he should ask him to re-commit the Bill, in order to amend the evidence. At present the evidence was in such a defective state, that he was sure hon. Members would think the Bill ought not to pass. When the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill was present he would again mention the subject.
DISTRESS (IRELAND).]
Mr. Moore
presented a Petition from the Operatives of Dublin, complaining of Distress, and soliciting inquiry by the Committee appointed to inquire into the propriety of introducing Poor-laws into Ireland. The petitioners stated, that the distress in Ireland, particularly in Dublin, was very great, so great indeed as to be unexampled,' except when famine was hanging over the land. The manufacturers there had generally suffered from the same vicissitudes as the manufacturers of England. There was a sympathetic union between the two. In 1824, for example, the English manufacturer enjoyed temporary prosperity, and the Dublin manufacturer was also prosperous. Between the condition of the two countries there was, however, a striking difference, for what was only depression to the English manufacturer, was destitution to the Irish manufacturer.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.]
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
, in rising to present a Petition from a Stone-mason of Paisley, of the name of Kintry, complaining of the Administration of Justice in Scotland, expressed his regret that the Lord Advocate, or the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department was not present, as the petition contained some representations of very great importance, and well worthy of the attention of the officers of the Crown. The petitioner complained of the great expense he had been put to by being obliged to sue a man for debt in a Sheriffs' Court, which was for such a sum that he could not go into an inferior court. The petitioner complained of the extraordinary length of the written pleadings, and of the great delay which had been caused. It was above a year since the cause was begun, and it was not yet terminated. The proceedings to recover a debt of 41
l.
s.
1269
Mr. Hume
supported the prayer of the petition, and recommended enlarging the sum to 30
l.
Petition read and laid on the Table.
FORGERY.]
Mr. Hart Davis
presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Bristol, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for Forgery. The petitioners stated, that only three prosecutions for the crime of forgery, with the exception of prosecutions by the Bank of England, had taken place in Bristol during twelve years, and
1270
AMBASSADORS' EXPENSES—CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.]
Mr. Hume
, in rising to move for certain returns necessary to a proper explanation of several items charged in the Civil Contingencies, observed, that as these would shortly come under the consideration of the House, it was important that the House should be put in possession of all the information which might be necessary to form a proper judgment of the different items charged under the head of Civil Contingencies. Some of them appeared to him to demand explanation, as, for example, 1,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
1271
Sir James Graham
took that opportunity of observing, that he had, for the same object, moved for a return of the total expense of his Majesty's Consuls at the various ports of the United States of America. No such return had yet been produced; and as it was extremely important that the House should possess it before they came to a determination on the Civil Contingencies, he hoped it would be prepared and laid on the Table immediately after the holidays.
Mr. Lennard
observed, that the Government of the Netherlands had reduced the rank of its Ambassador at this Court. He wished to know if it was intended, on the part of this country, to reduce the rank of their Minister?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that some reduction was, he believed, in the contemplation of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department (Lord Aberdeen), but he really was not able to say to what extent it would be carried.—Returns Ordered.
On the Motion of Mr. Hume, a further Return was ordered of "an account in detail of the manner in which 1,553
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
BOUNTIES ON THE FISHERIES.]
Colonel Wilson
, in presenting a Petition from Staiths and Runswick, in the North Riding of the County of York, praying for the continuance of the Bounties on taking and curing Fish, which stated, that if the Bounties were withdrawn, ruin would be the consequence to numerous families, took occasion to observe, that he was sorry to see Ministers leave their places and walk away, when the wants of the people were alluded to by
1272
l.,
Mr. W. Duncombe
presented a similar Petition from the Robin Hood's Bay fishermen, and intimated a wish to know what
1273
Mr. Herries
said, it was due to the numerous and industrious class connected with the Fisheries to state, that the subject of continuing the Bounties on some part of the Fishery, and for a limited period, was now under the consideration of his Majesty's Government; hut it was also necessary to state, that those Bounties would not on any account he continued in any case beyond that limited period. Parliament had determined that the Bounties should cease at a period now near at hand; and he confessed that although the subject of continuing some of the Bounties was under consideration, it would require a very strong case to induce the Government to alter its determination that these Bounties should wholly cease. The continuance of all of them was, indeed, quite out of the question. The Bounties on the curing of the fish might, perhaps, be continued for a short time, both on account of the peculiar nature of that employment, and its aiding the formation of a nursery for seamen; but beyond a short time, he thought it but fair to state, the Government had no disposition to continue any of the Bounties.
Petitions to be printed.
SCOTCH AND IRISH POOR.]
Mr. Littleton
presented a Petition from the Justices of Peace near Lichfield, praying for a Revision of the Laws with respect to Vagrants; belonging to Ireland, Scotland, Guernsey, and Jersey, resident in England. The number of Irish and Scotch vagrants who visited Staffordshire and Shropshire was very great, and they gave a great deal of trouble, particularly the Scotch, who seemed to have an extraordinary desire to revisit the places where they had once been harboured. The parish authorities, at considerable expense, sometimes sent some back to Scotland, but they in general returned, causing additional expense. There were instances of the same individuals having been eight times passed to the northern side of the Tweed within a very short time. With this disposition to prey on their neighbours, there was no other mode of dealing than by a strong legislative measure.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, the counties the hon. Member spoke of were fortunate in possessing a means of passing away va-
1274
Sir James Graham
wished to take that opportunity of asking a noble Lord what was his intention respecting the subject to which he had called the attention of the House some time ago; namely, the great influx of Scotch and Irish paupers.
Lord Stanley
, in answer, stated, that shortly after the recess he would submit to the House a proposition with respect to the best mode of passing Scotch and Irish paupers to their own countries.
Petition laid on the Table.
FORGERY.]
Mr. Lennard
said, he had been requested by his hon. friend, the member for Essex, to present a Petition from the Magistrates, Clergy, Gentry, and other inhabitants of Braintree and Bocking, in Essex, praying for the mitigation of the punishment of Forgery. The numerous petitions which had been presented to that House on the subject showed the general feeling which existed in the Country respecting it; and there could be no doubt that that number would have been much greater had not the public been aware that the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department participated in their feelings with respect to the expediency of mitigating the punishment of forgery. He (Mr. Lennard) felt great satisfaction at what the right hon. Gentleman had already stated it to be his intention to do, as far as it went; but he was sure that the public wished for a more extensive measure, and were anxious that the punishment of death for the crime of forgery should be abolished altogether. It had been said, and among others by the hon. member for Bristol, that the monied interest would not be sufficiently protected if the punishment of death for forgery were abolished entirely. He believed, on the contrary, not only that it would be protected, but that it would be protected more efficiently, if the punishment for forgery were not such as to render it repugnant to the feelings of those upon whom forgeries were committed, to prosecute the offenders. He had himself given notice of a motion for the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases of forgery. He had great satisfaction, however, in surrendering the motion into the hands of his hon. and learned friend, the member for
1275
Sir. J. Mackintosh
said, that he should with the greatest pleasure resign his undertaking into the hands of the right hon. the Secretary of State, and would therefore wait until the further progress of the right hon. Secretary's Bill, to ascertain how far the objects which they had in view were the same. If he found that the Bill did not go so far as he wished, he should then find it his duty to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice.
The Petition read and to be printed.
OPENING FROM WATERLOO - PLACE INTO THE PARK.]
Mr. Hobhouse
rose to present a Petition from certain inhabitants of Westminster, in reference to a subject which had been lately more than once alluded to in this House,—he meant the propriety of making an opening from Waterloo-place into St. James's-park. This Petition was extremely worthy the attention of the House. It was most respectably signed, as any hon. Member might perceive by looking at the signatures attached to it, amongst which were the names of some hon. Members of this House. The petitioners stated, that they did not believe that there had been any specific promise given that the opening in question would be made; but they added, that the genera] impression certainly had been that such an opening would be effected. They further stated, that if they thought the accommodation in question would at all encroach upon the royal privacy, or give the public admission to parts of the Park from which they were at present excluded, they would not seek for it. The accommodation, however, which they sought, would only afford to the public a more easy means of access to those parts of the Park already open to them, and the petitioners expressed their reliance that if a proper representation of the matter were made to his Majesty, he would not deny to the public this means of access to the privileges which they already enjoyed. The petitioners truly stated that this opening would be a great improvement, not only in the way of a public accommodation, but also in point of appearance; for that while the wall remained there, that part of Pall-mall opposite to it was sunk down, and only a part of the Park could be seen from the Terrace; but, as they suggested, if this opening were made, it might be so contrived as to com-
1276
The Petition, which was from certain inhabitants of Westminster, was then read, and ordered to be printed.
FOREST OF DEAN.]
Lord Lowther
gave notice, that on the 29th of April he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to ascertain the boundaries of the Forest of Dean.
BARON DE BODE.]
The Hon. E. G. S. Stanley
presented a Petition from Clement Joseph P. Pen, Baron de Bode, complaining of the losses which he had suffered in consequence of the conduct of the Commissioners for settling the claims of British subjects on the French Government, and praying for relief. If on that occasion he abstained from entering into the details of the case, it was not from a diminished sense which he entertained of the great hardship of the Baron de Bode's case, but because the subject had been several times under the consideration of the House. His own impression of the equity of the Baron's claim was as strong as ever; and it was the impression of several of his hon. friends, who were members of the learned profession, that the claim was as strong in law as he believed it to be in equity. He would, however, confine himself on the present occasion to one point of peculiar hardship in the case; and it was a point to which he wished especially to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There was no doubt that the Baron de Bode's family had property in France which was confiscated, and there was no doubt that he was a natural-born British subject. Those were facts which were admitted on all hands; but it was asserted that at the time the property in question was confiscated, it belonged, not to him, but to his father. That was denied by the Baron; but it was clear, even if it had been so, that the Baron had not lost his indisputable and undisputed reversionary right in the property. Whatever effect, therefore, that objection might have on the amount of the claim, it could have
1277
1278
1279
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he would not enter into any discussion of the merits of the case; for as it appeared that there was a variety of opinions with respect to the facts, some being asserted by one party and denied by the other, he could not state anything positively without further reference to the circumstances. He certainly, however, did agree with the hon. Gentleman in the view which he took of the matter. He would not enter into the question if the circumstances of this particular case were hard or not; he only knew that where any general rule had been established, an individual might suffer a hardship for which it was not possible to devise a remedy. The great difficulty was as to the distribution of the remaining surplus in the hands of the Commissioners. For it appeared that appeals might be made to the Privy Council against the decisions to which the Commissioners had already arrived. If those appeals were successful, the surplus in the hands of the Commissioners might be demanded by the persons by whom those appeals were preferred. With regard to the claim of the Irish College at Paris, it was not the Government, but the Privy Council, that had decided that the College had a right to appeal. The claim made by the East India Company was for the maintenance of prisoners of war in India during the late war. He agreed that as the Company had not urged its claim in time, it was not entitled to a share in the remaining surplus at present; and (as we understood the right hon. Gentleman) he had
1280
Dr. Phillimore
said, he could not avoid expressing his regret that the right honourable Gentleman had given such a vague and unsatisfactory answer to the plain and straight-forward question, addressed to him by his hon. friend. The question was, whether it was the intention of the King's Government to take into their favourable consideration the case of the Baron de Bode as having an equitable and legal demand on this fund.
l.,
1281
pro ratâ
Mr. Bernal
would refer the House to another case, that of Mr. Newland's claim for interest, which ought to be at five instead of three per cent. This person's claim was as sound as any upon the Boyd and Luxemburg Lists. A public body, the India Company, had put forth a claim which had never been heard of until the discussion of the 300,000
l.
1282
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was by no means insensible to the opinion of foreign governments, but he must nevertheless say, that it would be extremely hazardous to pay over what was called the surplus, to persons whose claims might be advocated by Members of that House. A number of the petitioners had a right to appeal to the Privy Council, and if the commissioners distributed their funds before the final term, what would the House say to him, if he had to come down to Parliament and ask for a grant to pay the balances?
Mr. Robert Grant
thought the case one of great hardship, and the subject was of such importance, that it required a more formal inquiry. On that occasion he only wished to guard himself against the supposition that he acquiesced in the arguments of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir James Graham
said, that the House had travelled from the question before it, which was not that of the claimants in genera), but simply the case of the Baron de Bode, which was but too well known to the House, for the merits of it had been stated with great ability by the hon. members for Staffordshire and Preston. The case was one of very peculiar hardship. It was never to be lost sight of, that it belonged to class No. 7, out of which a sum of 250,000
l.
1283
"To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled:
"The humble Petition of Clement Joseph Philip Pen, Baron de Bode, Baron of the Holy Roman Empire, a Knight of several Orders, and a natural-born British subject
"Sheweth—That Parliament, through the operation of the Act of the 59th of Geo. 3rd., c. 31, having virtually become a Trustee for the British Claimants on the French Government, your Petitioner begs leave humbly to represent that he was a Claimant duly registered by the English Commissioners, with the concurrence of the French Commissioners; that his name is registered in the second book, No. 1130. That your Petitioner can prove by documents that it is solely in consequence of the neglect of the English Commissioners that his name was not registered in the first book, No. 587. And your Petitioner humbly submits that the fact of his name having so been only registered in the second book, No. 1130, by the omission of the Commissioners, instead of No. 587, in the first book, cannot be alleged as a reason against the validity of your Petitioner's claim, because that circumstance rests with the Commissioners, and not with him, and because oilier Claimants, registered in the same book, under the same head as your Petitioner, have been paid.
"That your Petitioner's name and the amount of his claim stands in the list of regularly registered Claimants in the official Returns made by the Commissioners to your Honourable House; that it stands as such in the official Reports of the Commissioners in
The London Gazette.
"That your Petitioner can prove that the Commissioners have acknowledged, in official documents, that they had kept a large sum apart to meet your Petitioner's claim, which could not have been done had not your Petitioner been a regular registered Claimant. That your Petitioner's case could not at all have been gone into, and have been considered, before the 26th of July, 1826, when the Commissioners closed their labours, as far as concerned the registered Claimants, had not your Petitioner been a regular registered Claimant.
"That your Petitioner can prove, and always was prepared to prove, if the opportunity had been afforded him, that the property for which he claims indemnity was confiscated
1284
"That the Commissioners made their Award of Rejection in absence of the most essential evidence, knowing at the time that it was forthcoming, having been apprised by his agent that every thing they had required from him to substantiate his claim would be obtained, and that without the expected evidence it would be impossible for them to come to a just and equitable adjustment. That the Award of Rejection was principally founded on a passage pretended to be in a private deed, but which passage did not exist in that or in any other deed. That there could have existed no valid reason for the Commissioners not having waited for the arrival of his additional evidence before they made their Award of Rejection against your Petitioner, the Commission having remained open nearly four years and a half after this Award was made.
