THE
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. V.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL,
TO
THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY 1821.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY T. C. HANSARD, PETERBOROUGH-COURT, FLEET-STREET;
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME
AND BROWN; J. M. RICHARDSON; BLACK, KINGSBURY, PARBURY, AND ALLEN;
J. HATCHARD & SON; J. RIDGWAY & SONS; E. JEFFERY & SON; RODWELL &
MARTIN; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1822.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
V. PROTESTS.
VI. REPORTS.
VII. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1821.April 3. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
1
1821.April 11. Committee on Foreign Trade
150
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
151
1821.April 16. Petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims
217
Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
220
1821.April 17. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
279
1821.May 4. Bank Cash Payments Bill
495
1821.May 10. Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
626
1821.May 14. Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
693
1821.May 21. Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
853
1821.May 22. Timber Duties Bill
881
1821.May 24. Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
973
1821.June 14. Bishop of Peterborough's Examination Questions—Petition of the Rev. H. W. Neville
1166
1821.June 19. Irish Stationery
1214
1821.June 21. Criminal Laws
1231
1821.June 25. Slave Trade
1285
1821.July 2. Economy in the Public Expenditure
1464
1821.July 5. Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1504
1821.July 9. Agricultural Horse Duty Repeal Bill
1505
1821.July 11. The King's Speech at the Close of the Session
1517
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1821. April 3. Mr. O'Connell
3
Carlisle Election—Report of Privileges Committee
4
Union Duties
5
Malt Duties Repeal Bill
6
1821. April 5. State of the Game Laws
38
Agricultural Horses Tax
42
Timber Duties
50
1821. April 6. Newington Select Vestry Bill
64
Metropolis Roads Bill
69
Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting Committees of Supply
70
Mr. Hume's Motion for an Instruction to the Committee of Supply, to take into consideration the Recommendation of the Finance Committee
81
Army Estimates
85
1821. April 9. Wool Tax
89
African Company's Bill
90
Bank Cash Payments Bill
91
Irish Bank Cash Payments Bill
148
1821. April 11. Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill—Petition from Limerick
153
British Museum
155
Ilchester Gaol
156
Army Estimates
163
1821. April 12. Petition from Lyme Regis respecting the Elective Franchise
170
Usury Laws
175
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting Civil Offices in the Ordnance Department
180
Scotch Malt Tax
201
1821. April 13. Bank Cash Payments Bill
203
Army Estimates
208
Smuggling Prevention Acts
215
1821. April 16. Timber Duties Bill
264
Army Estimates
273
1821. April 17. Mr. Lambton's Motion for a Reform of Parliament
359
1821. April 18. Steam Engines
439
Mr. Lambton's Motion for a Reform of Parliament
441
1821. April 19. Petition from London and Westminster respecting fining a Defendant during his Defence
456
Commercial Intercourse with Ireland
459
1821. April 30. Army Estimates
464
1821. May 1. Army Estimates
481
1821. May 2. Petition of James Turner, complaining of his Imprisonment
484
Army—Half-pay Officers
487
Army—Superannuations and Retired Allowances
488
Army Estimates
490
Metropolis Police Bill
491
1821. May 30. Privilege of Parliamant—Creditors of Mr. Christie Burton
1039
Irish Treasury Bills
1041
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill
1043
Constitutional Association
1046
1821. May 31. Mr. Bennet's Motion for better securing the Independence of Parliament
1053
Ordnance Estimates
1066
1821. June 1. Maxwell's Slave Removal Bill
1068
The Budget
1073
Ill Treatment of Horses Bill
1098
1821. June 4. Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill
1099
1821. June 6. Constitutional Association—Petition of Mr. Dolby
1114
Lord Nugent's Motion respecting the Administration of Affairs
1053
in Tobago
1119
Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1125
American Loyalists
1126
1821. June 7. Ionian Islands—Conduct of Sir Thomas Maitland
1128
1821. June 8. Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1150
1821. June 13. Miscellaneous Estimates
1163
1821. June 14. Constitutional Association—Petition of Edward King
1181
Scotch Burghs
1182
Mr. Curwen's Motion for the Repeal of the Agricultural Horse Tax
1184
1821. June 15. Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill
1192
Irish Revenue Inquiry Bill
1193
Irish Estimates
1200
1821. June 18. Husbandry Horses Duties Repeal Bill
1201
Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1204
1821. June 20. Burning of Hindoo Widows
1217
State of Europe
1222
Poor Relief Bill
1228
1821. June 21. Lord W. Bentinck's Motion respecting the Affairs of Sicily
1234
Mr. Stuart Wortley's Motion respecting the Declaration of the Allied Sovereigns at Laybach
1254
1821. June 22. Mr. Spring Rice's Motion respecting the Conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady
1260
Austrian Loan
1280
American Loyalists
1285
1821. June 25. Navigation Acts
1289
Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1310
East India Private Trade Bill
1311
1821. June 26. Irish Revenue Inquiry Bill
1314
Mr. Owen's Plan—New Lanark
1316
Slave Trade
1325
New Stamp Office at Edinburgh
1340
Mr. Theodore Hook
1342
1821. June 27. Mr. Hume's Motion for Economy and Retrenchment in the Public Expenditure
1345
1821. June 28. Apprenticed Slaves
1444
Committee of Supply—Grant to General Desfourneaux—Government Proclamations in Ireland
1445
1821. May 4. Duty on East India Sugars
508
State of the Nation, as connected with the Events now passing in Europe
510
Navy Estimates
519
1821. May 7. Steam Engines Bill
535
Continental Affairs—March of the Russian Army
538
Navy Estimates
541
1821. May 8. Breach of Privilege—Mr. Bennet's Complaint against the "John Bull" Newspaper
549
Mr. Lennard's Motion for the Repeal of the Seditious Meetings, and Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Bills
553
Poor Relief Bill
572
Bankruptcy Laws Amendment Bill
588
1821. May 9. Breach of Privilege—Mr. Bennet's Complaint against the "John Bull" Newspaper
589
Inquiry into the State of English Courts of Justice
598
Reform of Parliament—Petition from Carlisle
603
Lord John Russell's Motion for a Reform of Parliament
604
1821. May 10. Breach of Privilege—Mr. Bennet's Complaint against the "John Bull" Newspaper
633
Scot's County Representation
651
Steam Engines' Bill
654
Bank of Ireland Bill
655
1821. May 11. Breach of Privilege—Complaint against the "John Bull" Newspaper
656
Ordnance Estimates
681
1821. May 14. Ordnance Estimates
698
1821. May 15. Petitions complaining of the proceedings at Manchester
713
Sir Francis Burdett's Motion respecting the Transactions at the Manchester Meeting
719
1821. May 16. Sir Francis Burdett's Motion respecting the Transactions at the Manchester Meeting
775
1821. May 18. Ordnance Estimates
846
1821. May 21. Ordnance Estimates—Barbadoes Fund
858
Ordnance Estimates
863
Ordnance Estimates for Ireland
878
1821. May 23. Constitutional Association
890
Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill
894
1821. May 24. Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Four and a half per Cent Duties
974
Occasional Votes Bill
983
Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill
983
Poor Relief Bill
987
1821. May 25. Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill
999
Army Extraordinaries
1001
1821. May 28. Petition from Newfoundland for Reform in the Courts of Justice
1015
Miscellaneous Estimates
1017
Government Advertisements
1024
1821. May 30. Mr. Taylor's Motion respecting Delays in the Court of Chancery, and in the Appellant Jurisdiction
1025
1821. June 29. Committee of Supply—Alien Office
1447
Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1451
Appropriation Bill
1455
1821. June 30. Grant to the Duke of Clarence—Coronation of the Queen
1460
1821. July 2. Grant to the Duke of Clarence—Coronation of the Queen
1474
Poor Relief Bill
1479
1821. July 3. Constitutional Association—Petition of W. Benbow
1484
Mr. Whitbread's Motion on the Constitutional Association
1486
Appropriation Bill
1501
1821. July 10. Court of Session—Petition of W. Jameson
1508
State of Education in Ireland
1510
Coronation of the Queen
1514
1821. July 11. Coronation of the Queen
1515
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
1821. July 12. King's Speech at the Close of the Session
1517
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS for the Year ended 5th January 1821
App.
Copy of Mr. Lambton's proposed Bill "For Effecting a Reform in the Representation of the People in Parliament"
App.
V. PROTESTS.
1821. May 22. Protest against the Timber Duties Bill
884
VI. REPORTS.
Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the Foreign Trade of the Country. July 18th 1820
App.
First Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Means of Improving and Maintaining the Foreign Trade of the Country. March 9th 1821.
App.
Second Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the Means of Improving and Maintaining the Foreign Trade of the Country
App.
Report relative to the Trade with the East Indies and China, from the Select Committee of the House of Lords, on the Means of Extending and Securing the Foreign Trade of the Country. April 11th 1821
App.
Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the depressed state of the Agriculture of the United Kingdom. June 18 1821
App.