"That your Petitioner was deterred from availing himself of the advantage arising from the introduction of additional evidence in consequence of a threatening letter from the Commissioners, in which they state that they understood that your Petitioner intended to support his case on the appeal with his additional evidence, and therefore, informed him, that the producing of the new additional evidence before the Lords of the Council would not only be fruitless, but most probably would occasion the immediate dismissal of the appeal.
"That a rehearing was refused by his Majesty's Privy Council to your Petitioner, in consequence, as their Lordships stated, of the limited power granted them by the Act of the 59thGeo. 3rd. c. 31.
"That your Petitioner begs humbly to submit, that under all those circumstances it cannot be maintained that his case has been regularly gone through.
"That your Petitioner can prove that though the Commissioners would not wait for the arrival of the most important evidence announced to them before they signed their Award of Rejection against him, yet that they have to others, even after awards of rejection had been signified to claimants, and published in
The London Gazette,
1285
"That your Petitioner is debarred, by the Convention of April the 25th, 1818, from seeking any redress from the French Government. That your Petitioner having applied in 1826 to the French Government, was referred to that special clause in said Convention, in which it is stated that no farther demand is ever to be made on France by the individuals who were, in conformity to the Convention of 1815, registered as British Claimants, and whose claims had been discharged on the part of France by the funds created in conformity to the Convention of 1815 and 1818, and placed for that purpose at the disposal of the British Government, adding, that Trance could not be called upon to pay the same debt twice, and that your Petitioner must seek his remedy against the British Government.
"That your Petitioner was possessed of large landed property and mines, which were illegally confiscated and sold by the Revolutionary Government of France; that indemnity for such loss was admitted to be due to your Petitioner, and that it would be a case of unparalleled hardship if, notwithstanding such admission, and the recognition of his losses by two great and powerful Governments, your Petitioner should be deprived of his property without remedy or hope of recovery.
"That your Petitioner courts the most minute, strict, and public investigation of his case.
"Your Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Honourable House will be pleased to take his unhappy case into your early consideration, and to afford him such relief as, in your wisdom, may seem meet.
"And your Petitioner will ever pray, &c."
The Hon. E. G. S. Stanley
, in moving that the Petition be printed, asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that the Baron de Bode's being put on the list of claims under the British Government had barred his seeking redress from the French Government, which, under other circumstances, he would have been entitled to demand? When he had brought forward this case two years ago, he had founded his motion upon terms not calculated to secure success, for he had criminated the Commissioners. Although he had also moved for a Select Committee, which was not the way best calculated to conciliate the opposite side of the House, yet the case had made so strong an impression, that he had been defeated by a majority of only thirty-seven. This sufficiently showed what the real feelings were upon the subject. It was a case of great injustice, and. he trusted that the Treasury
1286
The Solicitor-general
would not allow, that because the Baron de Bode's case had been registered, the claim must be allowed. This only made it a fair subject for consideration. The Commissioners were of opinion that the claim of the Baron ought to be settled by the French Government, the decision turning on the fact that the property had not been confiscated on account of the Baron being an English subject, but because it was the property of a French subject, who had belonged to the unsuccessful party in a civil contest. The Commissioners thought they had no authority to settle his claim, and therefore they rejected it.
The Hon. E. G. S. Stanley
explained, that the Baron's having been put upon the list by the British Government barred his claim upon the Government of France.
The Petition to be printed.
ECONOMY IN THE PACKET SERVICE.]
Mr. Pendarvis
presented a Petition from Cirencester, complaining of Distress, and praying for a Repeal of the Malt-tax. The hon. Member said, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Members of the Government to the saving which might be effected in the Packet-service, with advantage to the country. He was induced to notice this in consequence of a letter addressed to him in a provincial paper, wherein the difference of expense was stated at 41,000
l.
l.,
l.
s.
l.
s.
1287
l.
l.
l.
THE JEWS.]
Mr. R. Grant
said, that in introducing the Motion of which he had already given notice, to the attention of the House, he should have preferred avoiding all particular observations, reserving to himself the right of making whatever remarks he pleased during the discussion of the question at some future stage; and this course he would have pursued, because he could not have anticipated that any difficulties would be thrown in the way of the Bill at that period, or any opposition offered to its further progress; but having understood that one or two hon. Members had announced their intention, as it undoubtedly was their right, to contest the measure in this its first stage, and other hon. Members having declared their design to suspend their opinions until they should have heard the reasons advanced on either side, he thought he had no option, but must, however reluctantly, trouble the House with an exposition of those points upon which he founded the belief, and indulged the hope, that his proposal would be entertained. He begged, however, to preface his observations upon the subject with an explanation of the nature of his connection with the cause he advocated. It was not only unsought and unforeseen, but altogether fortuitous. Understanding that sonic such question was in contemplation, he had been led to turn his attention to it—not without prejudices, which, however, calm reflection had completely dissipated—and thus convinced of the justice and policy of the measure, he did not consider himself at liberty to decline the honourable office of conducting it, although it came from strange hands. He stated this, that his humble opinions might not lose their due weight, however small that might be, being, as they were, entirely the result of conviction. The question before the House he proposed to treat after the following manner: he would first state the law in regard to that class of British subjects on whose behalf he appeared: he would next declare the grounds upon which these persons complained of that state of the law,
1288
1289
"Non solum excoriendo, sed eviscerando exlorsit."
de Judaismo.
1290
1291
de Judaismo
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
*
*
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
Sir R. Inglis
felt himself called on to resist the introduction of the measure as an imperative duty from which he could not shrink; and he hoped it would be rejected instantly, and for ever. In the speech of
1304
1305
The Morning Chronicle
The Morning Post
1306
mollissima tempora fandi,
1307
1308
Sir James Mackintosh and Mr. Macauley rose together, but the latter, being a new Member was called for by the House, and—
Mr. Macauley
proceeded to address the House nearly as follows:—In spite of the parallel which my hon. friend (the member for Oxford) has attempted—I think in vain—to draw between this case and the Roman Catholic measure before the House during the last Session of Parliament, I trust that we shall not have to forego the votes of many of those hon. Gentlemen who in the last Session were opposed to the concession of the Catholic claims. Indeed, many of those Gentlemen will be precluded, by the course they then took, from offering any opposition to the present measure. The general principle of religious toleration was involved in the question of last year, as it is now: but most of those Gentlemen who voted against the Roman Catholics declared in favour of this general principle, only they found that there were special circumstances which took the case of the Roman Catholics out of the pale of that principle. But, Sir, there are no such circumstances here. In this instance, there is no foreign power to be feared. There is no divided allegiance threatening the State—there are no bulls—there are no indulgencies—there are no dispensations—there is no priesthood exercising an absolute authority over the consciences of those who are under their spiritual control—there are no agitators rousing and exciting the people to a course contrary to all good government—there are no associations assembling, or charged with assembling, for the purpose of assuming, a power which ought only to belong to legally recognized functionaries—there arc no mobs, disciplined to their task, and almost in the regular training of arms—there is no rent levied with the re-
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
onus probandi
auto da fé,
1314
Mr. Harrison Batley
was of opinion, that the Jews could not be admitted into Parliament without an alteration of the original writ of summons, as their religion was entirely at variance with the spirit of that declaration. He opposed the Jews because they did not believe in Christianity. The original summons to Parliament ran thus.
"De communi consilio super negoliis quibusdam arduis el urgentibus, regem statum et defensionem regni Angliœ et ecclesiœ Anglicanœ concernentibus."
data
Sir James Macintosh
said, that the speech they had heard from his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Macauley) was one which, he had no doubt, would make its full impression on the House, it being every way worthy of the name he bore. It was not, therefore, to supply any defects in that speech that he had risen to address the House, for indeed there were none that he could find, but principally to absolve his own conscience. He felt that it was a duty he owed to his religion, to mankind, and his country, to declare his sentiments on this occasion. His desire was, to bear testimony in favour of the completion of that system of religions liberty of which that House had already, during the last two Sessions, effected so large a portion. However politic it might have been in his hon. friend, who had so luminously introduced
1315
1316
1317
"Urban venalem et citò perituram."
1318
contemptu famœ contemptu virtutis
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, if he could consider that it would be a departure from the principles of the bill of last year to oppose the present measure, he should he one of the last to oppose it; hut he was of opinion it stood on very different grounds from that measure. He could not view the subject in the same light as the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. He considered that there was a great and broad distinction between the parties to the mea-
1324
1325
Dr. Lushington
said, if he thought the Motion likely to beget an impression among the people that the Parliament was indifferent to Christianity, he should find great difficulty in agreeing to the principle of the measure. But whether he looked to the principles of the Motion of his hon. and learned friend, or whether he looked to the conduct of the people since notice was given that it was the intention of his hon. friend to bring forward such a Motion, be was satisfied that the country did not
1326
1327
1328
Mr. Perceval
entreated the House, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to preserve the religion of Christianity—the religion of the State—from being defiled by the introduction of the Bill now proposed. If they wished to preserve the name of a Christian people—if they were anxious to support the distinctions of their Christian Constitution, he implored them to reject a measure which gave political power to a sect whose religion was hostile to both. Without trying to reconcile his vote on the Roman Catholic Question with the one he should give that night, he should merely say that he resisted this bill on the great principle that its admission was inconsistent with our Christian Constitution.
Lord Morpeth
said, that, if to justify himself in hazarding a few observations upon this subject, he had felt any hope that he should have been able to add any thing to what had already been brought forward, he had certainly better not now have risen; but he was inclined to think that upon an entirely new question the expression of a mere concurrence of opinion might be of some use, from however humble a Member of that House, though it added nothing in point of argument. The effect of argument might safely be left to the speech of his hon. and learned friend, the very circumstance of whose introducing this measure had conferred much benefit upon it—much by his great powers of mind, and much by his blameless character. An objection, anticipated indeed by his hon. and learned friend, had been taken upon a religious
1329
1330
The Solicitor General
said, that the situation of the Jews had been more than once likened to that of the Roman Catholics, although it appeared to him there was a wide and material difference between them. The Catholics had possessed great power and privileges, of which they had been, for good reasons, deprived; and it did great honour to those who, studying well the circumstances of the country, had restored them to the situation they before had held. But how did the case of the Jews stand? They had possessed nothing; they held nothing. They had no civil rights; they never had any. He looked with as much abhorrence as any man, and deplored as much as any man the atrocities once perpetrated against them; but he could not, therefore, be insensible to the nature of their situation in this country. They had no natural rights; and Lord
1331
1332
1333
Mr. W. Smith
maintained, that if it were desirable that the Jews should at any time be admitted within the pale of the Constitution, it was desirable that they should be admitted with as little delay as possible. He must beg to express, not merely his approbation, but his admiration of the manner in which his hon. friend had brought forward the present Motion. He admired both the sincerity and courage of his hon. friend; and he had evinced both those qualities in the highest degree. Religion ought not, in his opinion, to be introduced into any question similar to the present, which was a question, not of religion, but of politics. Let those who introduced it recollect a passage in the book which they so justly revered—"Render unto Caesar the things which are Cæsar's;" and then came the grand distinction—"and unto God the things which are God's." On all points of religion he would leave men to their own consciences. As to political considerations, he wished to know in what times had the Jews evinced any inclination towards such political principles as ought to prevent them from having a share in the civil rights enjoyed by their fellow subjects? He had never heard of any such case. He had heard, indeed, of their having engaged to furnish loans for other countries than those in which they lived. If, however, they had not the patriotic feeling which would prevent such a transaction, the imputation rested, not on them, but on the governments which withheld from them those civil rights and privileges which alone rendered a man's country dear to him. He recollected an hon. Member, who had that evening opposed the Motion, and from whose good sense he should have expected a different line of conduct, declared in the last Session of Parliament that when once a dozen Catholic Members were introduced
1334
Mr. R. Grant
said, he would make a very short reply. It had been allowed by every one that the loyalty and excellent conduct of the Jews were unexceptionable. No man, not even the right hon. Gentleman, had thrown any imputation upon them. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, for him to trouble the House at any length; for he appealed to every unprejudiced person who heard him, if any subject had ever been more victoriously argued than the Motion had been by those hon. Members who had supported it. It was perfectly evident, indeed, that their arguments were unanswerable. The great objection of those who opposed the Motion seemed to consist in the phrase, "they are Jews; we are Christians." Now, in his opinion, the very reason for admitting the objects of his Motion into a full participation of the civil rights of their countrymen was, that they
1335
1336
The House then divided—for the Motion 115; Against it 97: Majority 18.
Mr. Grant then brought in the Bill, which was read a first time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 6, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions were presented by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Avondale, in the East Hiding of Yorkshire, and from Musfield, in the West Hiding, for the holding of Assizes in Wakefield, in that county. Against renewing the East India Company's Charter, and for opening the trade with China, from Dundee by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, and from Arbroath, by Lord HOLLAND;—and by the same noble Lord from Charles Cannon, householder of St. George's parish, against the St. George's and St. Giles's Vestry Bill.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Marquis of BUTE, of the quantity of Coals exported from Newport and Cardiff, (Monmouthshire) to Bristol, between 1792 and 1797, between 1797 and 1803, and between 1803 and 1830.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
The Earl of Carnarvon presented a Petition from certain voters in East Retford against this Bill.
The Marquis of Salisbury
took the opportunity of saying, that he begged leave to postpone the second reading of the Bill till the 3rd of May. The noble marquis said, he did so at the request of a noble Duke (Newcastle, as we understood), who had a deep interest in the measure, and who feared his inability to attend on the day for which the second reading was now fixed, from indisposition.
Lord Holland
did not wish to directly oppose the postponement suggested by the noble Marquis, but to put it to him whether the discussion of a great public question, in which great public interests were involved, should be deferred, solely to suit the personal convenience of any individual, however interested. There were a great number of witnesses to be examined, and if the measure were postponed, it might not be completed during the Session.
The Earl of Malmesbury
thought, with
1337
The Marquis of Salisbury withdrew his Motion.
PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING BILL.]
Lord Melville
The Earl of Malmesbury
was anxious to take advantage of that occasion to protest, not against the Bill, but against the practice which made it necessary. Their Lordships were aware that at present, service in the Navy was made a punishment for smuggling, and the Bill compelled the smuggler serving in the Navy to allot a moiety of his pay for the support of his family. To that he had no objection, in fact it was necessary; but he objected to punishing smugglers in that manner. The principle was highly objectionable, and could only have the effect of throwing a stigma on a highly honourable service. What brother seaman but must feel humiliated when he sees a profession to which he had devoted his best energies, and in which were embarked his best hopes and aspirations, thus dishonoured by being made a punishment for offences against the laws of this country? He had resisted the application of the same objectionable principle to the punishment of poachers, who, it was proposed, should be forced into the Army. He hoped the noble Lord would remedy this defect, and thereby prevent a stigma being thrown on a highly honourable profession.
Lord Melville
, in answer to the noble Earl, begged leave to state that this punishment of the crime of smuggling was only inflicted on those smugglers who had been at sea previous to the commission of their offence. To no other class of smugglers did it apply. He should be happy to support any measure which would put an end to smuggling. or provide a better method of disposing of the smuggler, but that question was not then before their Lordships. The present Bill was made necessary by the law as it stood and would be an improvement.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he objected to the system altogether. A man was caught smuggling, he was asked whether he was a sailor or not, and if he answered yes, he was sent to a King's ship. This was degrading the King's service, and therefore he objected to it.
1338
The Bill then went through the Committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 6, 1830.
MINUTES.] Mr. CALCRAFT brought up a Report from the Committee on the Beer Trade, and gave notice, that on Thursday next he would move for leave to bring in a Bill founded upon this Report, and he would then explain the plan pointed out by the Committee for establishing a Free Trade in Beer.—Report to be Printed. Mr. POULETT THOMSON brought in a Bill to alter the Usury Laws. Mr. SPRING RICE, on the part of his right hon. friend, Sir J. MACKINTOSH, brought in a Bill to indemnify parties who suffered by the insolvency of Mr. GILBERT RICKETTS, late Registrar at Madras.
[Mr. Astell said, that he formerly objected to a bill of this kind, but he now understood that the Bill had been much altered from that of last year. He would not now oppose its introduction, but would reserve to himself the power of opposing it hereafter as he should think proper, when more fully acquainted with its details.]
The Fever Hospitals (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The East Retford Witnesses Indemnity Bill was read a second time.
Returns laid on the Table. Number of Bankrupt Petitions set down for hearing before the LORD CHANCELLOR and before the VICE CHANCELLOR and unheard on the 30th of March last. Report from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Treasury relative to Dean Forest.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BONHAM CARTER, of the money expended by the Victualling Office since June 1827, for buildings at Weevil; the expense of removing the Victualling establishment from Portsmouth to Weevil; the sums for which the old premises at Portsmouth have been let or sold, and of the number of persons reduced in consequence of the removal of the establishment:—On the Motion of Mr. HUSKISSON, the Amount of Exchequer Bills now held by the Bank of England; for a Copy of the contract for any Loan for the Completion of London Bridge; an Account of all Distributions by the Bank of England among the Proprietors of Bank Stock since 1797; and of the whole of the Dividends paid on increased Capital since 1816:—On the Motion of Mr. ALEXANDER DAWSON of the expense incurred by the Ballast Office Corporation, in erecting a patent slip at the North Wall, Dublin; with the number of vessels repaired thereon;—On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, of the average quantities of various articles, such as Silk, Wool, Flax Hemp, &c. imported from January 5,1783, to January 5,1830, in periods of three years; of the amount of Stamp Duties received on Policies of Insurance, Fire and Marine, on an average of the years ending 1783, 1793, 1815 and 1830; of the British and foreign tonnage entered inwards at the same periods:—On the Motion of Mr. WARBURTON, an humble address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct our Consuls at St. Petersburg to furnish all the information they might be able to obtain respecting the amount of precious metals raised in Russia from 1820 to the present time;—On the Motion of Mr. BRIGHT, the sums received in 1829 on each article contained in the various Schedules to the Stamp Acts:—On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, a Copy of the condition on which Lands are granted in the North American Colonies, and Colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land.
Petitions presented. Against a Free Trade in Beer;—by Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Licensed Victuallers of Liverpool;—By Mr. H. BATLEY, from the Licensed Victuallers of Beverley. Against the renewal of the East
1339
LORD ELLEN BOROUGH'S DIVORCE
Sir G. Clerk
.—Sir, I rise to move the Order of the Day for the third reading of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill.
The Order was accordingly read, and the Speaker then put the question that this Bill be now read a third time.
Mr. Hume
.—Sir, I am not well aware what course I ought exactly to take on the present occasion, because I have two objects in view upon which I still want explanation; one is, to see if further in formation can be afforded to supply the evidence which appears to me to be wanting here; and the other is to reconcile, if it can be reconciled, the contradictory evidence we have upon our minutes respecting this Bill; for as it stands, it certainly does not warrant us in granting the redress which is prayed. If by adjourning the third reading of this Bill, or by any other course which can be suggested by the hon. Gentlemen who have charge of it, we can obtain these objects,—if there can be any mode supplied of filling up the blanks which exist in the evidence,—I am ready to adopt that mode. I will state to the House what I conceive really to be wanting in the case before us. In the first place, it appears to me that not only has the preamble of the Bill not been proved, but it has been disproved by the evidence: so clearly so, indeed, that I apprehend it to be quite impossible we can pass this Bill while such glaring inconsistencies exist upon the face of its averments. The preamble states, that the parties, up to the time when these discoveries were made, were cohabiting together in a state of connubial happiness. Now, we have it from Miss Steele, in a part of her evidence, that this was not the case; and that Lord and Lady Ellenbo-
1340
1341
Sir G. Clerk
.—I have no hesitation in informing the hon. member for Montrose, that we have no intention to produce further evidence in support of the preamble of this Bill; and indeed, I believe the hon. Member is himself the only Member of this House who docs not think the evidence already adduced sufficient. He was told the other night, that we had all the servants here, if any hon. Member wished for a further examination of them; but he started no doubt of this kind then, and now his whole objection is, that the parties had not slept together as man and wife for a short period,—a circumstance which, he says, is inconsistent with the preamble of the Bill. I do not see that any such inconsistency is furnished by a temporary arrangement of the nature alluded to, while the parties were, living on terms of affection at that time, under the same roof.
Mr. Hume
said, that as they were, it appeared, to have no further evidence, and as the hon. Gentleman saw no inconsistency in the discrepancies which he had stated to him, it only remained for him to proceed in his statement of the reasons why he thought they ought not to pass the Bill, and why Lord Ellenborough was not in a situation to be entitled to the redress which it went to confer. He had already shown that the preamble was notoriously contradicted by the facts stated in evidence. The proof was clear, that he and Lady Ellenborough, instead of living together as man and wife, had been for several months occupying distinct apartments, and living as it were separate. The preamble avers that Lord Ellenborough has, by his wife's act, lost the comforts of matrimony, and therefore he hopes Parliament will grant him the relief of this Bill. It is proved most decidedly, that he had not been in the possession of the comforts of which he spoke, and that could be shown by the evidence of the letter marked "Saturday night," without date or post-mark, but which must be supposed to have been written about the time of the separation, and in that there was nothing to show his wife's affections
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
A laugh, as if the Members were surprised at Mr. Hume's simplicity
1348
No, no
Non miricordo
1349
1350
l
l
1351
1352
Sir Henry Hardinge
, Lord Nugent, and two or three other Members rose together, but,
Sir Henry Hardinge
persevered, and began by observing, that under any other circumstances he should be happy to allow any other member to address the House; but under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, he must beg leave to make a few observations on the speech of the hon. member for Montrose. He thanked that hon. Member for the opportunity he had afforded him of replying to the charges brought against the conduct of his noble friend; but he must, at the same time, say, that he never recollected to have heard a more clumsy perversion of reasoning, or a more exaggerated statement of facts; and if he pretended in this matter to fulfil a judicial function, he confessed he had never met with or heard of any case in which the evidence had been summed up in a more unfair and perverted manner. He did not complain of the examination of the witnesses. He was glad, as far as his noble friend's character was concerned, that the evidence had been sifted so much; and that, as the honour and happiness of his noble friend were at stake, the House would have an opportunity of fairly deciding on the merits of the case. The hon. member for Montrose, in his disjointed and inefficient examination of the evidence, had dwelt much on the prevarications of Lady Ellenborough's groom; but the House would recollect that he was the witness for the guilty party, and that he was engaged in their interest. Mr. Freshfield had proved that Carpenter was exclusively the groom of Lady Ellenborough, and a most unwilling witness; and that the moment the adultery was discovered, and the separation took place, he was dismissed from Lord Ellenborough's service. All his evidence, therefore, must be taken as coming from a person who was an unwilling witness for Lord Ellenborough, and only brought forward in order to prove
1353
1354
No, no
1355
animus
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
Dr. Phillimore
said, he trusted the House would bear with him, while he endeavoured, as shortly as he could, to express the opinions which he entertained upon this case, and in reference to this particular subject. His hon. and gallant friend who had just addressed the House had called upon them to consider this case in their judicial capacity, and he had entreated hon. Members to divest themselves of all political and party feeling in pronouncing judgment upon it. He could assure his hon. and gallant friend, that from the commencement of this investigation he considered it strictly in his judicial capacity, and that he had given to the case, as it proceeded, all the attention which it was in his power to bestow upon it. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, there had been a variety of cases of this description accidentally discussed there, but as it had so happened that he had been employed in the courts below, either for one party or the other in those cases, he had uniformly abstained from offering an opinion either on the one side or the other, when the case came under the consideration of the House. But in this case, he had not been employed either by one party or the other, and he approached the consideration of it, and the circumstances attached to it, with a mind divested of every species of bias or preconceived impressions. In the course of the discussions upon this case, a complaint had been made, and it had been reiterated this evening by the gallant officer opposite, that an unprecedented course had been adopted with respect to this Bill. Now, he would confess, looking at the manner in which this measure had been conducted, that it had been such as to justify what might be considered a devious, but which was certainly a constitutional, course on the part of the House in respect to the Bill. It was to be observed, in the first instance, that in the proceedings which took place in the courts below, there had been no cross examination of any witnesses. It was further observable, that no proceedings had been taken in this case in a Court of Common Law; no verdict had been obtained; and these were circumstances which appeared to him such as called upon the House to exercise more than usual caution and vigilance in passing this Bill, Other circumstances also had oc-
1363
1364
1365
*
*
1366
"Judex adulterii ante oculos habere debet et inquirere an maritus pudice vivens, mulieri quoque bonus mores colendi auctor fuerit. Periniquum enim videtur esse ut pudicitiam vir ab uxore exigat quam ipse non exhibeat."
1367
' Nec parlium confessioni fides habeatur;'
1368
1369
Sir H. Hardinge
was understood to say across the Table, that the cases referred to were very different from the one before the House.
Dr. Phillimore
said, the gallant Officer had misunderstood his object; he had not referred to any case as being one similar in its facts to the present case; but he had quoted opinions on cases merely for the purpose of illustrating the general principle of law which was applicable to all cases of this description. The hon. member for Aberdeen had said, that in the Courts below, in which he (Dr. Phillimore) had the honour to practise, no attention was paid to the conduct of the husband in cases of this kind. The facts to which he had just referred afforded, however, a complete refutation of that statement. He would then proceed to advert to the evidence which had been adduced, as to
1370
1371
1372
—"Dum res
Nota urbi, et populo, contingat principis aures
Dedecus ille domûs sciet ultimus."
1373
Mr. Harrison Batley
congratulated the House upon its having consented to have, the evidence taken in this case printed. He had given to that evidence his deepest consideration, and he thought that it must carry conviction home to the mind of every man who read it, that adultery had been committed by Lady Ellenborough. Neither by the divine law, nor yet by the ecclesiastical law, did adultery give a right to marry a second lime to the party injured by that adultery. He must come down to Parliament to obtain that right. The interference of Parliament was necessary to obtain that privilege; and he said, that the individual who claimed that privilege at the hands of Parliament, must himself come before Parliament pure and unpolluted in all respects. Now, he maintained, that upon such evidence as had been produced in the present case, Lord Ellenborough would not have gained a shilling damages in any court of common law; for the evidence established, beyond all dispute, that he had not been that faithful and affectionate, and vigilant guardian of his young wife's honour that he ought to have been. It was in evidence that Lady Ellenborough had been in the habit of going to operas, balls, and routes, unaccompanied by her noble husband; and he was con-
1374
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that in justice to his own feelings he could not, after reading the evidence taken in this case, consent to give a merely silent vote. He begged leave, in the first place, to state, that if there had been any thing unprecedented in the course taken upon this occasion by the House, the peculiar circumstances which surrounded this case had fully justified it, not indeed with reference to the parties concerned in it, but with reference to this being an application for a bill of divorce, unsupported by any verdict obtained in a court of common law. He thought that, without entering into the consideration of whether the parties were high or low, rich or poor, titled or untilled, it was the duty of the House, exercising its functions legislatively and judicially, to make the most complete inquiry into any case which had not that groundwork for a decision which was always afforded by the verdict of a court of justice. He, for one, was of opinion that the House had upon this occasion fully discharged its duties to the public; and though he did not think that the House ought to be at all swayed by reference to the rank of the parties, yet acting in the face of the public, he admitted, that if there were to be any exception to its general rule of not examining evidence in cases of this kind, that exception ought not to be found in cases where the parties were rich and powerful, in order to show that its decision was not mere matter of interest and favour, but founded on the strictest and most impartial examination. So far, then, in justification of their recent mode of proceeding. The House had now the evidence before it, and what was the legitimate inference to be drawn from it? Here he must say, that he entirely dissented from the doctrines which had been advanced by his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. In
1375
1376
ex post facto
1377
Sir John Beresford
said, he trusted that the House would do every justice to Lord and Lady Ellenborough and their families by allowing this Bill to pass. After the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, the Bill could inflict no evil upon one party, although it might afford relief to the other. Whilst he was this morning at breakfast, reading" the evidence taken at the Bar, a lady of rank and respectability, who was intimately acquainted with Lord Ellen-borough's family, called in upon him, and in the course of conversation, informed him that, to her knowledge, a more tender husband and father than Lord Ellenborough never existed. She said that his only fault was, that he had always been more liberal to his wives than any man should be.