VII. LISTS.
1821. April 3. LIST of the Majority and also of the Minority, on the second reading of the Malt Duties Repeal Bill
35
1821. April 5. LIST of the Minority on Lord Althorp's Amendment to the Timber Duties Bill, in favour of Norway Deals
63
LIST of the Minority on Sir H. Parnell's Amendment to the Timber Duties Bill, to equalize all the Duties at the end of five Years
63
1821. April 6. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion against going into Committees of Supply
81
LIST of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion for reducing the Grant for the War Office
88
1821. April 9. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Baring's Motion respecting the Bank Cash Payments Bill
147
1821. April 11. LIST of the Majority and also of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Adjutant General's Office
163
1821. April 12. LIST of the Majority and also of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting Civil Offices in the Ordnance Department
200
LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons on the Scotch Malt Tax
202
1821. April 13. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Salary of the Commander-in-Chief
213
1821. April 16. LIST of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion for postponing the Consideration of the Estimate for the Medical Service of the Army
274
1821. April 17. LIST of the Contents, and also of the Not-Contents, on the Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill
356
1821. April 18. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Lambton's Motion for a Reform of Parliament
453
1821. April 30. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion for reducing the Expenses of the Civil Establishment of the Army
468
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Military College
474
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for Foreign Half-pay Agency
480
1821. May 2. LIST of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion respecting Half-Pay Officers
488
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting Superannuations and Retired Allowances in the Army
489
1821. May 4. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Bernal's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Admiralty Office
532
1821. May 7. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for an Inquiry into the Expenditure of the Dock Yards
544
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Expenses of Improvement of the Dock Yards one half
549
1821. May 8. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Lennard's Motion for the Repeal of the Seditious Meetings, and Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Bill
573
1821..May 9. LIST of the Minority on Sir John Newport's Motion respecting the Commission of Inquiry into the State of English Courts of Justice
602
LIST of the Majority and also of the Minority on Lord John Russell's Motion for a Reform of Parliament
624
1821..May 10. LIST of the Minority on Lord A. Hamilton's Motion respecting the Scots County Representation
654
1821..May11. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Bennet's Complaint respecting the "John Bull" Newspaper
676
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Ordnance Estimates
687
1821..May 14. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Ordnance Office
710
1821..May 16. LIST of the Minority on Sir Francis Burdett's Motion respecting the Transactions at the Manchester Meeting
845
1821..May 21. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting Ordnance Repairs for the Island of Barbadoes
863
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion for reducing the Staff of the Artillery
866
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Medical Establishment of the Military Department of the Ordnance
867
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Military Academy at Woolwich
868
LIST of the Minority on the Ordnance Estimates
878
1821..May 23. LIST of the Majority and also of the Minority in the House of Commons on the Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill
971
1821..May 24. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Creevey's Motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent Duties
982
1821..May 25. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Bennet's Motion for reducing the Grant for Army Extraordinaries
1011
LIST of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Commissariat Department
1015
1821..May 28. LIST of the Minority on Colonel Davies's Motion for reducing Grant for the Barrack Department
1021
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for such Expenses of a Civil Nature as do not form a part of the Ordinary Charges of the Civil List
1024
1821..May 30. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Maberly's Motion respecting Irish Treasury Bills
1043
1821..May 31. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Bennet's Motion for better securing the Independence of Parliament
1066
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant for the Salaries of the Master General, &c. of the Ordnance
1067
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Gipps's Motion for reducing the Grant for Ordnance Barrack Expenses
1067
1821. June 4. LIST of the Minority on the third reading of the Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill
1112
1821. June 7. LIST of the Majority on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Conduct of Sir Thomas Maitland in the Ionian Islands
1149
1821. June 8. LIST of the Minority on the Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1163
1821. June 15. LIST of the Minority on the Irish Revenue Inquiry Bill
1200
1821. June 18. LIST of the Minority on the Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1208
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for reducing the Grant to the Duke of Clarence from 6,000
l.
l
1210
LIST of the Minority on Mr. Bernal's Motion for omitting the Arrears in the Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1213
1821. June 20. LIST of the Minority on Mr. Hutchinson's Motion on the State of the Nation
1228
1821. June 21. LIST of the Minority on Lord W. Bentinck's Motion respecting the Affairs of Sicily
1254
1821. June 25. LIST of the Minority on the Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1311
1821. June 27. LIST of the Majority and also of the Minority on Mr. Hume's Motion for Economy and Retrenchment in the Public Expenditure
1442
1821. June 29. LIST of the Minority on the Grant for the Alien Office
1450
LIST of the Minority on the Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1455
1821. July 2. LIST of the Minority on the Grant to the Duke of Clarence
1478
During the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Twenty-third Day of January 1821, in the First Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.
1821.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 3, 1821.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
The Roman Catholic Disability Removal bill, was brought from the Commons by sir John Newport, attended by an unusually large number of members.
The Earl of Donoughmore,
in rising to move that the bill be read a first time, said, he was deeply impressed with a sense of the important situation in which he was placed, by being selected to advocate the claims of the Roman Catholics in that House. He had lately had communications with some of the first men in the kingdom on both sides of the question, the result of which induced him to believe, that in the progress of the bill through the House such amendments would be made as would remove every material objection that might be entertained on the part of the Catholics to the measure, without at the same time failing to give those securities which the Protestant establishment in church and state had a right to require.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the bill was itself of the greatest importance, and coming, as it did, recommended by the House of Commons, it was in every respect entitled to their most serious consideration. That consideration he was certain it would receive, and whatever their lordships' decision might be, he trusted, that the question would be discussed with all that moderation which had hitherto characterised its progress. Having him-
2
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, that with respect to one of the points alluded to by the noble earl, he felt exactly as he did; but he was sorry the noble earl did not agree with him in the general principle or the bill. If the Roman Catholics entertained sentiments opposed to the principles of the constitution, he should object to grant them the proposed relief; but he was convinced, they were as loyal as the members of any other persuasion. The noble lord alluded, in terms of praise, to the manner in which the other House had met the wishes of the friends of the Catholics, and observed, that if the Catholics were not grateful for the conduct of
3
The Lord Chancellor
apologised to the House for troubling them in such a stage, even upon so interesting a subject; but, having read the bill, and looked at that part of it which referred to the office which he had the honour to fulfil, he thought it necessary to state, that he could not agree to a measure of such vast alteration. Notwithstanding his great respect for many noble lords from whom he differed, and for the recommendation of the other House, he had no difficulty in stating, that though, on retracing his former opinions, he would not hesitate to change them if he thought they were wrong, he had every reason to conclude, that it would be impossible to introduce any modifications which could induce him to consent to the bill. He would, however, bestow his best reflection oh the subject between this and the second reading.
The bill was read a first time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday April 3, 1821
MR. O'CONNELL.]
Mr. Ellis, of Dublin,
as soon as the Speaker had taken the chair, rose to correct a mis-statement which had appeared in some of the public papers, respecting what had fallen from him during the debate of last night. He was aware, that the error was quite unintentional, for he was satisfied with the general accuracy, impartiality and ability with which the reports of the proceedings of that House were sent forth to the world. "What he was represented to have said of a gentleman, who took an active part in Catholic proceedings in Ireland, was, that he (Mr. O'Connell) was a mushroom orator. Now, he had said no such thing. What he said was this—in allusion to the Catholic aristocracy of Ireland, that as to the antiquity of that gentleman's family pretensions, respectable as they were, when compared with that aristocracy, they were of the mushroom celebrity of a day. He made the allusion, not for the purpose of reflecting on that gentleman's family pretensions, which, he repeated, were respectable, but merely comparatively as to their relation to the aristocracy. He was the more anxious to have the mistake corrected, as nothing could be further from his intentions than to hurt the
4
CARLISLE ELECTION—REPORT OF
Mr. Wynn
brought up the Report of the Committee of privilege, appointed to inquire into the interference of the military at the late election of Carlisle. The report was read as follows:—
Mr. Wynn
said, that he had never sat in a committee in which more impartiality was manifested, or more, anxiety
5
Mr. Bennet
would venture to say, that, although at most elections political feeling was necessarily excited, yet there never was an election at which it was less observable than at the election for Carlisle. Certainly, nothing had occurred there which could justify the introduction of the military. He did not know in whose hands the regulation and employment of the civil power of Carlisle were placed; but, in his opinion, something ought to be done for the effectual revision of the system.
Mr. James
said, he had felt it necessary to bring this subject before the House; but, after the decision of the committee, he was not inclined to press it further.
The resolution was agreed to.
UNION DUTIES.]
Mr. Canning
presented a petition from the merchants and traders of Liverpool, praying for a repeal of the Union duties. He was instructed to support the petition on three grounds: First, on the ground, that the duties were productive of an inconsiderable revenue; Secondly, that much inconvenience was sustained in their collection; and lastly, that by their discontinuance great assistance would be rendered to the Irish manufacturers. He wished to know, from the chancellor of the exchequer whether it was his intention speedily to bring the subject before the House.
6
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that he had received a communication from the chamber of commerce in Dublin, intimating, that it would be more agreeable, if the consideration of the subject were deferred for the present session.
Sir H. Parnell
protested against any further delay. He was convinced that, by a repeal of the duties, the Irish manufacture would be considerably benefited. He hoped the session would not pass without some step bring taken.
Mr. Canning
expressed a wish, if it were resolved that the subject should not be considered in the preset session, that it should be understood by all parties, that it would certainly be taken into consideration in the course of the next.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
pledged himself to bring the subject before the House at as early a period as possible.
Ordered to lie on the table.
MALT DUTIES REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Western
d.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
7
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no objection to go into a committee, to re-consider the subject. The question divided itself into two points—namely, whether any good grounds could be stated for making a general distinction between England and Scotland; and if so, to what extent that distinction ought to be allowed.
Lord A. Hamilton
said, he had on a former occasion, moved a string of resolutions relative to the duty on Scotch barley, which appeared to him to be most unfair and disproportionate, with reference to the barley of this country. He had done so, because he conceived, that the bad quality of the Scotch barley required a considerable reduction of the duty. With regard to the discussion of that night, he should certainly give his vote for the motion; for by repealing the tax there would be a saving of 1
s.
d.
d.