Sir Edmund Carrington
said, he had no doubt whatever as to the vote he ought to give on that Bill. He had fully considered the evidence, and made up his mind as to his decision. He could not, however, justify it to his own feelings, either as a lawyer or a gentleman, to give a silent vote upon this occasion, especially as he felt convinced that there was not the shadow of a reason for refusing Lord Ellenborough the relief for which he prayed. He regretted infinitely the state of the law on the subject of divorce, but that was no new subject of regret with him, though he should not have raised his voice against the law, had he not felt himself justified by the various objections which had of old time been urged against it, and by the wishes which some of our most able statesmen had uttered for a reformation of it, which had never been carried into effect. He asserted, that so long ago as the reign of Edward 6th, this defect in our law, this miserable divorce
a mensa et thoro,
a vinculo matrimonii
1378
a vinculo matrimonii.
a vinculo matrimonii
corpus delicti
1379
1380
Dr. Phillimore
explained. He had not thrown any blame whatever upon the manner in which the case had been discussed and settled in the courts below. His observations had extended only to the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament in taking cognizance of such cases.
Mr. Robert Grant
said, that he had never risen to perform a more painful duty than that which was cast upon him by the present Bill. He felt happy indeed to say, that in the few observations he should make, he should have no occasion to make any personal comments or allusions whatever; but he was called upon to express his sentiments in the discharge of judicial functions of a very important nature. Acting with that conscientious feeling on which members of that House were bound to act in all judicial questions, he felt himself bound to say, that the conclusion to which he had come was unfavourable to the relief for which Lord Ellenborough was an applicant. If the principle of divorces adopted by that House be right, if such a principle be allowed, the applicability of the principle to the present case could not, he conceived, be denied. Every Gentleman who had admitted the expediency of passing the Bill, was of opinion that there was a peculiarity in the case by the House being called upon to come to a decision without the usually preceding examination and judgment of a court of law. He implored the House to consider how important it was, that such inquiry should be had, not merely in this, but in every other case of adultery. If a verdict of a jury had been given, by the husband's seeking a pecuniary compensation for his wife's dishonour, the evidence would have been thoroughly sifted, and it would have been competent for the defendant to have. repelled the evidence to prove the adultery, or to have established a case against the plaintiff which might have effected a reduction of damages. He might have proved ill-usage on the part of the husband; he might have proved connivance or collusion, or flagrant immorality and libertinism on the part of the husband, or at least a very high degree of culpable negligence. Whenever a defendant attempted to prove any of these defences, and failed, no such objec-
1381
1382
Dr. Lushington
said, that if he were to consult the dictates of his own inclination, he should not take any part in this discussion; but, on mature reflection, he felt that he should fail in his duty, if he did not state the impression made upon his mind by the evidence which had been taken. It so happened that he, as Chancellor of the Diocess of London, had to pronounce the sentence of divorce
a mensa et thoro
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
Lord F. L. Gower
said, he rose to congratulate the House and the country on the speech he had just, heard. The hon. and learned Gentleman had done as much as man could do in controverting a certain set of arguments which had been brought forward by some hon. Members, and which, he thought, might be well described without imputing motives to any hon. Gentleman under the appellations of cant and
1388
Mr. Trant
declared, he had been led to adopt the opinions of the hon. member for Inverness, and would vote against the Bill. He trusted that the House would not shrink from the performance of its duty, however painful. He was not unfavourably disposed towards Lord Ellenborough, or in any manner influenced by the unpopularity of the noble Lord. He had not the honour to know him, and had never taken his conduct at all into consideration, except when a hon. friend of his asked some questions relative to a letter written by that noble Lord. He had then felt it his duty not to approve of that noble Lord's conduct, but that feeling was wholly the result of taking into consideration what was due to the public. Had he felt any prejudice against the noble Lord, he would have absented himself on that occasion. Being sensible, however, of no such prejudice, he had been present at all the proceedings, and the conclusion he had come to was that which he had already stated. As long as the Constitution threw the burthen of deciding cases of that kind on the House of Commons, so long he should think it his duty to pay attention to such bills, and give no vote on them without a
1389
The Marquis of Blandford
said, he would give his vote upon this question uninfluenced by fear, favour, or affection—by envy, hatred, or malice. The evidence did not appear to him to be satisfactory—it was not, in his opinion, sufficient to entitle the noble Lord to a farthing damages in a court of law. He allowed that the adultery had been committed; and therefore his opposition arose, not from any doubt of this fact, but from his belief that there was a collusion between the parties to obtain a divorce. He thought, too, that the long-continued neglect of Lord Ellenborough deprived him of all right to the relief he claimed at their hands. He was not desirous of insinuating that such neglect justified the conduct of the lady, but it certainly was an extenuation of it. He believed in his conscience that Lady Ellenborough had been neglected, abandoned, and sacrificed. There was no good proof of the existence of connubial felicity, or that his Lordship had enjoyed the comforts of matrimony; on the contrary, it was in evidence that he had not enjoyed them, and most probably by his own fault. It appeared that the parties had not cohabited for months before their final separation. And when the youth and inexperience of her Ladyship were taken into consideration, and when it was remembered that she was subjected to the mischievous influence of gay and profligate associates, in disregard of warning given, and suffered, with a blind confidence on the part of his Lordship, to roam about unprotected, he thought there could be little doubt that she had been sacrificed, and he had as little doubt that Lord Ellenborough was not entitled to the relief he sought. Although reluctant, he felt himself compelled to vote against the Bill.
Sir G. Clerk
said, he could not let the question go to a vote without saying a few words. The hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite objected to the species of remedy, but till the law should be altered, a Bill like this
1390
a vinculo matrimonii.
1391
1392
Mr. Monck
said, that there were suspicions in this case, as there must be in every case which was not submitted to the decision of a jury; but he did not think that there were any good grounds for imputing misconduct to his Lordship. It was, therefore, impossible for him to refuse his assent to the present measure. He agreed in general with the principle of the Mosaic law, that infidelity was a ground for divorce; but that general principle must have some certain exceptions, not, perhaps, distinctly expressed, but not the less clearly understood, according to that
1393
ubi minus dicitur plus intelligitur.
Colonel Wood
said, that having been in a manner appealed to upon this subject, he felt bound to say what he knew respecting the conduct of the noble Lord. He was the better able to do this, because he had married a sister of the noble Lord's former wife, and he thought he should not do his duty to the noble Lord if he did not bear testimony to the excellent conduct of the noble Lord towards that Lady. He thought that the argument which went to blame him for having allowed his wife to go out without him, had been fully refuted by those who had spoken in favour of the Bill, and he would, therefore, only make this observation on the course pointed out. by hon. Gentlemen who advanced that argument. If that course were to be pursued, instead of being English husbands, they would be converted into suspicious persons of a very different character. He was of opinion that they ought to treat their wives with attention and kindness, remembering that they were English-women, and that they ought not to be blamed for placing unbounded and unlimited confidence in them.
Lord Francis Osborne
thought, that more evidence might and ought to have been produced. If they were to retain their judicial functions in matters of this sort—though, in his opinion, the sooner the judicial functions of that House ceased
1394
The cries of "Question," which had been frequently renewed, became more loud than ever, and the House then divided, when there appeared—for the third reading of the Bill 86—Against it 16—Majority 70.
List of the Minority.
Attwood, M.
Phillimore, Dr.
Batley, H.
Trant, Henry
Calthorpe, Hon. Fred.
Osborne, Lord Francis
Beaumont, Thos.
Waithman, Alderman
Frankland, Robert
White, Samuel
Grant, Right Hon. C.
Wood, Alderman
Grant, Robert
Inglis, Sir R. H.
Tellers.
Lambert, James
Blandford, Marquis
Stewart, John
Hume, Joseph
On re-entering the gallery,
Mr. Hume
was addressing the House. The hon. Member complained of the conduct of other hon. Members in casting improper imputations on the motives of those individuals who had opposed the Bill. He did not complain of hard words merely, for to them he was pretty well accustomed, but of imputations which were most unfounded, and, therefore, most unjust. He complained especially of the hon. member for Tregony (Dr. Lushington) who being himself so well acquainted with the manner of examining witnesses and sifting evidence, and who must, therefore, be well aware of the different impressions it produced on different minds, should yet have told the House that those who were of an opinion contrary to that which he held, were not men of honest and upright minds, He thought such an observation most uncalled-for and unwarranted. An hon. Member had then accused those who opposed the Bill of having opposed it merely because Lord Ellenborough was unpopular. He denied the fact. The first time he had heard of that unpopularity was in that House. He asserted that that hon. Member was wrong in the ground he had taken—he assumed that there was no evidence to implicate Lord Ellenborough, although he must have recollected the opinion given by an hon. and learned Member, who had clearly stated, that not only no fault ought to be capable of being proved against the person who asked for
1395
Some hon. Member was understood to deny that such words had been uttered
Sir George Clerk
said, he spoke of reports out of doors.
Mr. Hume
, in continuation said, he knew nothing of what had been done out of doors. He certainly had not made any false and foul imputations. Then it was paid there was a conspiracy among those
1396
1397
Dr. Lushington
said, if he had conceived it was within the power of misapprehension itself so to have misapprehended what had fallen from him, as he now found it had been misapprehended by the hon. member for Montrose, perhaps he should have remained silent on this discussion. But he had never believed that such a power of misrepresentation could have existed in any individual. That any man who had the faculty of recollection, that any one who had the power of stating facts that had previously happened, should have got up within three-quarters of an hour after he had delivered his speech, and put into his mouth sentiments which he had never uttered—conceptions he had never entertained, and which he had never given any man of common apprehension reason to believe existed in his mind, was most wonderful. There was no safety for any man if, speaking in plain intelligible language, his terms were to be tortured into meaning they did not bear, unless the House had a short-hand-writer at the Table at once to refute representations that were totally unfounded. What had he said? He had been accused of having said that the opposers of the Bill had been carried away by the influence of the unpopularity of the noble Lord, and had for that cause alone been betrayed into attempting to do injustice. Now what he had really said was, that he lamented he had found a strong feeling against the noble Lord on the ground of his unpopularity; but it was only the hon. Member who could have converted such an expression into a direct charge that that hon. Member was influenced solely by such a motive. The hon. Member had said that he knew nothing of that unpopularity, but were it not for his confidence in that hon. Member's statements, he should have had a little difficulty in crediting such ignorance. What bad he (Dr. Lushington) said? Let
1398
Sir H. Hardinge
certainly seldom had to accuse the hon. member for Montrose of invention, and in this instance he only meant to say, that that hon. Member had mistaken his arguments. He had said, that that hon. Member's view of the evidence was a perversion of it, and he was still of that opinion. The hon. Member had argued that a case of sufficient adultery had not been made out, Surely that
1399
Mr. S. Rice
said, that whatever disputes there might be as to the propriety of granting this divorce, there was no one who disputed that the present law was bad, and that the judicial duty which the House had just exercised must always be most imperfectly performed by them. The conclusion he took to be this—that if they allowed the Session to pass away without making any attempt to remedy the evil, when all admitted its existence, he thought they would not stand well with the country, nor could they be considered as having discharged their duty to their constituents.
Mr. W. Smith
had given his vote for the Bill, because he thought that the facts of the criminality had been so distinctly proved. He trusted most sincerely that this mode of proceeding would be speedily altered. He had been scandalized at the House permitting a person of such respectable character as Miss Steele to be brought to that Bar, and there questioned in a manner that seemed to him unnecessary, and if unnecessary, was most discreditable to the House, and that offered a monstrous and detestable affront to female delicacy. That a woman should be exposed to such an examination, merely because she happened to have been in a situation which no woman need be ashamed of having held, was most distressing; and every one must regret, that because the woman, in whose family she had resided, had not performed her duty, it should have become her duty to be placed at that bar,
1400
Sir G. Clerk
said, the hon. Member for Montrose had misrepresented him very much. He did say that no person could see the articles that appeared in the public press for a few weeks past without coming to the conclusion that there was a studied attempt to influence the decision of that House. And if he did not know the extraordinary talent for misapprehension displayed by the hon. member for Montrose, he should have been led to believe that the extraordinary perversions which he had displayed before the House that evening were not the result of his having read the evidence, but had been taken from some of these publications. But he supposed that they really did arise from the extraordinary formation of his mind.
Mr. Hume
.—"That is very impertinent: but I am glad that these observations will be made public."
Mr. Alderman Wood
voted in the minority, because he was of opinion that the noble Lord ought not to receive the relief he claimed. He knew nothing about his unpopularity either in that House, with the country, or with the ladies. Certainly the situation of the noble Lord, whether he were popular or unpopular, was not enviable.
Sir H. Hardinge
rose amid considerable confusion, to order, and observed, that what had been stated was a most foul and atrocious calumny. His reason for rising was, that the hon. Alderman, member for the city of London, appeared to be making observations re-echoing the foul and atrocious calumnies which were in circulation.
Mr. Alderman Wood
had not the slightest intention of doing what the gallant officer appeared to imagine. The observation he had made was in allusion to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Tregony, as to the supposed unpopularity
1401
a laugh
a laugh
Sir H. Hardinge
wished to set the hon. Member right as to what he had said. He meant that there had been gross and atrocious calumnies publicly circulated against Lord Ellenborough, stating that he was anxious to re-marry. He repeated, this was a most gross and atrocious calumny. Thinking that the hon. Alderman alluded to those statements, he rose to order.
Mr. Alderman Wood
assured the gallant officer that he had not much time for reading newspapers, in which he supposed the statement complained of was contained. For his own part he had certainly never heard of it.
Mr. Croker
wished to make a single observation as to the present state of the law with regard to marriage. There was one law for marriage in England, another law of marriage in Scotland, and in Ireland there was no law of marriage at all [
a laugh
1402
The question that the Bill do pass was put and agreed to.
STAMP DUTIES.]
Mr. Huskisson
presented a Petition from one of his constituents, named Middlewood, who carried on the trade of a perfumer, and had invented a soap, composed of vegetable matter, which was serviceable in promoting the growth of hair. He wished particularly to call the attention of his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the subject. The petitioner complained of the system of Stamp Duties upon Patent Medicines, and stated that he had been fined, and was now under prosecution by the Board of Stamps. This the petitioner represented as a great hardship, and prayed for the revision of those duties.
Mr. Bright
inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he meant to bring in his bill to alter, consolidate, and amend the Stamp Acts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated the course he intended to pursue with regard to the Stamp Duties. He should move for a committee of the whole House to-morrow on the subject, in order to obtain an opportunity of presenting the new schedule of duties. Although he meant to bring the matter forward on a Wednesday, in contravention of the usual practice, he hoped he should be excused, when it was considered that it would be desirable to have the schedule printed and circulated during the recess, and Wednesday was the only opportunity for taking steps to effect that object. He hoped, however, that the matter might not become the subject of discussion, particularly on a Wednesday, when the House would probably not be very fully attended, and at a time when the subject could not be properly treated, Members being but partially acquainted with the schedule. He should lay the schedule before the House tomorrow, and the consideration of it would come on appropriately after the holidays.
Mr. Hume
suggested the propriety of having two columns in the schedule, one to contain the present duties, and the other to contain the alterations which it was proposed to make.
1403
Mr. Bright
said, that the schedule would not be sufficient—the Act itself ought to be produced. However, if it were impossible to do this before the holidays, he hoped it would not be delayed one day after the re-assembling of Parliament.
HACKNEY COACHES.]
Mr. C. Pallmer
presented a Petition from George Green, an owner of Hackney Coaches, against the Commissioners of Hackney Coaches, and complaining of a system of favouritism and monopoly.
Mr. Warburton
observed, that considering there were a million of persons in the metropolis, it was monstrous and preposterous that public conveyances should continue in their present state. No coach, excepting Hackney Coaches, was allowed by law to carry passengers to any part of the town, unless it took its departure from a distance. He considered this a most monstrous regulation. It was impossible that such a state of things could continue, and that the public convenience should be thus needlessly sacrificed. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his early attention to the subject.
Mr. Hume
said, that it was nearly three years since almost a promise had been given that the state of the Hackney Coach Office should be investigated. Nearly 10,000
l
Mr. Monck
remarked, that while all the short stages had so materially improved within the last few years, Hackney Coaches had deteriorated, arising from the imbecility and misconduct of the Board.
Sir. J. Wrottesley
gave notice that on the 13th May, he would move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the Duties, Salaries, and Emoluments of the Commissioners of Hackney Coaches; and into the present state of the public Carriages of the Metropolis.
TOBACCO DUTIES.]
Mr. Alderman Thompson
rose to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the intentions of his Majesty's Government, on the subject of the Tobacco Duties. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it was intended to make any alteration in the relative duties on stem, leaf, and the other kinds of Tobacco. He also begged to know if it were
1404
l
l
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, perhaps, be good enough at the same time to give the House information respecting another part of this question, in which his constituents were deeply interested. He alluded to the I
s
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that with respect to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member who spoke last, he believed that it would be included in a motion which was to be made by the hon. member for Southwark. He had, however, no hesitation in stating at once, that the constant answer which had been given by the Board of Trade to petitioners on this subject, since 1825, was, that the parties complaining had no right to compensation for this dropped shilling. If the hon. member for Southwark had been there to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice for that evening, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have been prepared to state to the House the reasons upon which he and his colleagues had come to this determination with respect to the dropped shilling. In answer to the questions put to him by the hon. member for London, he begged to state that he had no intention of altering the relative duties on stem and other Tobacco. He proposed, however, to move tomorrow that the House should resolve itself into a committee upon the laws with respect to Tobacco in Ireland, and then he should be prepared to go more fully into the question.
PORTUGAL.]
Lord Palmerston
said, he rose for the purpose of putting some questions to his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to a statement which had been made public during the last few days. The statement to which he alluded related to a certain document, called an amnesty, which it was said had been issued, or was about to be issued, by the government of Portugal. According to this statement,
1405
1406
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he could perhaps satisfy his noble friend without referring to the document, which, however, he thanked his noble friend for being obliging enough to put into his hands. His noble friend had referred to a document which had been copied from the foreign into the English Newspapers, and which purported to be an amnesty granted, or intended to be granted, by Don Miguel, to persons who had taken part in the recent political events in Portugal. He had seen that document in the papers, but he could assure the House and his noble friend, that his Majesty's Government had no knowledge of the existence of such a document, or of any intention of issuing such a document. His noble friend, therefore, had as much information as his Majesty's Government had on this subject; and it would be seen, therefore, that as the newspapers were the common and only source from which any thing respecting the document could be learned, he could tell no more about it than any other hon. Member could. This, he believed, would satisfy his noble friend, and there was no occasion for him to go through his noble friend's questions, which, after this explanation, of course fell to the ground.
EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR.]
Lord Nugent
, after presenting a Petition from labourers of an hundred in Buckinghamshire, complaining of distress, and attributing a great portion of their misery to the injurious administration of the Poor-laws, proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable parishes to make bet-
1407
"Ubi nulla fugam reperit fallacia, victus
In sese redit."
d
1408
s
s
d
s
s
d
1409
1410
Mr. Lennard
said, he would not oppose the bringing in the Bill, but would beg to suggest to his noble friend that certain parties should be exempted from its operation; for instance, farmers who cultivated their farms by their own labour and that of their sons, and that persons so employing labourers should not be thereby qualified to vote at vestries. With such exemptions, he thought the Bill would be likely to do much good.
Lord Nugent
was aware of the difficulties in the way of parts of the plan, but he would endeavour to meet them as well as he could.
Mr. R. Colborne
thought this one of those general measures which were sometimes adopted to remedy local evils; the evil which it went to cure was not the fault of the law, but of the mode in which it was administered, and showed the bad effects of interfering in any manner, by legislative measures, with the wages of labour.
Lord J. Russell
feared, that on the second reading of the Bill, he should be obliged to object to it altogether.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
SUPPLY.—ASSESSED TAXES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mr. Bright
took that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to propose the consolidation of the Assessed Taxes Acts, and when he should be ready to bring it forward.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was so much occupied in the consolidation of the Stamp Acts that he had not had time to pay attention to the other subject, and could not at that moment say when he should be ready with it.
Mr. Bright
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring on the subject in the present session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that he was prepared to do so, but at present he could not fix the time.
Mr. C. Calvert
asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to renew the Assessed Taxes Composition Act. If he did, it was time that those concerned
1411
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the House and the Country would obtain a full explanation of what was intended on the subject in a few days.
The Resolutions were then read, and several of them agreed to.
On the question that a sum, not exceeding 85,025
l
Mr. Hume
observed, that as the House had decided against the recommendation of the Finance Committee, and had negatived the reduction of the office of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, it was hopeless now to have any reduction in this department. But there was an understanding that if the Lieutenant-general were continued, the salary of the Master-general, which was now almost a sinecure, should be reduced from 3,000
l
l.,
l
l
l
Colonel Sibthorp
hoped the falling-off in the revenue would be double the sum mentioned by the hon. member for Mont-rose, for that alone would oblige Government to reduction. He had had several anonymous communications lately, pointing out various instances of extravagant application of the public money; and though he would not use them, for he was unwilling to encourage any such communications, thinking they came from those who, if what they stated were true, ought not to be afraid or ashamed to avow themselves, yet he believed much of the information conveyed by them to be correct. He hoped, therefore, the hon. member for Montrose would continue his very useful exertions to promote economy, and he should be happy to give him his best sup-
1412
Mr. Trant
could not approve of that kind of economy recommended by the hon. member for Montrose, of going back to the system of 1792, which he so often recommended. Let it he recollected, that we formerly carried on war by our money, and employing foreign troops to fight for us, and the consequence was, that war was much more expensive, and less efficiently conducted: but when we began to take the matter into our own hands, we went on much better. The Ordnance Department was now in a much more efficient state, and though he saw a formidable, and perhaps, not a very constitutional, array of seven or eight officers opposite connected with it; yet he would rather see the department in its present effective state, than go back to the former practice of carrying on the war rather by the employment of others than by our own forces.
The Motion was then agreed to,—as were the other Resolutions.
Sir A. Grant
brought up the Report of the last Committee of Supply.
The Resolutions for the grant of 8,933
l
l
On the Resolution for granting the sum of 28,645
l
Mr. Hume
, adverting to what fell from the hon. member for Dover, said, he did not expect his support in any useful object,—and he should never seek it. He would take this opportunity of asking whether the Government were still going on manufacturing and selling powder. He thought the practice of manufacturing our own gunpowder, was a very extravagant mode of supplying the public service with that article, which might be much more cheaply supplied by others.
Mr. Perceval
said, that Government was at present manufacturing only a small quantity of powder, and was not selling any.
Mr. Hume
must repeat, that we were paying three times more for the article by Government taking the manufacture on itself, than it might be obtained for from private manufacturers. We had now a
1413
Sir J. Wrotlesley
concurred with the hon. Member, that the system of manufacturing by Government was any thing but one of economy. He had heard that some arms, which were made for the East India Company at our manufactory at Enfield, might have been obtained much cheaper at Birmingham; and that, accordingly, the Company refused the contract.
Mr. Perceval
said, that Government offered to make some arms for the Company, but the contract was refused, though without reference to the price or the pattern.—The Resolution agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 7, 1830
MINUTES.] Petitions for opening the East-India and China Trade were presented from North Shields, by the Duke of SOMERSET; and from Carlisle, by the Earl of WESTMORLAND. The Earl of VERULAM presented a Petition from Hertfordshire, for a Repeal of the Malt and Beer Taxes.
On the Motion of the same noble Lord, at the request, he said, of his noble friend, the Marquis of SALISBURY, a message was sent to the House of Commons, requesting the attendance of Messrs. DUNDAS and COMPTON, Members of that House, to give evidence before their Lordships relative to the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill; and all Papers, Documents, &c elucidatory of that Bill were ordered to be printed.
Sir A. GRANT, Sir G. CLERK, Mr. CALCRAFT, and other Members, brought up the Grand Jury Extension Bill (Ireland), the Smugglers' Families' Maintenance Bill; the Ellenborough Divorce Bill, and several private Bills, to which the House of Commons had agreed.
CHANCERY COMMISSION.]
The Earl of Eldon
said, he had a document which he was anxious to lay before their Lordships relative to Bankruptcy Commissions, but he was obliged to defer doing so till a day or two after the holidays. He would take advantage, however, of that occasion to repeat what he had before stated and what had also been stated by the Lord Chancellor, that the Chancery Commissioners had discharged their duties as commissioners gratuitously, and many of them, too, at a personal sacrifice of professional emolument. He was the more anxious to repeat this fact, as it had been confidently asserted, in a recent pamphlet, that the Chancery Commission was a most costly one, though its members, as he again repeated, had received no pecuniary reward for their labours whatever.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, April 7, 1830
MINUTES.] The Haymarket Removal Bill was Read a third time and passed.
1414
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of the number of Debtors who had taken the Rules of the King's Bench and Fleet Prisons, for the last five years, specifying their respective amounts of debt (classified in hundreds,) the Fees they paid, and how these Fees were sanctioned by law, and applied.
[He stated his object to be, to show how far these Rules operated in prevention of the settlement of honest debts, before the Insolvent Debtors' Act next came under the consideration of the House.]
On the Motion of Mr. WODEHOUSE, of the total amount of Money levied for Poor-rates and County-rates, in every Parish or Township of England and Wales, during the year ending March 25, 1830. On the Motion of Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS, of the quantity of Rum consumed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, during the last five years preceding the reduction of the Duty on British Spirits, to 2
s
d
Petitions Presented. Against a Renewal of the East-India Company's Charter, by Mr. RAMSDEN, from the inhabitants of the Clothing District of Shipley. For the Abolition of the Duty on Coals, by Mr. IRVING, from Larn. For mitigating the severity of the Criminal Code, by Mr. WESTERN, from the inhabitants of Kelvedon, (Essex):— by Mr. ASHURST, from Chipping Norton. For the repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties, by Mr. JOHN FANE, from Burford. Against the proposed alteration in the Beer Trade, by Colonel SIBTHORP, from the Publicans of Lincoln. Complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief, by Mr. EASTHOPE, from the county of Hertford.
EXCESSIVE TAXATION.]
Mr. Hume
presented a Petition, agreed to by a large number of the working Stonemasons of the Metropolis, assembled at the theatre of the London Mechanics' Institution, complaining that their situation was deteriorated, which they attributed to excessive Taxation, and praying the House for the further reduction of Taxation, and the abolition of all Sinecures. The petitioners also prayed the House would take into its consideration the large sums paid to the Bishops, and other members of the Established Church, while the industrious man was reduced to a state of starvation. The petitioners complained that the lordly followers of the meek religion of Christ starved them out of existence. This, the hon. Member said, was a fair subject for petitioning; he cordially agreed with the prayer of the Petition, and hoped, when there was a reformed Parliament—for which the petitioners also prayed—that the large salaries of the Bishops would be reduced, and every man paid according to his labour.
MISREPRESENTATION.]
Mr. Hume
, on
1415
1416
Sir Henry Hardinge
,—"If, immediately after I spoke at the moment, the hon. Member had no recollection of my using-such a phrase, although he says he was attentively listening to me, he will easily believe it is very probable I could not have used it. No such expression was, in point of fact, used by me, as directed against him. Certainly, I never could have so far departed from the courtesy which one Gentleman is bound to observe towards another in this House, as to charge him with uttering a notorious and unnatural lie. What I said was, as well as I recollect, that the accusation against Lord Ellenborough, of having connived at his own disgrace was a foul calumny, and I threw back the unnatural he upon the authors of it. I used the plural number, intending the imputation for the authors of those calumnies out of doors, of which Lord Ellenborough had to complain. What I did say last night I find reported with singular, indeed wonderful, accuracy in
The Times
1417
REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN
Colonel Sibthorp
, in presenting a Petition, took the opportunity of stating, that he meant soon after Easter to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for the better accommodation of those who report the proceedings of the House. If his motion were agreed to, the result of giving better accommodation to reporters, he was persuaded would be, that more full and more accurate accounts of what was said in that House would be published, and Members would not be annoyed, as they now frequently were, by misrepresentations, which, however unintentional, were injurious to the Members in relation to their constituents. He trusted the House would facilitate so desirable an object, and that his motion would not meet with one dissentient voice.
STAMP DUTIES (IRELAND).]
Sir John Newport
presented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Waterford, against the proposed plan for assimilating the Stamp Duties of England and Ireland. There were two ways, the hon. Baronet said, of assimilating duties; lowering the high ones and raising the low ones; but unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as his experience went, always took the latter method, and augmented the burthens of the people. By his proposed plan, an addition of taxation, to the amount of 100,000
l
1418
Petition laid on the Table and printed.
DISTILLERY OF CORN SPIRITS.]
Mr. Home Drummond
rose to present a Petition from a very important interest in the community—he meant the Distillers from Corn Spirits, who complained, and he thought justly, of the imposition of the additional duty of Is. a gallon upon Corn Spirits, while there was no corresponding additional duty imposed upon Rum. He would entreat the House to bear in mind, that in the year 1825, after due and deliberate investigation on the part of the Government, an arrangement, having all the appearance of permanency, was made between the parties, and which was admitted by Lord Goderich, under whose auspices it was made, fair and equitable. By that arrangement it was fixed that a duty of 8
s
d
s
s
1419
s
s
The consumption of Rum and British Spirits in England stood thus:—
RUM.