Mr. Coke
said, the noble lord had asked his opinion on this subject, and he would endeavour to answer him. The Scotch gentlemen, it should seem, were expected to vote one way on one night, and another way upon another. The chancellor of the exchequer had dextrously held out a sort of hope, that, if those hon. members would not vote against him to-night, he would do something for them at a future opportunity; but he advised them to put no trust in the right hon. gentleman. If the friends of economy and retrenchment in all departments of the public expenditure would this evening keep together, there could be no doubt they would carry their question; but if they split and separated, ministers would take advantage of their disunion. For himself, he had been uniformly in favour of the repeal of every tax, so long as it could be with propriety reduced; and though he highly approved of the proposed repeal, he was of opinion, that it did not do so much for the agricul-
8
Sir J. Shelley,
in allusion to a former speech of Mr. Huskisson, contended, that the agricultural distress was now general. The right hon. gentleman was speaking on the experience of the western part of Sussex, where the farmers were not in an absolute state of ruin; but if he looked to the eastern parts of the same county, there he would find the ruin complete. He would there find many hundred acres which he might occupy merely on paying the poor rates and taxes, and this not very bad land, or land newly brought into tillage, but land which had been cultivated for centuries. The distress did not fall on the farmers alone. The moderate landed proprietors suffered as much. They had their farms thrown back upon their hands, and were obliged to get them tilled by hired bailiffs, who had no interest in them. It had been asked how, if this tax was repealed, the interest of the debt could be paid? The chancellor of the exchequer had told them, that this year there was a saving of a million. The country would not find any benefit from, this, unless there was a proportionate reduction of taxes. It was better therefore to repeal the tax in question, than to add in some small degree to the inefficient Sinking Fund, by which the country had been for a long time humbugged. The agriculturists could not expect relief from the fund holders. They must therefore look to ministers. If an absolute reduction of the amount of taxes could not be suffered, he should propose a limited property tax of two per cent, by which three millions might be raised; other taxes to an equal amount being repealed. It had been said, that if this tax was repealed, his majesty's ministers would resign. He did not wish to see them resign their places, he only wished them to resign a few of their oppressive taxes.
The Hon. J. W. Ward
observed, that the resolution of gentlemen on the other side to persist in the course of proceeding, of which the repeal of the malt tax seemed to form a part, appeared to be founded on three positions: the first, that we could go on with 1,500,000
l.
9
10
11
Mr. Grenfell
agreed with the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, but more particularly on the subject of the sinking fund. As for the fallacy to which the hon. gentleman had adverted, he wished to get rid of that part of the sinking fund that was kept up by borrowing; for this part of the system must of necessity be a fallacy. The only sinking fund that could ever be applicable to the reduction of the debt, must be the surplus of the income above the expenditure of the country; and, from the finance papers before the House, it certainly did appear, that there was at this moment a clear, actual, and real sinking fund. If, however, the fact were otherwise, it behoved ministers to establish one, and an efficient one too, without a day's delay. He was one of those who, in 1819, gave their consent and support to the imposition of certain new taxes, amounting to 3,500,000
l.
12
Mr. Lockhart
declared, that he never heard in that House any recommendation to violate the public faith, or to commit any spoliation upon the public creditor: but he had heard much in that House,
13
14
15
l.
l.
Mr. John Smith
said, that after [the fullest examination which he could give this subject, he had come to a conclusion opposite to that of the hon. member who had last spoken. That he felt deeply for the distress under which agriculture laboured, he could assure the House; but then his first inquiry referred to the
quantum
s.
16
l.
17
felo de se.
Sir J. Boughey
could not feel himself justified in supporting the repeal of this fax, unless he were assured, by those who
18
Mr. Curwen
wished, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, instead of merely talking about his feeling for agricultural distress, would afford relief to the farmer by some practical measure. With regard to the existence of that distress, there could be no doubt. The committee which was pursuing its labours up stairs, was not designed to convince the farmers of their wants, or the landlords of the sufferings of their tenants, but, to satisfy and overcome the unbelief of ministers. On the subject of alleviation, he admitted, that to lower the poor rates would afford great relief; but it was still a mystery how that desirable object was to be effected. There was a great difference between the condition of the fund holder and of the landowner; the fundholder received his 100
l.
l.
Mr. Benett,
of Wiltshire, earnestly recommended, that nothing should be done to destroy or to endanger the connexion between the landowner and the fund-holder. He was well convinced, that the best customers of the manufacturers were the farmers, and the best customers of the farmers the manufacturers. The interests of the productive classes of the country
19
l.
l.
Mr. Keith Douglas
said, he was as sensible as any member, of the difficulties tinder which the agriculturists laboured, and would go as far as any other to relieve them. The present measure, however, he did not think calculated for their relief. Indeed, no honourable member
20
Mr. Bright
said, that he was one of those who admitted the existence of great agricultural distress; at the same time he could not deny, that there were many taxes, the abolition of which would be of more importance to the community than that which was now sought to be repealed. The repeal of many of these taxes was loudly called for by the present situation of the country; yet he felt himself bound to vote for the repeal of the tax. Considering the present state of the country and of Europe, he would say, that it ought to be repealed; for he was convinced, that if the resources of government were diminished their vigilance would be increased. It was said, that this principle of reduction began at the wrong end; that the House had first voted the men, and it would be necessary to vote the money for their support. He was not one of those who had joined in such large votes; but let those who so voted look to it; for he considered, that if this burden was removed, reductions might be afterwards made in those estimates which were to come, fully equal to its amount. He called, then, upon those members who were favourable to the repeal of the tax, and who might have joined in the vote for the large military force, to look to every item which was yet unvoted. All classes were distressed; and he was satisfied that the only effectual mode of relief—the only means to place this country in the proud situation in which she had been accustomed to stand, and which, he trusted she would long continue to hold among the nations of Europe, would be, effectual economy and retrenchment. He was not one of those who would tax the funds to relieve the land, or the land to relieve the funds. The interests of both were so "mixed up, that the injury of one would be the depression of the other. In this view of the case, he would repeal this tax, in the hope of being able effectually to resist the improvidence of ministers. It was said, that the landholder had reason to complain of the Poor laws and of Tithes,
21
Colonel Wood
admitted, that the interests of the agricultural and commercial classes were the same, and that nothing could be more fatal than to separate them; but he could not believe that the reduction of our finances would be the means of making us more respectable in the eyes of the other powers of Europe. He admitted that the malt tax, as a general measure, pressed hard on the comforts of the poor; but he could not see how this bill was calculated to relieve them. The whole of the tax now proposed to be taken of would not make the difference of one farthing in the price of a pot of beer; but even of that difference the consumers would not get the benefit. The brewers had first to dispose of their large stock on hand; and as very little malt was made after the month of May, this would carry them on to nearly the next sitting of parliament; and then, before they reduced their price, they would wait to see whether the chancellor of the exchequer would propose a renewal of the tax; so that if the present bill were carried, it would be nearly a year before the consumers could derive any benefit from it, however small. The system adopted on the other side seemed to be that of taking a round at every tax, in the hope that with some one they might be able to succeed. There was the motion for the repeal of the tax on malt; for the repeal of that on windows; for a repeal of the wool tax; and, for the repeal of the agricultural horse duty. Now, he contended that the repeal of those taxes would be a great injury to the country. The present tax was proposed to be repealed for the relief of the agriculturists; but the House should recollect that there was a committee sitting up stairs on that
22
Mr. Frankland Lewis
said, he thought it was a decidedly wise step in the House to have gotten rid of the property tax, because it operated upon too few subjects. This objection did not apply to the malt tax. To render a property tax at all endurable, it ought to exclude from any share of the burden it cast on society, those persons who had merely a life interest in their property. He would not consent to shake the security of the country by making any diminution rashly in the revenue. He could not therefore consent, under the present circumstances, to take off this tax. If establishments of a great extent were necessary for the public security, suitable means ought to be given to his majesty's government to support the charges. He should be particularly averse to this repeal, as the reduction of the tax would necessarily affect the sinking fund. From what he had witnessed of the disposition of ministers to reduce our establishments, he had no doubt, that suitable reductions from time to time would be acceded to. The repeal of the present tax would not, after all, afford relief to the extent of one farthing in the pot of porter.
Captain Gordon
corroborated the statements with respect to Scotland, and wished for an equalization of the duties. He objected to this bill, that it did not extend to Scotland.
Mr. Smyth
strongly recommended economy, both in our military establishments and in the expense of collecting the revenue. The best preparation for war was, to husband our resources in peace. He should certainly vote for the repeal of the tax.
Lord Castlereagh,
before he made the observations which occurred to him, requested the clerk to read the following entry on the Journals of the 8th June, 1819, of the sixth Resolution of the Committee on Public Income and Expenditure:
23
l.
l.
24
25
26
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
27
l.
28
29
l.
30
l.
l.
31
Mr. Coke,
of Norfolk, said, he gave his cordial support to the bill. The system which had been acted upon, and which he had opposed for the last IB years, had brought the country to the state to which he had always expected it would be brought. He almost regretted that he had lived thus long to see the country in its present state. Dire taxation was the cause of the existing distress. But it was said, the public debt must not be reduced. God forbid, that it should be improperly reduced but in time, if something were not done, Hits might become unavoidable. It was said, the House must not break faith with the public creditor. But had that House not already broken its faith? He had been a member of it for 40 years, and had never known it to keep faith in any case. In his opinion, a reform of the system was necessary. The noble lord had said, that the repeal of the malt tax would not benefit the landed interest. In reply to this he would refer the noble lord to the experience of the years 1815 and 1817-In those years barley was only 18s. the quarter. The malt tax was repealed, and the barley rose to a remunerating price, and no complaint was heard on the subject until the chancellor of the exchequer imposed a new malt tax. The price of barley upon this again declined.