Gallons.
For the year ending 5th of Jan. 1830
3,302,143
For the year ending 5th of Jan. 1829
3,064,856
Increased consumption in the year ending the 5th of Jan. 1830
2,37,287
[
See Purl. Paper, No. 211, March
BRITISH SPIRITS.
For the year ending 5th of Jan. 1829
7,759,694
For the year ending 5th of Jan. 1830
7,700,760
Decrease on British Spirits, for the year ending 5th of Jan. 1830
59,934
BARLEY.
[
See Parl. Paper, No. 211, March
s
d
Average price of Barley, per quarter, for five years, from 1820 to 1824
29
0
Average price of Barley, per quarter, for five years, from 1825 to 1829
34
9
Average increase on the price of Barley, during the last 5 years
5
9
[
See Parl. Paper, No. 154, March
The fact was, that it was impossible to look at the comparative operation of the duties on Rum and Corn Spirits, without being sensible that the new regulations would be so injurious to the manufacturers of Spirits from Corn, as to drive them from the market. It was evident that already the competition was entirely in favour of the West Indies, and the additional duty on home-made Spirits would be a still further advantage to the manufacturers of Rum.
It appeared also, from official docu-
1420
Gallons Proof.
The quantity of Corn Spirit distilled in England for home consumption is
3,860,542
The quantity of Corn Spirit distilled, in Scotland, and exported to England
3,008,686
The quantity of Corn Spirit distilled, in Ireland, and exported to England
671,497
3,680,183
Total of Corn Spirit
7,540,725
The quantity of Rum for home consumption in England in said period is
3,302,143
The quantity of Corn Spirit distilled, for the Navy
400,000
3,702,143
General Total
11,242,868
Thus, if the consumption of these articles in England, for said year, be divided into 100 equal parts,
Parts.
The quantity supplied by England is
34·33
The quantity supplied, by the Scotch and Irish distillers
32·73
The quantity supplied, by the West India planters
32·94
100·00
Gallons.
This is without reckoning Brandy, Geneva, and all other foreign Spirits, which amounted, for home consumption in the same period, to
1,293,523
s
d
The duty on Rum, at present, is
8
6
The duty, on Raw Corn Spirit in England
7
0
Protecting duty in favour of Corn Spirit.
1
6
If this protection shall be reduced, as now proposed, to 6d., Rum will in all probability, supply the whole consumption of the market.
s
d
The present duty on English Raw Corn Spirit is
7
0
The proposed additional duty on English Raw Corn spirit is
1
0
8
0
This Spirit cannot be afforded for less than
3
0
11
0
The expense of rectifying, compounding, and sweetening the gallon at proof, without profit to the rectifier, is
0
8
11
8
s
d
The present market price of Rum is
1
9
The present duty on Rum is
8
6
Total cost of Rum in its finished state
10
3
The disadvantage to English Spirit, is, consequently, obvious.
s
d
Malt Whisky distilled in England, or brought thither from Scotland or Ireland, pays duty of
7
0
Besides the whole of the duty on Malt
1
2
If to this be added the proposed new duty of
1
0
The duty per gallon on Malt Whisky in England is,
9
2
While the duty on Rum is only 8
s
d
1421
It appeared, therefore, that the imposition of this additional duty of 1
s
Mr. Brownlow
would take this opportunity of stating, that he had a similar Petition to present from the Distillers of Corn Spirits in Ireland; it was signed by six or seven of the principal distillers, and conveyed the sentiments of the whole body. He thought it right on this occasion to state, that the Irish distillers had peculiar grievances to complain of, independent of those which they had in common with the English and Scotch. There was great injustice and hardship in the way in which these additional duties were proposed to be levied. The Irish distiller had to pay an additional duty of 2
d
s
s
d
1422
s
d
Mr. Western
supported the complaint of the petitioners, and declared, that although he should be sorry to do anything which would prejudice the interests of the West-India proprietors, he was satisfied that they possessed an undue advantage over the British distiller. The subject was one in which he felt great interest, because the agriculturists were well aware that the distillers were among their most useful customers. The great county he represented was therefore much interested in this question, and he did hope that the
1423
Mr. Marryat
, supported the claims of the West-India Planters to the consideration of the House, and contended that they had as good a right to participate in the benefits of the home consumption as the agriculturists or the distillers, and that they paid a very high price for that participation by the restrictions imposed on them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not rise to enter upon the discussion of the question brought before the House. He had had frequent opportunities of meeting both the parties interested on the subject, had heard the question discussed on both sides, and had made such inquiries as he thought proper as to the statements he had received, but he thought it better to defer going into any discussion on the question until he brought his bill on this matter regularly before the House, when an opportunity would occur of going into the whole of the calculations. He only begged hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to believe that he should propose that bill with no view of favouring either one or other interested party. He had endeavoured by his proposed measure to give them both that fair competition in the market which both had a right to expect. He was not insensible to the importance of the great interests concerned in the subject, but while he remembered what was due to the petitioners, he could not forget the claims of our West-India Colonies, and in his opinion, the home-market ought to be equally accessible to both. The calculations submitted to the House did not seem to him quite correct. The parties interested had, as was very natural, dealt somewhat in exaggeration, and he had no doubt, when the matter came properly under discussion, that he should satisfy all parties of the justice of the views entertained by his Majesty's Government, though, as each party sought a peculiar advantage, he was afraid neither would be contented by those views.
1424
Mr. S. Rice
did not intend to prolong the present conversation, but rose to bear testimony to the respectability of the signatures attached to the Petition. Whenever the question was discussed, he should consider the interests of Ireland and the Colonies closely connected. He acquiesced entirely in the principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought it was the duty of the House to discuss the question fairly, and with a view of doing justice to all parties. He wished to obtain no advantage for Ireland, at the expense of the Colonies, but he must at the same time say, that he was not ready to concede to the Colonies new advantages without a full conviction of their being both just and necessary.
Mr. Bright
considered the Scotch and Irish distillers as having already an unfair advantage over the English distillers, because the duty was much higher in England than in Scotland or Ireland: these, therefore, had no right whatever to complain. Why the distillers of Scotland and Ireland were allowed to have this advantage over the distillers of England he did not understand. As to the increased consumption of Rum, that was very small in England; while the consumption in Ireland and Scotland had, he believed, fallen off. He was disposed to complain of the Scotch and Irish distillers, who seemed to want the monopoly of the English market: whatever their motive might be, he was confident that their advantages were too great for them ever to be injured by the consumption of Rum in the British market.
Mr. Bernal
, although one of those interested in the prosperity of the West-Indies, had never wished to support their trade at the expense of either the English, Scotch, or Irish agriculturists and distillers. It was, however, a well known fact, that the distillers had been at all times anxious for a monopoly, which must be at variance with the interests of the community, and although the duty on the Spirits of the Colonies was 8
s
s
d
1425
s
d
s
d
Sir G. Clerk
contended, that the increase of the consumption of Rum proved sufficiently that the duty was not sufficient to allow a fair competition. The British distillers did not seek, therefore, as the hon. member for Rochester supposed, an unfair advantage, but to secure to themselves an adequate protection. He was sorry that, while the consumption of Rum had increased, and that of British Spirits decreased, it should have been thought advisable to lay an additional duty on the Spirits manufactured in the three countries. That increase of duty would have the effect of encouraging the crime of smuggling and demoralizing the people. The hon. member for Rochester, was wrong also in supposing that the distillers had no claims on the Government, because the duties were low in Ireland and Scotland; they had there been made low in order to put an end to smuggling, and that the reduction of the duty had accomplished,— but the distillers both of Scotland and Ireland manufactured for
1426
Mr. Wodehouse
concurred with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lose sight of the agricultural interests. He should have been glad to have seen encouragement given to the West-Indian proprietors, by taking off the duty on sugar, rather than by increasing the duty on British Spirits.
Mr. G. Moore
trusted, that as far as Ireland was concerned, no short-sighted policy would induce the Government to abandon that which afforded the only means of protection to the Irish agriculturist for the consumption of his corn. He contended, that experience since 1825, showed that the Irish distiller needed still further protection than was afforded him by the arrangement made at that period. When the consumption of Rum had increased, it was surely too much to require that two-thirds of the present protecting duty in favour of British Spirits should be done away.
Mr. William Smith
said, so many important interests were involved in this matter, that it deserved to be seriously considered. He conceived that the arrangement made by Lord Goderich, four or five years ago, was to be a permanent one. That arrangement was come to, after an inquiry as full and as extensive as could be had now, and the
onus probandi
s
d
s
s
d
1427
l
Mr. C. Pallmer
said, that as, notwithstanding discussion was generally deprecated at the present moment, every Member who had risen had said something upon the subject, he must be allowed to trouble the House with a few words. Did those hon. Members who talked of the advantage which the proposed measure would give to the West-India interest recollect the sacrifices which that interest had made? Would the Scotch and Irish distillers be disposed to sell at a loss, as the West-India planters had done? It had been said that the consumption of Rum increased last year; but that was to be accounted for by the fact, that the West-India interest had been selling at a considerable loss. That could be satisfactorily proved to the House. The arrangement of Lord Goderich on the subject was an experimental arrangement, the object of which was, to produce and preserve an equal competition. Had it succeeded? No. Let means be adopted then for securing a fair competition in all parts of the empire, and that would be just and satisfactory. To the remark that the British distillers had been put to a great expense by the alteration in their premises, the answer was, that the British distillers continued to be in a very prosperous and flourishing state.
Petition to be printed.
LIBRARY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.]
Mr. Agar Ellis
1428
Mr. Spring Rice
seconded the Motion, and expressed his surprise that the necessity of having a well-regulated Library had not been, earlier felt by the House. He had been one of the first persons to recommend the formation of a library, and those Members who opposed his views, were now sensible of its utility. He agreed that it was quite proper to inquire if it could not be placed on a more advantageous footing. At the same time, he must bear his testimony to the merits of Mr. Spiller, the Librarian, whose knowledge and attention afforded every possible facility to those hon. Members who wished to avail themselves of the means of information which the Library afforded.
Sir R. Inglis
expressed his full concurrence in what had been said by the hon. member for Limerick, as to the services of Mr. Spiller; he also agreed with the hon. Member, that it was a matter of great astonishment that such a body as the House of Commons should have gone on, until three years ago, without a. Library. It was not possible, he believed, that such a fact could be stated of any other deliberative assembly.
Mr. George Dawson
observed, that in the whole range of public men, there was not a more meritorious individual than Mr. Spiller. He had not only exerted himself to the greatest degree in the arrangements of the Library, but in the preparation of copious indexes to all the public statutes from 1801 to 1828, which were invaluable for purposes of reference. This latter occupation was not comprehended in Mr. Spider's official duties; and under all the circumstances, the salary of the Librarian, which was only 300
l
Mr. Warburton
also bore testimony to Mr. Spiller's merits. He understood there was a large collection of papers belonging to another House, containing important and valuable documents, which were inaccessible and useless for want of an index. If an index could be formed, so that a reference to these important papers could be easily made, it would be a great advantage.
Mr. Hume
said, although no one could
1429
l.
Motion agreed to, and the following Committee appointed:—.
Mr. Agar Ellis
, Mr. Secretary Peel, Mr. Spring Rice, Lord Viscount Lowther, Lord Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Cust, Mr. Ridley Colborne, Mr. George Dawson, Sir Robert Inglis, Sir Henry Hardinge, Mr. Williams Wynne, Sir George Clerk, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Courtenay.
MALT DUTIES.]
Mr. George Dawson
rose to move, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of 7 and 8 Geo. 4th, cap. 54, relating to the levying of the Duties on Malt. The regulations which were contained in the Bill which he proposed to introduce had been agreed upon in certain conferences that had taken place between a deputation of the Maltsters and the Commissioners of the Excise Board; and he therefore supposed this Bill would not meet with any opposition. Amongst other alterations, this Bill would do away with the Barley-book, in which the maltster was obliged to enter the quantity of barley he had taken in each day, the quantity he had on hand, and the quantity he sent out. It also altered the number of days allowed for the sprinkling of barley from twelve to eight days, and it likewise contained an important regulation for the abolition of the certificate system. These regulations would be productive of great advantage to the trade. There was one other important alteration proposed by this Bill. After the process of sprinkling, under the present law, an allowance of 20 per cent was made for the increase. The Excise Commissioners had shown to the maltsters that that was too much, and it was now determined to leave it at 17½. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Malt Acts.
Motion agreed to, and Bill brought in.
FOUR-PER-CENT ANNUITIES BILL.—
On the Chancellor
1430
Mr. Bright
said, that as a misapprehension had got abroad respecting what had been said last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would take that opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he meant to bring in a bill this Session for the consolidation of the laws relating to the Assessed Taxes.
The Chancellor of the Excheqeur
said, that it was not his intention to bring in such a bill this Session. The consolidation of the Stamp Acts, which was the consolidation of 152 Acts of Parliament, had been attended with so much labour, that he could not venture to involve himself in a work of similar labour during the present Session. Some progress had been made in the consolidation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, which would be of use in a future Session of Parliament.
Mr. Hume
thought that the excuse just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for not bringing forward a bill for the consolidation of the laws relating to the Assessed Taxes was but a very bad one. If the right hon. Gentleman himself had not time for such labour, his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Herries), who had not introduced any bill this Session, was not equally occupied, and might find time for introducing such a measure.
Mr. Herries
hoped that he was never backward in taking his due share of ministerial labour. At the same time be thought that the House would hardly deem it necessary to have the consolidation of the Stamp Acts, and of the Acts relative to the Assessed Taxes before it at one and the same time. It was not a question of urgent necessity; although desirable, it was not so much so as to make the House submit to the inconvenience of hurrying it forward when there was so much other business before it.
Mr. Bright
had heard the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with much pain, as a great many cases of oppression had taken place under the existing laws. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow the subject to be referred to a committee, in order that it might examine whether any and what alterations could be made in the present Acts; for sure he was, that an interpretation had been put upon some of them which was never intended by their framers,
1431
Mr. Hume
was happy to hear that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade was not reluctant to take his share in this labour. He thought that some consolidation of these laws were necessary, because there were as many cases reversed as confirmed in the appeals made to the judges against the interpretation put upon them by the magistrates in the country. It was a toss up whether the magistrates were right or wrong. It was a libel on the body of 600 gentlemen to say that they were not able to take more than one idea into their consideration at a time. Surely they were able to consider in one Session the consolidation of the Stamp Acts, and of the laws relating to the Assessed Taxes.