Lord A. Hamilton
rose amid loud cries of "question." After the reception he had encountered, he felt little disposition to occupy their time; but although he might have some difficulty in justifying to the House a trespass upon its attention, he should have still more in justifying, when he met his constituents, a silent vote upon the subject in debate. The noble lord then went on to answer the arguments employed against the bill. He
32
The Earl of Fife
stated the reluctance he felt to be obliged to intreat the indulgence of the House for a short time; but placed as he was by what had fallen from the noble lord, it was impossible to avoid making a few observations. He was not often ambitious of engaging the attention, or occupying the valuable time of the House, and it would be more congenial to his feelings not to speak on the subject alluded to. Occasions might occur, when to be silent would warrant a conclusion to be drawn which he little wished, and hoped not to deserve. He had no hesitation, however, in declaring, that the hasty mode adopted lately regarding the office he held in the king's family, was not rendered more necessary at the present moment than for a year past—and certainly by no change of conduct on his part. Sufficiently did he announce a considerable time ago, by communications and explanations addressed to a proper quarter, his desire and readiness to retire, from his inability to attend regularly to the duties, and some of them in parliament, to prevent disagreement—owing much to being obliged to watch over the
33
34
"——Ye masters, then,
Be mindful of the rough laborious hand
That sinks you soft in elegance and ease—
Be mindful of those limbs, in russet clad,
Whose toil to yours is warmth and graceful pride.
And, oh, be mindful of that sparing board,
Which covers yours with luxury profuse,
Makes your glass sparkle and your sense rejoice,
Nor cruelly demand what the deep rains
And all-involving winds have swept away."
Lord Folkestone
wished to offer a few words, in consequence of the allusions which had been made to him. Those allusions referred to an assertion which he had made on a former occasion. All the gentlemen who had alluded to it, had argued as if it was a matter of option with the country whether it would pay the interest of the debt or not. What he had stated was, that in the government of countries there was a moral as well as physical impossibility, which must excuse a breach of faith with the public creditor; and this proposition he would not retract. He had asked if a case might not occur in which it would be a breach of faith to the whole to keep faith with a part, as in the event of invasion by a foreign enemy. Again, he had asked, if the country were reduced by excessive taxation to such a state of commotion that it should be necessary to suspend the
habeas corpus
35
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
Acland, sir T.
Curzon, hon. R.
A'Court, E. H.
Cust, hon. E:
Alexander, J.
Cust, hon. W.
Alexander, J. D.
Cust, hon. P.
Ancram, lord
Daly, J.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Davis, R. H.
Ashurst, W.
Dawkins, J.
Astell, W.
Dawkins, H.
Bagwell, rt. hon. W.
Dawson, J. M.
Bankes, H.
Divett, T.
Baring, A.
Dodson, J.
Barne, M.
Douglas, J.
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Douglas, W. R. K.
Bathurst, hon. S.
Doveton, G.
Beckett, rt. hon. J.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Bective, lord
Drummond, J.
Belfast, earl of
Dugdale, D. S.
Bent, J.
Duncombe, C.
Beresford, lord G.
Duncombe, W.
Beresford, sir J.
Dundas, rt. hon. W.
Bernard, lord
Dunlop, J.
Blackburne, J.
Elliot, hon. W.
Blair, J.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Bourne, rt. hon. S.
Ellis, C. R.
Brandling, C.
Ellis, T.
Brogden, J.
Ellison, C.
Browne, rt. hon. D.
Estcourt, T.
Browne, P.
Evans, W.
Browne, J.
Fane, V.
Brownlow, C.
Fane, T.
Buchanan, J.
Farrand, R.
Bruen, H.
Finch, G.
Burgh, sir H.
Fleming, J.
Buxton, J. J.
Forrester, C. W.
Calvert, J.
Forster, rt. hon. J.
Canning, rt. hon. G.
Gifford, sir R.
Castlereagh, visc.
Gilbert, D. G.
Cheere, E. M.
Gipps, G.
Chichester, A.
Gladstone, J.
Cherry, G.
Gordon, hon. W.
Childe, W. E.
Goulburn, H.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Grant, A. C.
Clerk, sir G.
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Clements, hon. J.
Graves, lord
Clinton, sir W.
Grenfell, P.
Clive, lord
Greville, sir C.
Clive, hon. R.
Gossett, W.
Clive, H.
Hamilton, H.
Cockburn, sir G.
Handley, H.
Cockerell, sir C.
Harding, sir H.
Cocks, hon. J. S.
Hart, gen.
Cocks, hon. J.
Harvey, C.
Collett, E. J.
Heygate, aid.
Congreve, sir W.
Hill, sir G.
Cooper, E. B.
Holford, G. P.
Cooper, E. S. Copley, sir J.
Holmes, W.
Copley, sir W.
Hope, sir W.
Courtenay, W.
Horrocks, S.
Courtenay, T. P.
Hotham, lord
Crawley, S.
Holdsworth T.
Croker, J. W.
Howard, hon. F. G
Crosby, J.
Hudson, H.
36
Hulse, sir C
Ray, sir W.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Rice, hon. G.
Innes, sir H.
Ricketts, C. M.
Innes, J.
Robertson, A.
Irving, J.
Rohinson, rt. hon. F.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Rochf'ord, G.
Kerr, D.
Rocksavage, lord
Kingsborough, lord
Russell, J. W.
Kinnersley, W.
Ryder, rt. hon. R.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Scott, hon. W.
Lawley, F.
Scott, S.
Legge, hon. H.
Shaw, R.
Leigh, J. H.
Sheldon, R.
Lenox, lord G.
Smith, J.
Leslie, C. P.
Smith, G.
Lewis, T. F.
Smith, S.
Lewis, W.
Smith, R.
Long, rt. hon. C.
Sneyd, N.
Lowther, vise.
Somerset, lord G.
Lowther, hon. H. C.
Somerville, sir M.
Lowther, J. H.
Stewart, sir J.
Luttrell, J. F.
Stewart, A.
Lygon, hon. H.
Stopford, lord
Macdonald, H. G.
St. Paul, sir H.
Macnaghten, E. A.
Strutt, J. H.
Magennis, R.
Suttie, sir J.
Mansfield, J.
Taylor, sir H.
Marryat, J.
Townshend, hon. H.
Martin, R.
Tremayne, J. H.
Martin, sir T. B.
Trench, hon. F. W.
Metcalfe, H.
Thompson, W.
Mills, C.
Ure, M.
Monteith, H.
Uxbridge, earl of
Morland, sir S. B.
Valletort, lord.
Mountcharles, earl
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Musgrove, sir P.
Vernon, G. V.
Neale, sir H.
Villiers, rt. hon. G.
Needham, hon. F.
Vivian, sir H.
Nolan, M.
Walker, S.
Osborne, sir J.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Ommaney, sir F.
Wall, C. B.
Onslow, A.
Walpole, lord.
Paxton, W. G.
Ward, hon. W.
Paget, sir C.
Ward, R.
Paget, hon. B.
Warrender, sir G.
Palk, sir L.
Wetherell, C.
Palmerston, lord
Westenra, hon. H;
Pearce, J.
Wigram, sir R.
Pechel, sir T.
Wigram, W.
Peel, rt. hon. R.
Williams, W.
Pellew, hon. P. B.
Williams, R.
Phipps, hon. G.
Wood, col.
Pitt, W. M.
Worlley, J. S.
Plumber, J.
Wroltesley, H.
Pole, rt. hon. W. W
Wilson, sir H.
Pole, sir P.
Yarmouth, lord.
Pollington, lord
Yorke, sir J.
Powler, hon. W.
TELLERS.
Prendergast, J.
Binning, lord
Pringle, sir W.
Lushington, S. R.
PAIRED OFF.
Apsley, lord
Manners, lord C.
Bouverie, hon. B.
Morgan, G.
Bradshaw, R. H.
Money, W.
Chaplin, C.
Northey, W.
Dalrymple, A.
Price, R.
Evelyn, L.
Seymour, H.
37
MINORITY
Allen, J. H.
Gurney, R. H.
Althorp, visc.
Haldimand, W.
Astley, J. D.
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Beaumont, T. W.
Harbord, hon. E.
Barham, J. F.
Heathcote, G. J.
Barham, J. F. jun.
Heron, sir R.
Barnard, visc.
Hill, lord A.
Barrett, S. M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Becher, W. W.
Honywood, W. P.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hornby, E.
Benyon, B.
Hughes, W. L.
Bernal, R.
Hume, J.
Birch, J.
Hurst, R.
Browne, D.
James, W.
Bright, H.
Johnson, col.
Bury, visc.
Jervoise, G. P.
Blair, J. H.
Keck, G. A. L.
Bruce, R.
Lamb, hon. W.
Baillie, J.
Latouche, R.
Belgrave, visc.
Lemon, sir W.
Buxton, T. F.
Lennard, T. B.
Bastard, E. P.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Boughton, W. E. B.
Lloyd, sir E. P.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Lloyd, J. M.
Benett, J.
Lockhart, J. J.
Chaloner, R.
Maberly, J.
Calcraft, J.
Maberly, W. L.
Campbell, hon. J.
Mackenzie, T.
Cavendish, lord G.
Mahon, hon. S.
Cavendish, H.
Majoribanks, S.
Cavendish, C.
Martin, J.
Clifton, visc.
Mildmay, P. St. J.
Coke, T. W.
Monck, J. B.
Colburne, N. R.
Moore, A.
Concannon, L.
Ord, W.
Crespigny, sir W.
Osborne, lord F.
Crompton, S.
Ossulston, lord
Curwen, J. C.
O'Grady, S.
Creevey, T.
Palmer, col.
Curteis, J. E.
Palmer, C. F.
Chetwynd, G.
Pares, T.
Corbett, P.
Parnell, sir H.
Davies, T. H.
Price, R.
Deerhurst, visc.
Pryse, P.
Denison, VV. J.
Pym, F.
Duncannon, visc.
Portman, E. B.
Dickenson, W.
Ramsay, sir A.
Davenport, D.
Ramsbottom, J.
Ellice, E.
Ramsden, J. C.
Farquharson, A.
Ricardo, D.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Rickford, W.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Robarts, W. A.
Folkestone, visc.
Robarts, A.
Fairlie, sir W. C.
Robinson, sir G.
Fife, earl of
Rogers, E.
Forbes, C.
Rowley, sir W.
Fellows, W. H.
Rumbold, C.
Glenorchy, lord
Russell, R. G.
Gooch, T. S.
Scott, J.
Graham, sir J.
Scourfield W. H.
Grattan, J.
Scudamore, R. P.
Grant, J. P.
Sebright, sir J.
Grant, F. W.
Smith, hon. R.
Grant, G. M.
Smith, W.
38
Smyth, J. H.
Wemyss, J.
Stanley, lord
Western, C. C.
Stewart, W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Stuart, lord
Wodehouse, E.
Sykes, D.
Wood, ald.
Talbot, R. W.
Wynn, sir W.
Temple, earl of
Wyvill, M.
Tennyson, C.
TELLERS.
Townshend, lord C.
Hamilton, lord A.
Tynte, C. K.
Shelley, sir J.
Wells, J.
PAIRED OFF.
Daly, J.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Fitzgerald, M.
Plumer, W.
Heathcote, sir C.
Russell, lord W.
Macdonald, J.
Russell, lord J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Sefton, earl of
Milton, lord
Tavistock, marq.
Neville, hon. R.
Whitbread, W. H.
Newport, sir J.
Wilkins, W.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 5, 1821
STATE OF THE GAME LAWS.]
Lord Cranbourn
rose to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the Game Laws. When the House recollected the numbers who were daily committed to prison for offences arising out of these laws they could not but see the importance of the subject. He thought, too, that the laws were in, many respects absurd and inconsistent. In some cases, a son was qualified while the father was not. The noble lord mentioned several other instances to show the anomalous state of the law upon this subject, and concluded by moving for the committee.
Sir J. Sebright
seconded the motion. He was sure that any change would be for the better. A set of laws more absurd or unjust never disgraced any country. With respect to their effects, they tended to demoralize the people. It was his opinion, that game should be put upon the same footing as other property.
Sir J. Shelly
said, that when he recollected that a bill for altering the game laws had been brought in by the late member for Hertfordshire (lord Dacre), and enforced by all his eloquence and yet had failed, he could not expect much from the present motion. However, the noble lord had said, to use sporting language, "though lord Dacre missed fire, I'll whip on his jacket, and have a shot at the game laws." The game laws had not been fairly treated; for there was no set of laws that might not be open to objection, if their bad effects only were considered. If the game were destroyed, the
39
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that though he was not a killer of game, he was an eater of that nice article, but since the bill of an hon. member (Mr. G. Bankes) had passed, he had never been able to get a second course. He hoped, whatever bill the noble lord brought in, there would be a clause in it to provide, that when an humble individual like himself was about to give a dinner, and said to his wife, "My dear, let us have some game" he might not be met with the unpleasant difficulty where shall we get it?"
Mr. G. Bankes
was glad his bill had been so effectual. If that bill destroyed poaching, it would destroy the nest from which great part of the evil of the country originated. He objected to a committee which would take up the time of the House without adding any thing to its information. As the subject was not new, the noble lord might at once move for leave to bring in a bill. As to the game laws themselves, no one could deny, that a great number of persons were at present in prison on account of them, and nothing would be more easy than to put an end to this, by abolishing those laws. But this might be said of any other law. They all lamented the number of punishments for forgery. Nothing was more easy than to put an end to the laws against it. But what then became of the property of the country? So they might abolish the game laws, but what then became of the game of the country? The general permission to shoot would only make the country people ten times more vicious and indolent: in six months the game would be destroyed, and the better classes of people would be left without their amusement, which attached them to the country.
Colonel Wood
said, he was the unfortunate individual who moved for the committee of 1810. When he had got into that committee, they would agree to nothing that he proposed. He had proposed to the committee to examine to what extent the evil of poaching had gone, and to consider a remedy. This the committee refused, and said they would take for granted there was a great deal of evil from poaching. So that after much discussion the only resolution the committee came to was this—"That it is the opinion of this committee that game
40
l.
Mr. Douglas
opposed the motion. To legalize the sale of game would, he observed, be, in effect, to enable persons to buy licenses for the disposal of stolen purchases.
Sir C. Burrell
thought, that at a time when the country gentlemen were labouring under so many privations, it was too much to propose to take from them the only solace they had left. With regard to the main question of the game laws, he was convinced that it would be a bad plan to separate the game from the poperty of the country. In this point he was supported by the late Mr. Fox, who, after having maturely examined the subject, had come to the same conclusion.
Mr. Lockhart
thought that a committee ought not to be appointed, unless the specific defect in the law were clearly pointed out, and the remedy stated. The proposition of the noble lord, he was convinced, would not produce the slightest improvement in the morals of the country.
41
Mr. Bennet,
of Wiltshire, thought the game laws required revision. Few persons stole sheep who did not first begin by poaching. If game was put upon the same footing as other property it would be the interest of the occupiers of the land to preserve it; it was now their interest to destroy it. It might be then sold so cheap that it would not be worth the poachers while to sell game.
Mr. Coke
jun. thought the effect of making game property, would be, to render country gentlemen odious in the eyes of the nation, by giving them a mercenary sordid character, in converting that which had hitherto been regarded as an exclusive source of amusement into a means of lucre. He did not stand up as the defender of the game laws, but he was convinced it was impossible to put a stop to poaching by any laws that could be devised; and the present laws were so fitted and fashioned to their end by the operation of time, that any attempt at alteration would be more likely to defeat the object than to promote it.
Mr. Warre
neither wished to spoil the amusements of the country gentleman, nor to remove the inducement which he now had to reside on his estate; but he believed the present laws to be the source of much crime, and should therefore vote for their revision.
Lord Lowther
spoke against the motion, conceiving its object to be two-fold, namely, to legalize the sale of game, and to prevent poaching. He must protest against the former, as it would serve rather to promote than to prevent poaching.
Mr. Harbord,
convinced as he was, that great moral evil resulted from the present system, was inclined to support a measure which might tend to correct it. Much stress had been laid upon the argument that the present game laws presented
42
The House divided: Ayes 52. Noes, 86. Majority against the motion 34.
AGRICULTURAL HORSES TAX.]
Mr. Curwen
rose to bring forward his promised motion for the repeal of the tax upon Horses employed in Agriculture. Against this proposition, he felt that the same objections could not apply, which were urged upon the measure of his hon. friend the member for Essex, with regard to the repeal of the malt tax. For the tax to which his motion would refer, operated in a most unequal manner, pressing most severely upon those who had to cultivate the waste land, while it was, to a certain extent, oppressive upon all farmers, especially of the smaller class. There was, indeed, scarcely a farmer who bad not reason to complain of the operation of this tax; for what farmer could conscientiously swear that he never used any of his agricultural horses for any other purpose than farming? and if he did not so swear, the horse otherwise used was charged as a saddle-horse. There was this material difference between the malt tax, and that to which he referred, that while it was maintained, that the repeal of the former would confer no benefit on the agriculturist or the consumer, no such argument could be used in the present case, as the repeal of the agricultural horse tax would be an immediate boon to the farmers. The present tax too, was in amount much less than that of the malt tax; and therefore it could be the more easily dispensed with. This tax was, indeed, so exceptionable, that he was surprised at its original enactment. But the unequal operation of it was peculiarly to be deprecated. For instance, if a farmer had four horses, three were charged at 17
s.
s.,
s.
d.
1.
43
s.
d.
44
l.
s.
45
46
Sir W. W. Wynn
supported the motion, because he thought its principle unobjectionable. At the same time, he should have preferred that his hon. friend had postponed it until after the bringing up of the report of the agricultural committee.
Sir C. Burrell,
after declaring his concurrence with the principle of the motion, expressed a wish, that it had been postponed until the report of the agricultural committee were brought up. The unequal pressure of the existing tax could not be denied. For instance, where land required lime, which was particularly the case with lands of inferior quality, additional horses must be employed to carry it; for oxen, although they answered the purpose of agriculture in the field, could not carry great weights for any distance upon the roads. Under all the circumstances, he trusted his hon. friend would consent to postpone his motion.
Mr. Davenport
expressed his concurrence with the motion, but wished it to be postponed until after the agricultural committee had made its report.
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, approved of the motion, and saw no necessity for its postponement.
Mr. Curwen
said, that if the right hon. gentleman opposite would pledge himself to meet the question at a future period, he would withdraw his motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he wished to know the degree of importance which the agricultural committee would attach to the repeal of this tax. Unless they considered its repeal of great importance to the agricultural interests, he thought no benefit arising from it could equal the inconvenience which would result, in a financial point of view, from the subtraction of so large a sum as 500,000
l.
47
Sir T. Lethbridge
was satisfied, that the country would consider the repeal of the tax as a great relief. He did not wish to undervalue the opinion of the committee up stairs; he must say that he thought it would be much better for the House to grant this small boon to the agriculturists at the present moment.
Mr. Gipps
hoped the hon. member would not press his motion, but bring it forward again after the committee should have made their report. He was convinced if ministers would put their shoulders to the wheel, that they would be able to find means of raising 500,000
l.