Mr. George Dawson
said, that if the hon. member for Aberdeen would only wait till their re-assembling after the recess, he would then see that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade had six bills to introduce, though he had not as yet introduced one bill in the course of the present Session.
Mr. Robinson
trusted that the consolidation of the Assessed Taxes Acts would be rendered unnecessary by a total repeal of those taxes in the next Session. They were most unjust and unequal in their operation, and it would therefore be a been to the people to repeal them. At the same time he must observe, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had not at all exaggerated the uncertainty which prevailed as to the proper interpretation of these Acts. Out of 130 cases of appeal against decisions under those Acts, it appeared from a return laid on the Table, that in only 34 cases had the original decisions been confirmed. Under such circumstances it was quite clear that there must be a great deal of injustice committed by means of these Acts. He admitted that the Treasury was generally disposed to afford any aggrieved parties relief, but that did not diminish his wish to have these taxes repealed.
The Bill was then read a third time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he rose with some degree of shame to propose to add six riders to the present Bill. He admitted that the custom of adding riders to bills was one, in his opinion, "more honoured in the breach than in the observance." At the same time he must observe, that the clauses were of a mere formal nature, and did not at all affect the principle of the Bill.
1432
The clauses were put and agreed to, and the Bill passed.
On putting the question on one of the clauses,
Mr. Hume
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any intention to consolidate the Acts relating to the Post-office. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that such a consolidation was required. In many cases regulations had been made by the Post-office which were not, and could not be, justified by any existing law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the Acts relating to the Post-office were now under consideration, and would shortly be consolidated.
Mr. Hume
: This Session?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could give no other answer than that the subject was under consideration.
STAMP DUTIES ACTS.]
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee on these Acts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that it was understood yesterday evening that he should, upon this occasion, merely submit to the House the schedule of the Duties to be continued by the new Act, and should defer the explanation of them to the next opportunity. In conformity with that understanding he would merely say that there was no intention, as an hon. Gentleman had supposed, to increase the Stamp Duties in this kingdom. There was much done in the schedule to simplify the mode of imposing- these duties, to give accommodation where accommodation could be afforded, and to diminish the general expenditure of the department. As to the propriety of having two columns in the schedule, one containing the present duties, and the other containing the alterations proposed to be made in them, he had only to say, that in many cases it would be extremely difficult, and in some impossible, to make such an arrangement. Where it was practicable he had no objection to agree to the suggestion. He then moved a Resolution repealing all the existing Stamp Acts, and enacting in their stead the duties contained in a Schedule which he handed to the Chairman.
Mr. Rice
(confirmed by Mr. Hume)stated, on behalf of the people of Ireland and of Scotland, that nothing but a schedule containing the past and the present duties
1433
Mr. Bright
hoped that the duties on insurances, and also on small receipts, would be reduced. He further hoped that the new regulations would enable legal practitioners to act with less uncertainty than now as to the stamps which they ought to employ. The present regulations had caused many cases of intolerable hardship, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do no more than justice, while he would confer a great benefit on many persons, if he introduced a clause declaring that all stamps on executed instruments, though contrary to the regulations of the present Acts, should be held valid and legal. He hoped that the Bill would be brought in as speedily as possible after the holidays.
Mr. Robinson
also suggested the propriety of reducing the smaller receipt stamps.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he would pay every attention in his power to the suggestions of the two last speakers. He would bring in the Bill as soon after the recess as possible. At the same time he meant to say, that 152 separate Acts of Parliament, containing a great number of minute regulations, and which were to be consolidated into twelve Acts, gave a great deal of trouble. In the new arrangement also he had attached a schedule to each Act, so that every person might find together the stamps in which he was interested and the law relating to them.
Resolution agreed to; ordered to be reported to-morrow.
TOBACCO DUTIES ACTS.]
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee on these Acts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that last Session his right hon. friend near him introduced a bill to prohibit the growth of Tobacco in Ireland, but that bill not being favourably received by the House, it was withdrawn. The measure he meant to propose had for its object to regulate the growth of Tobacco in every part of the Empire, prohibiting it nowhere, but imposing on it a certain rate of duty.
1434
s
d
s
d.,
Mr. Poulett Thomson
would not address himself to the House in its then state: but he should feel it his duty to oppose this provision on the third reading. It introduced a new species of taxation, that was at once inconvenient, oppressive, and expensive, without the probability that it
1435
Mr. Hume
also would rather prohibit the growth of Tobacco altogether in this country than adopt these regulations. He thought the duty on Tobacco too high, but at the same time he thought the right hon. Gentleman should be careful, as foreign Tobacco yielded a large revenue, how he permitted the plant to be cultivated at home. The machinery connected with the new scheme would necessarily be open to many objections which deserved serious consideration.
Mr. Spring Rice
did not concur with his hon. friends who opposed this measure. A new branch of industry was opened, and if that could be prosecuted without injury to the Revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not to be condemned for sanctioning the experiment. Several persons in Ireland had already embarked large capitals in the cultivation of Tobacco, and it would be hard on them to prohibit the exercise of their industry. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that these persons ought to have no claims for compensation should the duty on Tobacco be reduced; but he could not give his consent to any act of absolute prohibition, and he was surprised that his hon. friends, the members for Dover and Aberdeen, should advocate that principle.
Mr. Alderman Wood
hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might and a substitute for the revenue he derived from Tobacco, and then every man might cultivate what he pleased.
Mr. Warburton
would be satisfied if it could be shown that Tobacco could be profitably cultivated, and yield a revenue equal to that at present obtained from Tobacco. He believed, however, that it would be impossible to collect the present amount of revenue from Tobacco grown at home. The opportunities of evading the duty would be numerous, and they would all be taken advantage of.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
found it singular that he should be of the same opinion as the hon. Members to whom he was generally opposed. He had no doubt that as to the Revenue, prohibition would have been the safer course, and as he must protect the Revenue, for that was
a sine quâ non,
1436
Mr. Robinson
thought the same duty as was levied in the United Kingdom ought also to be levied in Canada. Tobacco could be grown there as well as in Virginia, and he did not know why the duty of 3
s
d
Mr. Bright
was of opinion, if the privilege were extended to Canada, that it ought also to be extended to the West Indies. The Colonies there were labouring under great privations, and would be benefitted by such an advantage. We might then defy the Americans, and furnish ourselves with an article of the finest quality.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had before argued this point with his hon. friend, and had the misfortune to differ from him. The present rate of duty gave a bonus to Tobacco grown in the Colonies sufficient to encourage its cultivation, while the duty to be imposed at home was only to secure the Revenue. It would be anything but a bonus on the cultivation of Tobacco in England.
COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS OF
The House resolved itself into a Committee on this Bill,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that by a Bill to effect Legal Reform, brought in by his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State, there would be a necessity to make certain payments from the Consolidated Fund, and the object of the present measure was, to authorise the appropriation of certain surplus fees to this purpose. The Bill would make no additional charge on the Consolidated Fund. The Chancellor then submitted two Resolutions to the effect that compensation should be made out of the Consolidated Fund to Officers of the superior Courts of Justice, whose legal fees should be reduced by the operation of any Act passed this Session, and the Lords of the Treasury be authorised to purchase the interest of any person in any office or emolument in the superior Courts which may be abolished, the purchase money to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Hume
did not wish that any measure of reform should be stopped for want of means to compensate those who might have a vested right in abuses, but he wished to see a return of the greatest amount that
1437
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that the measure was necessary with a view to his right hon. friend's bill, but that one of its objects would be to guard against extravagant compensation. On former occasions the reforms made were not complete, and some of the high officers re-
1438
Resolutions agreed to.
INDEX TO VOL. XXIII.
NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Algiers, 1190
Amendments, Legal, 613, 1189
Bank Notes, Country, 157
Chancery, Court of, 376
Coal Trade, 296, 1119
—Tax, 365
Corn, Averages of, 832
—Laws, 966
Country, State of, 160
Courts of Justice, Reforms of, 674
Distress, National, 475, 832, 963, 1121
East India Company's Charter, 225, 1265 Ellenborough Divorce Bill, 431
Flour, Foreign, 920
Greece, 1189
India, Christian Natives of, 962 Jews, Relief of, 72, 920 Justice, Administration of, 1118
Kent, Petition from, 835
Labouring Classes, State of, 476 Leather, Tax on, 70
Lifehold Property, Conveyance of, 158 Life Insurance, 158
Malt Tax, 961
Marriages Validating Act, 166
Metals, Precious, Supply of, 1048
Poor, Irish, 225, 366 Poor-Laws (Scotland), 1124 Portugal, Relations with, 160
Retford, East, 831, 1136
—, Witnesses, 1190
Roads, Improvement of, 830
Shipping Interest, 297 Smuggling, Prevention of, 1337 Speakers of the House of Lords, 298 Spirits, 1265 Standing Orders, 961
Taxation, 834 Terceira, A flair at, 737 Tithes, 1115, 1121 Trade, Free, 844 Treaties, Commercial, 1046 Turkey, Relations with, 160
Wales, State of Judicature in, 829
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Ambassadors' Expenses, 1270
Annuities, Conversion of—New 3½ per Cents, 923 1429
Arms Bill, Ireland, 1264 —, Manufacture of, 852
Ballot, 784 Beer Duty, 1263 Bode, Baron de, 1276.
Call of the House, 377
Canada, 855
Carlow, Borough of, 544
Catholics of Galway, 75
—Meters (Dublin), 700
Coal Trade, 223, 457, 1054
Colonial Expenditure, 714
Committees, 624
Compensation to Officers of Courts of Lew, 1436
Cork, Trials at, 545
Corn Trade and Laws, 388, 694, 987
Criminal Law, Revision of, 541
Crown Lands, 1055
Currency, Standard of, 74
Dean, Forest of, 1276
Deccan Prize Money, 709
Distillers of Corn Spirits, 1418
Distress, 3, 176, 229, 378, 383, 456, 448, 624, 697, 789, 846, 1053
—in Ireland, 1268
—in Scotland, 300
Dublin Pig Market, 699
East India Charter, 10
Eldon, Lord, 986
Electors, Number of, 713
Ellenborough's, Lord, Divorce Bill, 1116, 1128, 1214, 1340
Emigration, 782
Excise Acts, 430
Finances, 301
Fisheries, Bounties on, 1271
Flour, Manufacture of, 854
Foreign Relations, 1234
Forgery. 710, 1176, 1269, 1274
Forms of the House, 168
Galway Town, 544
Greece, 712
Haymarket and St. James's Park, 364
—Removal of, 921, 1209
Herring Fishery (Scotland), 2
India, 711
Insolvent Debtors, 694
Ireland, Union with, 701\