Mr. Ricardo
said, he should certainly give his support to the motion. He should do so on the same principle on which he had voted for repealing the last duty on malt, not because it was in itself a bad tax, or pressed with peculiar hardship on the landed interest, but with a view of compelling the observance of strict economy in the administration of government. It was his belief that the whole amount of the malt tax might be saved by measures of economy; and as he looked upon the sinking fund to be utterly useless—to be at this moment unproductive of one single good effect—he was quite disposed to abrogate every tax so long as any portion of that fund remained in existence. The hon. mover had stated, that foreign monarchs were embarking in the corn trade, that they were becoming merchants, and that the king of Sweden was importing oats into this country. Now if this were the fact, he for one should rather rejoice at it, because he should expect to make much better bargains with kings and princes than with their subjects. The hon. gentleman, however, need not be under any alarm; for if, as he represented, these trading potentates would not take back our hardware and pottery in exchange, and would receive nothing but bullion, there was a sufficient security for our continuing to grow our own corn.
Mr. Baring
expressed his regret at hearing this question argued with reference to the conflicting interests of different classes of the community. It gave him some surprise to find his hon. friend treating a great national subject in a way which, practically considered, he must pronounce extraordinary and almost absurd. He was now alluding chiefly to what fell from his hon. friend in relation
48
Mr. Calcraft
said, he was desirous to keep up the financial credit of the coun-
49
Lord Milton
feared, that the distress of the agricultural classes was not duly appreciated. It seemed to him that the best course would be, to allow his hon. friend to bring in his bill, and then to suspend its stages till they were in possession of further information.
Mr. Curwen
said, that under the circumstances, he did not deem it advisable to press his motion; but, in withdrawing it, he wished to reserve to himself the liberty of again bringing it forward, if there should be no prospect of the committee making an early report.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that nothing could be more fair than that the hon. gentleman should retain the option of reviving his motion if the report of the committee should be delayed beyond this session. His own object certainly was, to perceive what was the degree of importance attached to the tax in question by the committee. All that he had to observe at present was, that he did not see what material relief would be afforded by its repeal, and did not know what substitute could be proposed.
50
Mr. Bright
gave notice, that he should resist the introduction of any substitute in the event of the tax being repealed.
The motion was then withdrawn.
TIMBER DUTIES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Timber Duties acts,
Mr. Wallace
noticed at some length the objections which had been made to the proposition which it had been his duty to submit to the House. These were most contradictory in their nature. By some he was accused of favouring the trade to the North of Europe too much, while others accused him of undue partiality for that to North America. From these conflicting opinions, he was led to conclude that the proposition which had been brought forward was, upon the whole, pretty fair to all parties concerned. With the view he took of the subject, he could offer no new concessions, and he did not feel disposed to accede to the proposition which the noble lord (Althorp) had submitted to the House on a former night. He was unwilling to afford any undue advantages to the trade of Norway. What had been said with respect to the debt owing by Norway to this country, to make up which he supposed all the bad debts to have been scraped together, did not materially bear on the question. If such debts were owing, it was not to be supposed that it could be paid in wood; it must be settled through the medium of a negotiation between the two governments. Norway had had a full share of our timber trade. This he apprehended, could not be denied, when it was seen that she had had a third of our whole trade to the North of Europe. He was disposed to show some favour to Norway in the arrangements to be made, but he was not disposed to afford her such advantages as would lead to the total exclusion of the trade of Russia and Prussia. The right hon. member then made comparative statements between his proposition and that of the noble lord, thereby shewing that the latter gave considerable advantage to Norway over Russia. The system which had been recommended by an hon. baronet was nothing more nor less than a system for excluding the timber of our colonies from this country altogether. The shipping interests, and the interests of the colonies, had a claim, upon their protection, and it would be the height of injustice if the committee
51
Sir H. Parnell
said, that nothing which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman went to change the opinion which he had previously entertained upon this question. He considered his proposition to impose a direct tax upon the country, and that partly for the purpose of giving Russia an opportunity of importing deals, if his principle was good in this respect, he would perhaps see the propriety of extending it further in encouraging a free foreign trade. If he took off the duties upon foreign deals, why not also take off the duties upon linen? He knew no reason why the duties upon hemp should be kept up at its present high rate. All these duties would be reduced with the most beneficial results to trade in general. The right hon. gentleman supported his proposition upon the ground of expediency, and upon the great protection which he considered to be due to the shipping and colonies. But with regard to this doctrine of expediency, it was not supported by any of the facts of the case. There had been no case made out to call for the imposition of such duties for the sake of conferring benefit upon the colonies. Nothing had been said to justify the sacrifice which the country must make for the sake of affording protection to these particular interests. The bounty given would create a tax not amounting to less than 3 or 400,000
l.
l.
52
l.
s.
Mr. Bennet
said, that standing as a neutral person, without any shipping or other commercial interest, he wished to give his public aid to that great principle of free trade, which alone could relieve the country from its present difficulties. The House ought at least to take the first favourable opportunity of putting one branch of trade out of the trammels in which it toiled; and the committee would bear in mind, that this was not a trade which had been established for centuries, it was not like the silk trade, for instance, it had only been established since 1807 or 1809. He wished the committee to bear in mind that they were not legislating for Russia, for Norway, or for Canada—but for England. They were bound to examine in what way they could bring the article of-timber into this country at the cheapest rate. If he could show, as he thought he could, that it could be procured from Russia and Norway, for one half less than from Canada, he should be making out a case which must satisfy the committee. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman went to prohibit the good article which was near at hand in those Northern countries, for the sake of introducing one so bad, that it would otherwise never find its way here. And this was to be done for the sake of saving the pockets of the Canadian lumbermen, or those other lumbermen the ship owners. He contended that what the right hon. gentleman called enabling Russia to compete with Norway, was, in fact, keeping the timber of the latter, which was the very best, farther and farther from our market. Instead of which it ought to be brought here as soon as an opportunity offered, inasmuch as it was not only the best but the cheapest article. Every man of common sense would see, that the proposition of the hon. baronet was that which ought to be adopted by the committee, and not the proposition of the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member then made a statement to prove that the amendment went to save 400,000
l.
53
Mr. Keith Douglas
said, he thought it would have been better if the hon. baronet, had reserved his motion till the whole question had been discussed. The system now proposed was only experimental, and it might be corrected by future regulations if found inconvenient: he approved of it generally, though, with respect to deals, he thought too great an advantage had been given to the Americans.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that he differed considerably from his hon. friend the member for Shrewsbury. He had indulged in some remarks upon the evidence given before the committee by those interested in the Canada trade. Now it was impossible not to observe that the same disposition existed in the evidence on all sides, to give the best colouring for the advantage of the different parties. One gentleman being asked if the Norwegian merchants did not owe a considerable debt to this country, replied "yes, and they would be glad to pay it in timber." He was not one who thought that they were bound to look to the interest of the consumer alone. They were bound also to take into consideration how the seller and the importer would be affected by the measures they were about to adopt. The Canada timber was less subject to dry rot than that of any other country. A Mr. Hay had given it in evidence, that he put down gate-posts in 1792 made of Canada timber, and upon taking them up in 1814', found them entirely free from dry-rot, and in a serviceable state for the common purposes of timber. This was undoubtedly an advantage well worthy of attention. There were 1,200 sail of shipping yearly employed in the American timber trade, and
54
l.
Mr. Sykes
also thought the proposition of the right hon. gentleman would seriously affect the ship-owner, but he supported it because it was less injurious than the amendment. He looked at the interests of the ship-owners as bound up with the general interests of the country, and he did not wish to give them advantages unconnected with the general interest. He apprehended that the necessary consequence of the proposition would be, the transfer of the American trade to Norway which must seriously hurt the shipowners of this country. The American timber trade was carried on by British shipping, but three-fourths of the Norway timber trade was carried on by foreign ships, and the other quarter by British. Even if all British ships were employed in the Norway trade, it would be carried on by one-third of the number of ships employed in the American. If this country wished to retain her colonies, their produce ought to be protected. He did not think the only object to be to procure articles at the cheapest rate possible, because if that were the object the corn laws ought to be repealed, as corn could be purchased at Dantzic at 26
s.
Lord Althorp
conceived the American, timber trade not so beneficial to the inhabitants of Canada as to the ship-owners, because timber was cut down in that country for the purpose of clearing the land. He could not agree with the amendment, because he thought as long as the colonial system was kept up, so long ought protection to be afforded, in such a degree as not to do more hurt than service to the subjects of this country. The right hon. gentleman had said, that Norway being put upon the same footing with Russia might give cause of complaint to the latter; but he could see no reason for complaint on the part of Russia, unless a greater duty were imposed upon her produce than upon that of Norway. The right hon. gentleman had said, that what he (lord A.) had proposed on a former night would benefit Russia; because if the article could not be procured from Norway, it must come from Russia; but the right hon. gentleman forgot that Prussia and Sweden might enter into
55
Mr. Robinson
observed, that the opinions which had been expressed on this question were widely different, and the inference he drew from them all was, that the proposition of his right hon. friend was the best that could be adopted. Our colonies he conceived, ought rather to be considered as an integral part of the kingdom, than as an appendage having only a remote interest in common with the mother country. As to the shipping interest he trusted parliament and the country would never be so ungrateful as to forget that to it we owed the glory of that navy
"Whose flag had brav'd a thousand years "The battle and the breeze."
Mr. Baring
remarked, that the general principle of political economy which ought to regulate the conduct of a great country, and which should never be deviated from but in cases of urgent necessity, would lead us to purchase an article wherever it could be had of the best quality and at the cheapest price. Of all
56
57
Mr. Ricardo
said, he was anxious to deliver his opinion on the present proposition, as it involved a principle of infinitely greater importance than the question immediately under consideration. They had been told that they ought to go to the best and cheapest market, and also that the timber of Norway and Russia was better and cheaper than that of America; and yet they were recommended as a practical measure, to take the worst timber at the dearest rate! His hon. friend (Mr. Bennet), in a speech full of the soundest argument, and as yet totally unanswered by the gentlemen opposite, had shown, in the most convincing manner, that by buying our timber from the northern powers of Europe, we should save 400,000
l.
l.
58
Mr. Marryat
said:—I have listened with great attention to the discussion before the committee, and more particularly to the doctrines of our new school of political economists; but must confess that they have produced very little conviction on my mind. Hitherto ships, colonies, and commerce have been considered as inseparably connected with each other; but, according to the new system, we are to sacrifice our ships and colonies, in order that our commerce may go on the better without them. Whenever these philosophers v/ill illustrate their theory by experimental proof; if, for example, they will take off two legs from a three-legged stool, and make it stand on the remaining one leg more firmly than it before did on all the three, then, but not till then, will I become one of their disciples. Our trade with our own colonies and in our own
59
60
61
ad valorem.
l.
s.
d.
l.
62
63
Mr. T. Wilson
rose to correct a misapprehension under which the hon. member for Shrewsbury laboured. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that though he had an interest in the subject, yet he was as independent as any member in the House. He contended, that the view taken of the subject by the two hon. baronets opposite, was the true view of the subject. He could not agree with the member for Portarlington, that it was a matter of indifference whether the return for foreign timber was made in goods or specie. He had lived long enough to know that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and he should feel disposed to trade with a country which would take his own goods in exchange, rather than demand it in specie.
Mr. F. Lewis
supported the amendment; and after a brief reply, from Mr. Wallace, the committee divided four times; viz.
First—On lord Althorp's amendment in favour of Norway deals: Ayes 24. Noes 75.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lewis, F.
Browne, Dom.
Monck, J. B.
Burrell, sir W.
Ord, W.
Claughton, T.
Palmer, C, F.
Denison, W.
Parnell, sir H.
Duncannon, visct.
Ricardo, D.
Folkestone, visct.
Robertson, A.
Gordon, Rt.
Townshend, lord C.
Grant, J. P.
Wells, John
Harbord, hon. E.
Wyvill, M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLER.
Hume, J.
Althorp, viscount.
Lawley, F.
Second—On Mr. Marryat's amendment, against reducing the duty on foreign timber: Ayes 17. Noes 71.
Third—On sir M. W. Ridley's motion to reduce the proposed duty on Colonial timber from 10
s.
s.
s.
Fourth—On sir H. Parnell's motion to equalize all the duties at the end of five years: Ayes 15. Noes 54.
64
List of the Minority.
Astell, Wm.
Gordon, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hume, J.
Browne, Dom.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Burrell, Waller
Monck, J. B.
Buxton, T.
Ricardo, D.
Clanghton, T.
Wyvill, M.
Denison, W.
TELLER.
Duncannon, visct.
Parnell, sir H.
Folkestone, visct.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 6, 1821
NEWINGTON SELECT VESTRY BILL
Sir R. Wilson
addressed the Chair on the subject of some most disorderly and irregular conduct which had taken place that morning in a committee up stairs appointed by the House. The House would remember the circumstances under which the present committee on the Newington select Vestry Bill was appointed. It had been the opinion of the last committee on that bill, that the preamble of the bill was not true, in consequence of some of the standing orders of that House not having been complied with. Upon receiving this report, the House was induced to appoint a special committee, to examine whether the standing orders alluded to had been infringed or not. That special committee having reported that the said orders had been sufficiently complied with, the House again appointed a committee on the bill, with power to send for persons, papers, and records. This was the history of the transaction up to that day, when on the assembling of the committee, his hon. friend, the member for the Borough, thought fit to make a proposition to send for the report of the special committee, which motion was carried by a decided majority; but. notwithstanding that, the chairman (Mr. H. Sumner) was the means of preventing the decision of the committee from being carried into effect. Under these circumstances, he (sir R. Wilson) moved an adjournment, in order that they might have the benefit of the Speaker's advice; for their exclusion from sending for the report by which they were authorised to sit, appeared to him to be a gross violation of justice, and of the orders of the House. That question was carried in the negative, and thus they saw themselves deprived of the means of ascertaining the extent of the powers with which they were invested. He
65
Mr. Sumner
said, that in the committee that day a proceeding had been resorted to, which was one of the most extraordinary, and, in its consequences, the most important that could occur, so far as it affected the course of proceeding before a committee up stairs. To the present motion he had not the slightest objection, but in an hour he would call the attention of the House to the other part of the proceedings which had occurred in the committee.
The motion was agreed to. After which,
Mr. Hume
said, that having attended the committee, of which the hon. member who spoke last was chairman, he felt it necessary shortly to detail the circumstances which took place there. The committee was very fully attended, there being 50 members present; a question was put whether the report of a former committee should be read for the information of the members. The hon. chairman, without waiting for an opinion on either side, opposed the motion; the question being put, the committee proceeded to a division, and a majority was declared to be against the motion. A motion was then made for an adjournment, in order that time might be afforded to ascertain the sense of the House; and on the question being put, three hon. members who stood at the door having made their appearance, the chairman insisted that they should not be allowed to vote. One of the hon. members said, that they had a right to vote, because the question was improperly and irregularly put before strangers had withdrawn, and therefore the chairman had no right to profit by his own irregularity; they therefore desired that the question should be put again. This, the hon. chairman would not listen to; he insisted that he
66
Mr. Wynn
remarked upon the anomaly of calling upon the House to pass an opinion upon a subject of which they could know nothing. If the motion were entertained, the House would be occupied in hearing contradictory statements which could lead to no satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. Hume
declared his readiness to withdraw or delay his motion.
The Speaker
pointed out the inconvenient shape of the motion. If the question for the consideration of the House were some abstract point as to the duties of chairman of a committee, under any supposed circumstances, there would be no difficulty in the House entertaining it. But when the question was a charge against an individual for his personal conduct in the discharge of the duties of his situation generally, he did not see how the House could make their way clearly through it. At all events, if a proposition of that nature were to be entertained, it would be necessary to have the Minutes of the committee in question.
67
Sir J. Mackintosh
animadverted upon the conduct of the chairman of the committee, who ought, he thought, to have furnished rather than withheld any information which might be deemed necessary for the understanding of the committee. For the chairman, without any instructions from the committee, to have given notice of a motion of a criminatory nature against any of its members, did certainly appear to him not a little extraordinary. To say the least of it, it was very unusual. It was, in point of discretion, a very ambiguous act, and seemed to show, on the part of the chairman, a remarkable, deviation from prudence. It appeared to have led to great intemperance and irregularity; and though the chairman might have been happily exempt from that impatience and irritability of temper which so unfortunately prevailed in the committee [a laugh], yet still it was imprudent of him, who should have stood impartially between all parties, to have, in the heat of the confusion, given notice of a criminatory proceeding against any of the members of the committee. There was one thing quite clear—that in the present temper of members at all sides, this business could not be investigated as calmly as it ought: he should therefore suggest to the hon. member to withdraw his notice of motion, and let the other party, whose conduct was purely defensive, do the same. The sooner the whole matter were dropped the better.
Mr. Sumner
said, he did not use the term "criminatory" in his notice, which was merely intended to show that the orders of the House had been contravened by members in the committee. He thought the subject was of great importance, and ought to be thoroughly investigated. He was either prepared to proceed with his motion as chairman of the committee, or with his defence in reply to the hon. member opposite.
Mr. Wynn
recommended that the matter should be allowed to drop.
Mr. Denison
agreed in the recommendation.
Mr. Sumner
could not consent to flinch from the exposition of the whole transaction, after the language used by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Bennet
said, that as he was one of the parties, he could not, if the inquiry were to be proceeded upon at all, consent to one hour's delay. He was most ready to admit, that great heats and animosities
68
sine die.
The Speaker
was of opinion, that no party would compromise his feelings by a delay that should conduce to mutual conciliation. With reference to the forms to be observed in committees, they ought to correspond in most instances with the forms of the House itself. No member was entitled to vote in either who had not heard the question put, the question was generally put whilst strangers were withdrawing; but it did not follow that because a member came in whilst strangers were withdrawing, he was on that account entitled to vote, for he might not have heard the question. As to the receiving the numbers of the division, there could be no question but that they must be received when the tellers agreed upon them. Suppose an error to be made by the clerk in setting down the numbers; suppose that he transferred the numbers from one side to another; it must appear quite obvious in that case, that the reference must be immediately made to the tellers, and the moment they had decided, the error must be rectified by the clerk. The clerk was not the teller of the committee. He hoped the House would not be displeased at the statement he had made on this subject. He did not know but that he had gone farther than he ought to have done; but he had proceeded from a conviction on his own mind, and he believed on the mind of the House generally, that the most perfect confidence was, in the outset, placed in the judgment of those to whom the proceedings of committees were intrusted; that in the second place, if they had misjudged, the House would lend its assistance to rectify the error, without casting an insinuation on any party; and, thirdly, that if any of the points to which he had adverted had operated, either in part or entirely, to produce this disappointment in the committee, the House would perceive, if they concurred with him in any of those points, the necessity of having a
69
Here the matter dropped.
METROPOLIS ROADS BILL.]
Mr. D. Gilbert,
in rising to move the second reading of the Metropolis Roads bill, went into a history of the modes of defraying the expence of the maintenance of roads, which had prevailed in this and other countries. He approved of the system of supporting the roads by tolls on them, as well as of the management by trusts, but the vice into which this system fell, was the minute sub-division, by which economy in procuring the materials, and the employment of scientific aid was rendered impracticable. He urged the benefits which would arise from the present bill, which would remedy these inconveniences, while it retained the advantages of the toll and trust system.
Sir E. Knatchbull
spoke against the measure, which he conceived quite unnecessary, from the improved state of the roads m the vicinity of the metropolis. He therefore moved, that the bill should be read a second time on that day six months.
Mr. Denison
seconded the amendment, deprecating any attempt to cast a reflection upon those at present invested with the several trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, by whom the roads were kept in the best possible state.