Irish Constabulary Force, 1110
James's, St., Park, 364
Jebb, Judge, 10
Jews, The, 1287
Judicature (Scotland), 222
— (Wales), 8, 53
Justice, Administration of, in Scotland, 1288
Kent Petition—Corn-Laws, 987
Law Reform, 710
Lead, 623
Library of House of Commons, 1427
Licensing System, 389
Lottery Officers, 695
Lunatic Commissions, 547
Malt and Beer Trade, 620, 695, 1429
Misrepresentation, 846, 1414
Nation, State of the, 391
Navy Estimates, 716, 931, 999
Ordnance, 716
— Estimates, 1005
Packet Service, Economy in, 1286—
Parliament, Reform in, 543
—, Proceedings in, 1417
Pensions—Dundasand Bathurst, 945
Poor-Laws (Ireland), 389
— Employment, 1405
Portugal, 76, 1404
Rail-road, Avon and Gloucester, 228
Reform, Radical, 181
Select Vestry Act (Ireland), 390
Shipping Interest, 1215
Slavery, 177
Spirits, Duty on, 73,
St. Giles's and St. George's, Bloomsbury, 878, 1209
Stamp Duties, 430, 1452
—(Ireland), 1417
Sugar Duties, 1053
Supply, 12, 931, 990, 1240, 1242, 1410
—, Committee of, 712, 994
Surrey Petition—Double Punishment, 787
Suttees, 390
Tanjore and Carnatic Commissions, 299
Taxation, Injudicious, 857, 1414
Tobacco, Irish, 708
—Duties, 1403, 1433
—, Smuggling of, 299
Treasurer of the Navy, 243
Trial by Jury (New South Wales), 856
—(Scotland), 1138
Truck System, 387, 461
Turnpike Roads, 226
Vagrants, Scotch and Irish, 460, 1273
Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, 1267
Victuallers, Licensed, 172
Waterloo-place, Opening from, 1275
Weavers, Operative, 542
West-India Produce, Duty on, 622
Wool Duties, 389, 546
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
ABERDEEN, Earl of, 163, 166, 744, 1046, 1050, 1031, 1189, 1190
Anglesey Marquis of, 1119, 1121
B
Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 1121
Bathurst, Earl, 485
Buckingham, Duke of, 371, 376, 505
Bute, Marquis of, 1122
C
Camden, Earl, 501, 838
Carnarvon, Earl of, 475, 779, 980, 1203
Carlisle, Earl of, 962
Cawdor, Lord, 830
Chancellor, Lord, 298, 376, 613, 618, 674, 693, 776, 1190, 1197
Clanicarde,
D
Darnley, Earl of, 225, 366, 376, 842
E
Eldon, Earl of, 496, 829, 835
Ellenborough, Lord, 962, 963, 1048, 1050
G
Goderich, Viscount, 772, 831, 1047, 1051, 1265
Gower, Earl, 521
H
Holland, Lord, 160, 165, 166, 521, 753, 778; 966, 1189, 1192, 1203, 1336
K
King, Lord, 966, 985, 1118, 1265
L
Lansdown, Marquis of, 72, 226, 475, 1048, 1050, 1189
Limerick, Earl of, 368, 370, 374, 834, 920
Londonderry, Marquis of, 297
London, Bishop of, 167
M
Maltnesbury, Earl of, 70, 158, 369, 371, 448, 618, 619, 832, 920, 974, 1050, 1336, 1337
Mansfield, Earl of, 490
Melville, Viscount, 1337
Mountcashel, Lord, 9/8
N
Napier, Lord, 1124
R
Radnor, Earl of, 43l, 454, 513, 963
Richmond, Duke of, 475, 476
Rosebery, Earl of, 70, 71, 978
Roslin, Earl of, 516, 961, 985
S
Salisbury, Marquis of, 373, 374, 510, 830, 831, 1190, 1336
Stanhope, Earl, 71, 297, 375, 376, 533, 835, 839, 843, 846, 1046, 1048, 1122, 1124
Suffield, Lord, 834, 844, 961, 1016
W
Wellington, Duke of, 157, 297, 367, 528, 766, 780, 962, 965, 981
Wharncliffe, Lord, 365, 448, 831, 832, 1198
Winchelsea, Karl of, 502, 839
Wicklow, Earl of, 372, 512
Wynford, Lord, 1200
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
ACLAND, Sir T. D. 224, 350, 458, 826
Advocate, the Lord, 1138, 1176
Althorp, Lord 4, 18, 52, 382, 390, 610, 714, 907, 930, 1003
Arbuthnot, Mr. 709, 995, 996, 997
Ashley, Lord, 390
Astell; Mr. 2180, 99, 1338
Attorney-General, S3, 68, 70
Attwood, Mr. 650
B
Bankes, Mr. 904
Bankes, Mr. G. 728
Barclay, Mr. 175, 342, 695
Baring, Mr. A.327, 328
Baring, Mr. 353
Baring, Mr. F, 51, 731, 905, 1213
Batley, Mr. 785, 1138, 1314, 1373
Beaumont, Mr. 801, 997, 998
Bell, Mr. 231
Benet, Mr. 8, 41, 696, 825
Benson, Mr. 171, 1188
Bentinck, Lord G. 1083
Beresford, Sir John, 1377
Beresford, Colonel, 118
Bernal, Mr. 344, 705, 929, 991, 1280, 1424
Blandford, Marquis of, 805, 1389
Bramston, Mr. 648, 1214
Bright, Mr. 430, 849, 913, 1402, 1403, 1410, 1424, 1430, 1433, 1436 Brownlow, Mr. 209, 543, 706, 1421
Buller, Mr. 579
Burdett, Sir F. 18, 47, 176, 388, 807, 817, 847, 986, 989, 1213
Burrell, Mr. 546, 849
Burrell, Sir C. 7, 350, 429
Buxton, Mr. 174, 390, 1184
Byng, Mr. 226, 921, 1209, 1213
C
Calcraft, Mr. J.114, 260
Calvert, Mr. N.1137
Calvert, Mr. C, 227, 620, 697 l410
Campbell, Mr. 300
Carrington, Sir E. 1377
Cartwright, Mr. 4, 381
Cave, Mr. 382
Chancellor of the Exchequer, 301, 328, 352, 353, 384, 431, 622, 697, 708, 714, 715.724, 855, 896, 923, 929, 931, 933, 936, 943, 948, 998, 1002, 1054, 1114, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1136, 1240, 1241, 1279, 1282, 1323, 1402, 1404, 1406, 1410, 1411, 1423, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1435, 1436, 1437
Chandos, Marquis of, 620, 622, 782
Chichester, Mr. 1114
Clerk, Sir G. 256, 716, 717, 722, 726, 730, 731, 931, 934, 938, 939, 942, 943, 944, 951, 964, 993, 999, 1138, 1215, 1249, 1339, 1341, 1:89, l396, 1400, 1425
Cockburn, Sir G. 281, 941, 944, 991, 1005, 1239, 1240
Colborn, Mr. 784, 1107. 1410
Cole, Sir C. 4, 66, 222, 458, 472
Courtenay. Right Hon. T. P. 42, 567, 579
Croker, Right Hon. J.W 263, 266, 719, 1003, 1401
Cripps, Mr., 385
D
Davenport, Mr. C. 5
Davenport, Mr. E. 46, 118, 227, 391, 826
Davis, Mr. Hart, 228, 299
Davies, Colonel, 460, 626, 847, 850, 1090, 1269
Dawson, Mr. Alex. 220, 1114
Dawson, Mr. G. 6, 7, 174, 206, 932, 935, 1114, 1428, 1429, 1431
Denison, Mr. 73, 389, 785, 944
Dickinson, Mr. 385
Douglas, Mr. 272, 622
Drummond, Mr. 1138, 1166, 1418
Duncomb, Mr. 1225, 1272
Dundas, Mr. 301, 955
Dugdale, Mr. 854
E
Eastnor, Lord, 621
Ellis, Mr. I2J4, 1427
Estcourt, Mr. 229, 385, 560
F
Fane, Sir Henry, 1246
Fellowes, Mr. 390
Ferguson, Mr. C. 2, 5, 6, 18, 66, 300, 386, 430, 548, 1164, 1268, 1273 Fergusson, Sir R. 1259
Fitzgerald, Mr. 213
Foster, Mr. 632
Fremantle, Sir T. 783, 1126, 1213
Fyler, Mr. 176, 647
G
Gascoyne, General, 7, 180, 202, 216, 386, 459, 806, 906
Gilbert, Mr. 474
Gooch, Sir T. 804
Gordon, Colonel, 1026
Gordon, Mr. R. 12, 20, 222, 223, 228, 1113, 1262, 1263
Gower, Lord F. L. 10, 222, 700, 799, 1110, 1387
Graham, Sir J. 5, 243, 265, 270, 1007, 1042, 1271, 1274, 1282
Grant, Sir A. 1412
Grant, Mr. C. 1037, 1053
Grant, Mr. R. 541, 1136, 1175, 1282, 1287, 1334, 1380
Greene, Mr. 4
Griffith, Mr. 6
Guise, Sir W. 229
Gurney, Mr. 26, 628
H
Hardinge, Sir H. 15, 22, 24, 1027, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1129, 1131, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1248, 1258, 1261, 1262, 1352, 1369, 1398, 1400, 1401, 1416
Harvey, Mr. 170, 171, 353, 354, 362, 734, 784.785, 823, 1055, 1108
Heathcote, Mr. 382, 460, 620
Heron, Sir R. 7, 94
Herries, Right Hon. J. C. 23, 74, 103, 224, 420, 474, 623, 855, 909, 932, 935, 1228, 1232, 1239, 1273, 1430
Hobhouse. Mr. 364, 378, 923, 953, 1125, 1127, 1209, 1275
Holdsworth, Mr. 224
Honywood, Mr. 989
Horton, Right Hon. J. W., 26, 52, 380, 650, 782, 1027
Howick, Viscount, 21, 22, 262, 301, 419, 716, 723, 733, 1240
Hume, Mr. 23, 52, 69, 170, 222, 224, 231, 284, 299, 338, 360, 379, 387, 458, 543, 694, 695, 706, 709, 711, 714, 715, 717, 734, 736, 784, 788, 854, 923, 929, 931, 932, 933, 937, 939, 940, 942, 991, 992, 993, 994, 99G, 998, 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1053, 1096, 1117,] 125, 1128, 1129, 1135, 1168, 1171, 1211, 1227, 1243, 1246, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1259, 1260, 1262, 1267, 1270, 1339, 1341, 1394, 1395, 1402, 1403, 1411, 1412, 1414, 1428, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1435, 1436
Huskisson, Right hon. W. 10, 19, 21, 141, 179, 272, 281, 283, 347, 473, 580, 789, 913, 1098, 1402
I
Inglis, Sir R. 8, 1303, 1428
Irving, Mr. 383, 385, 402, 418, 826
J
Jephson, Mr. 363, 545, 856, 1112
Jones, Mr. 8, 65
K
King, Mr. 546
Knatcbbull, Sir E.987, 1081
L
Labouchere, Mr. 295, 729, 856
Lawley, Mr. 168, 171, 852, 1252, 1259, 1410
Lennard, Mr. 710, 805, 995, 997, 1137, 1186, 1245, 1274
Lewis, Mr. 205, 227, 734, 735, 818
Lethbridge, Sir T. 228
Liddell, Hon. H.J. 224, 229, 231, 351, 1027
Littleton, Mr. 6, 10, 169, 170, 388, 460, 461, 853, 1256, 1260, 1273 Lockhart, Mr. 457, 649, 702
Lowther, Lord, 226, 365, 921, 922, 1083, 1209, 1276
Lushington, Dr. 1325, 1382, 1397
Lindsay, Colonel, 1168
M
Maberley, Mr. 22, 237, 242, 722, 732, 905, 932, 934, 935, 936, 938, 939, 940, 992, 997, 1000, 1004, 1031, 1245, 1248, 1257, 1261
Macauley, Mr. 1308
Macintosh, Sir J. 1274, 1314
Marryat, Mr. 1221, 1423
Martin, Sir T. B. 933, 934, 944, 922, 1003
Martin, Mr. J. 1188
Milton, Lord, 350
Monck, Mr. 221, 824, 992, 994, 1392, 1403
Moore, Mr. 391, 699, 700, 702, 1268, 1426
Morpeth, Lord, 117, 1031, 1328
Munday, Mr. 5
Murray, Sir G.49, 301, 788, 1241
N
Newport, Sir J. 173, 391, 459, 706, 1054, 1417
Nugent, Lord, 380, 389, 714, 1135, 1406, 1410
O
O'Connell, Mr. 5, 7, 10, 62, 177, 181, 221, 242, 306, 389, 391, 460, 544, 546, 699, 701, 703 707, 713, 785, 787, 790
O'Grady, Colonel, 52
O'Hara, Mr. 75
Osborne, Lord F. 1393
Owen, Sir J. 8, 64
P
Pallmer, Mr. C. N. 786, 787, 1403, 1427
Palmer, Mr. F. 25
Palmerston, Viscount, 76, 156, 917, 1404
Parnell, Sir H. 721, 736, 910, 934, 935
Peel, Sir Robert, 9, 10, 20, 22, 67, 126, 154, 155, 216, 286, 655, 702, 707, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 732, 734, 783, 817, 911, 956, 1031, 1042, 1170, 1176, 1237
Peel, Colonel, 1250
Peel, Mr. W. 803
Pendarvis, Mr. 1286
Perceval, Mr. 716, 854, 1005, 1021, 1027, 1246, 1247, 1250, 1251, 1254, 1257, 1259, 1263, 1328, 1412
Plillimore, Dr. 1280, 1362, 1369, 1380
Phillips, Sir G. 698
Portman, Mr. 24, 39, 384, 706, 724, 783
Powlett, Lord W. 623
Protheroe, Mr. 8, 228, 923, 996
R
Rancliffe, Lord, 383
Rice, Mr. 74, 75, 183, 457, 1111, 1186, 1374, 1399, 1424, 1428, 1432, 1435
Ridley, Sir M. W. 5, 223, 381, 702, 850
Robinson, Mr. 237, 338, 847, 930, 1222, 1231, 1431, 1433, 1436
Rowley, Sir W. 3
Russell, Lord, J. 108, 383, 851, 1126, 1212, 1234, 1238, 1410
S
Sadler, Mr. 381, 410
Sandon, Viscount, 155
Sebright, Sir J. 1106
Sibthorp, Colonel, 378, 624, 846, 952, 1247, 1411, 1417
Slaney, Mr. 7, 44, 220, 221, 380, 386
Smith, Mr. W.. 73, 363, 387, 1106, 1241, 1333, 1399, 1404, 1426
Smith, Mr. J. 41
Smith, Mr. V. 726, 734
Solicitor-General, 65, 1107, 1173, 1188, 1286,
Somerset, Lord E. 1030
Speaker, The, 168, 169, 378, 922, 1212
Stanley, Lord, 697, 1274, 1285, 1286
Stanley, Hon. E. G. S., 944, 1276
Stewart, Mr. J. 1231
Stewart, Sir M. S. 542, 1155
Sykes, Mr. 456, 1215, 1233
T
Taylor, Mr. 547
Tennyson, Mr. 1130, 1137, 1214
Thompson, Alderman, 3, 169, 170, 172, 223, 235, 346, 825, 853, 1187, 1257, 1403, 1434 Thomson, Mr. P., 1, 177, 857, 918, 929, 1241, 1245
Trant, Mr. 76, 705, 824, 1113, 1115, 1187, 1388, 1412
Trench, Colonel, 1248
Trevor, Mr. 8, 6S
U
Uxbridge, Lord, 1026
V
Van Homrigh, Mr. 701
Vivian, Sir R. H. 560, 798
Vyvyan, Sir R. 377, 572
W
Waithman, Alderman, 231, 238, 639, 730, 1210, 1227
Warburton, Mr. 362, 826, 852, 907, 997, 1136, 1403, 1428, 1435
Ward, Mr. 406, 852, 1126, 1210
Warrender, Sir G. 270, 295, 301, 727, 1160
Wells, Mr. 988
Western, Mr. 541, 854, 916, 1422
Wetherell, Sir C. 705, 1131
Whitmore, Mr. 386, 1257
Wilbraham, Mr. 65
Wilson, Sir R. 355, 361, 1126
Wilson, Colonel, 822, 1271
Winnington, Sir T. E. 846
Wodehouse, Mr. 74, 458, 1426
Wood, Mr. C. 18, 729, 951
Wood, Colonel, 1040, 1393
Wood, Alderman, 173, 223, 235, 854, 1400, 1401, 1435
Wortley, Mr. 224, 711
Wrottesley, Sir J. 388, 937, 938, 1240. 1251, 1258, 1403, 1413
Wynn, Hon. C. W. W. 65, 1041
END OF VOL. XXIII.
ADVERTISEMENT
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES—(HANSARD'S).
HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES consists of two Series: the
first
second,
"To the fidelity and strict impartiality with which it has been conducted, testimonials of the most flattering description have been borne by nearlyes very one of our great Public Men, and by all our most distinguished Literary Journals. In the thirty-eighth number of the
Quarterly Review
"a Record, which, for fidelity, fulness, and despatch, has certainly never been equalled."
"Neither has the
Edinburgh Review
indispensable parts of all Collections of English History.'
"It is hardly necessary to add, that a Work which has been thus spoken of, and which, in consequence, has found its way into most of the great public and private Libraries, not only of the United Empire, but of Europe and America, will continue to be conducted with that fidelity and perseverance which a reception so flattering is calculated to produce. As a book of Parliamentary-historical Reference it is, and will continue to be, '
indispensable.'
"In addition to the Debates of both Houses, the Work contains an invaluable collection of Parliamentary Papers, consisting of many hundred Reports, Estimates, Returns, Protests, Petitions, Treaties, Conventions, Lists of Divisions, &c. &c.; together with a regular Series, for the last twenty-five years, of Accounts relative to the Finances and to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom. These documents are exact copies of those laid before Parliament. They are to be met with in no other publication, and will be found eminently convenient and useful to the Reader: to whom, indeed, if his attention be at all turned to subjects of Political Economy, they are essentially necessary.