Mr. Curwen
regarded the bill as one of the most extraordinary measures that had ever come before the House. He was of opinion that the hon. gentleman who brought it forward had been imposed upon by false information with respect to the trusts of the several roads.
Mr. F. Lewis
hoped the bill would not be disposed of, in the summary manner recommended by the amendment. The magnitude of the sums collected by the several courts made it imperative upon the House to take the business into their own hands.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he could not help stating that the trustees considered this measure as a bill of indictment against them. Out of between fifty and sixty trusts, the holders of at least thirty had petitioned against it. He could see no reason whatever for extending the provi-
70
Sir H. Parnell
thought the bill was rendered necessary, both by an excess of expenditure, and a total want of science evinced in the execution of the present trusts. The roads might be kept in excellent condition for one half of the tolls now collected.
Mr. Sumner
was of opinion that after the committee had sat two years, and had at length brought forward a mature plan, it would be extremely ungracious to shut the door upon it at once. Although he did not approve of it, yet he should vote for the second reading, with a view of subsequently moving for its being referred to a committee up stairs.
The House divided: Ayes 83. Noes 16. The bill was then read a second time.
MOTION RESPECTING COMMITTEES OF
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
having moved the order of the day, for going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Creevey
rose to oppose the motion. The course which he was about to take might not, be said, be very agreeable to the right hon. gentleman opposite or to the House, but he felt it necessary, in the discharge of his public duty, to oppose the motion for going into a committee of Supply. Instead of going on, he thought it was the duty of the House to retrace its steps. There had been supplies enough voted; and what good had been hitherto effected? Notwithstanding all the petitions from all parts of the kingdom, complaining of the greatest distresses, and praying for the strictest economical reform, the House had still gone on voting away millions of money, and all the labours of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume) had not produced the diminution of one single farthing in the public expenditure. Under these circumstances, nothing could induce him, as far as his vote or influence in that House went, to go again into a committee of supply. The members of that House had been called the trustees of the people, but they differed from all other trustees, for they themselves lived upon the profits of the estate. When the affairs of a private gentleman were deranged,
71
l.
l.
72
73
Mr. Hobhousse
rose to second the motion. Nothing could be more constitutional than the course pursued by his hon. friend. It was not necessary to go back for precedents so far as the reign of queen Elizabeth; for, in the early part of the reign of Charles 1st, before the struggles between that monarch and the parliament, sir T. Wentworth, afterwards lord Strafford, moved a resolution in that House, that supply and grievances should go hand in hand. The individual who adopted this sentiment was a man of the first rank and talent in the country, and not liable to the imputation of being a heated enthusiast. In the parliament, called the Pension Parliament, the attention of the House was called to what was then considered an extraordinary fact, that 2,400,000
l.
74
*
*
75
l.
l.
Mr. Calcraft
alluded to the statement made in the House by the earl of Fife, with respect to his removal from office. He contended, that the noble earl stated the ground of his dismissal was, the vote which he gave for the repeal of the malt tax. He understood it to be so; and was sorry the words had not been taken down. He agreed with most parts of the resolution of his hon. friend. It could not be doubted that in the present session, the petitions of the people had been totally disregarded. It was equally true that nothing like economy had been attended to in the estimates. It could not be denied either, that establishments were kept up much larger than circumstances could justify. He likewise agreed, that the influence of the Crown in that House was too mighty and too powerful, to allow any real effect to the representation of the people. But he could not agree with that part of the proposition which went in a sweeping way to deprecate the representation of the executive offices of government in that House. He was of opinion that those offices ought to be represented there, and he did not think the public officers too highly paid. However, although he could not agree with that part of the proposition, he could not withhold his assent to the proposition in general.
Lord Castlereagh
said, he did not consider that he should perform his duty, if he suffered himself to be led into a debate by the motion of the hon. member which seemed to bring back almost all the subjects which had already occupied the attention of the House this session. This species of opposition seemed to be a duty imposed upon that hon. member, and it
76
77
Mr. Calcraft
said, lie had not complained of the removal of lord Fife, but of the cause assigned for the noble earl's having been removed.
Mr. Tierney
said, he was never more surprised than when he heard the pre-
78
79
Mr. Bennet
contended, that the mode adopted by his hon. friend was consistent with the sound constitutional practice of our ancestors, who spoke of grievances before they consented to any vote of supply. Could any man deny that it was the corrupt influence of the Crown which contributed to the majorities in that House? The reason was, that so many in that House held offices under the Crown. He did not allude to the way in which the members of that House were returned; that was another question; but to the way in which they were paid. That it was which occasioned the great grievances
80
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that what he understood with respect to the statement made by lord Fife was, not that the giving of his vote against the Malt-tax was the ground of that dismissal, but merely that his impression was so; he therefore could not agree to a resolution, one part of which he conceived not to be consistent with the fact. Without meaning any disrespect to lord Fife's successor, he should like to ask what degree of credit and character would attach to that successor's votes in that House? Would it not be considered by the country, that he held his office by the tenure of supporting all the measures which his majesty's government might choose to recommend? The noble lord urged the House to have recourse, in the present embarrassed state of the country, to every possible reduction in the public expenditure, and more especially in the military part of it. On this subject, the country was extremely indebted to the hon. member for Aberdeen, who, notwithstanding the taunts of the noble lord opposite, had proved himself to be a most industrious, diligent, and valuable member.
Mr. Creevey
said, that in the resolution he had merely stated the fact, that lord Fife had declared in his place, that he was dismissed from his office for the vote he had given.
The question being put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the question;" the House divided: Ayes, 120. Noes, 36. Majority against Mr. Creevey's motion; 84.
81
List of the Minority.
Bárrett, S. B. M.
Milton, lord
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Monck, T. B.
Benyon, B.
Nugent, lord
Bernal, R.
Palmer, C. F.
Bury, lord
Parnell, sir H.
Calcraft, J.
Philips, G. jun.
Chaloner, R.
Ricardo, D.
Crompton, J.
Rickford, W.
Davies, col.
Robinson, sir G.
Denison, W. J.
Sefton, lord
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Smith, J.
Graham, S.
Stuart, lord J.
Harbord, hon. E.
Western, C. C.
Heron, sir R.
Whitbread, S. C.
Honywood, W.
Wilson, sir R.
Hume, J.
Wyvill, M.
James, W.
TELLERS.
Johnson, col.
Creevey, T.
Lushington, Dr.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Martin, T.
The question being then put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Hume
expressed his regret at the division that had taken place among the gentlemen near him, on the late question. He regretted to see hon. gentlemen, who agreed on a main fact, differ on the words in which that fact was described. It was difficult to couch a motion in terms palatable to two hundred hon. gentlemen: many of whom were, perhaps, anxious to find out a justification for not voting for it. Notwithstanding all that had passed, however, he was about to submit to the House a motion from which he challenged any hon. member to withhold his consent, who regarded his own character, and the interest of the country. Adverting to the civil department of the array, he intreated the House to look at the increase that had taken place in that department. In 1792, the expense of the civil department of the army was 44,900
l.
l.
l.
82
83
Lord A. Hamilton
seconded the motion. Though he might have wished the instruction to the committee to have been put in a more condensed shape, his hon. friend had perhaps done right in not condensing it, considering the very high quarter from which the recommendation to economy and reduction came.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the strictest attention had been paid by government to the reports of the finance committee. Reductions to a considerable extent had been made in every branch of the public expenditure, and further and more important reductions were in contemplation. The right hon. gentleman pointed out the great hardship which would arise to individuals, as well as the injury which the public service would sustain, from an ill digested and sweeping reduction. He could assure the House, that his majesty's government were most anxious to carry the recommendation of the committee into effect, as far as was consistent with the public interests. The House must at the same time see, that the clerks employed in the higher offices of government, being men of talent and education, were entitled to a more liberal allowance than common clerks. Much evil would arise if persons of a different description were employed in those confidential offices. An unfaithful or negligent clerk might, either from carelessness or from mal-practices, cause
84
Sir J. Newport,
adverting to the office of barrack-master-general for Ireland, observed, that it appeared from a report of the committee of 1810 or 1811, that there was a considerable deficiency in the accounts of lord Tyrawly.
Mr. D. Browne
defended the character of lord Tyrawly. The noble lord had fully cleared himself from the charge which had been made against him.
Sir J. Newport
meant to cast no imputation upon the character of lord Tyrawly: he had only stated a fact which appeared from the report of the committee.
Mr. W. Pole
said, that the circumstance alluded to respecting lord Tyrawly occurred while he (Mr. Pole) was in office in Ireland. It was found, that not that noble lord, but some persons under him were unwilling to send in their accounts. He was, however, happy to state, that lord Tyrawly had, since that period, made up his accounts much to his honour, and that there was a balance in his favour.
Mr. Ellice
expresed a hope that some measure would be introduced to amend the Superannuation bill. The provisions of that bill were an enormous charge to the country. Every one must be struck with the enormous disproportion between the allowance of 2,000
l.
l.
Mr. Huskisson
suggested, that instead of the present long resolution, it would be better to refer the whole report to the consideration of the committee. Having been a member of the committee which made that report, he cordially concurred in the recommendation which it contained, and thought it the duty of the Treasury to carry it into effect as speedily as possible. He also agreed with those who thought that the 50th of the late king, which regulated the amount of allowances for compensation and superannuation, required some alteration in the present situation of the country.
Mr. Hume
withdrew his amendment, and the sixth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, presented to the House on the 2nd of May 1804, was referred to the committee.
85
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Lord Palmerston
l.
s.
d.
Colonel Davies
observed, that during the war, when the duties of this office were ten times greater than at present, the expense was only one half of what it now cost the country. In 1806 the expense of the War office was only 25,000
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
would be content to take for the present year the War-office estimate of 1806; the charge of 1806 being, not 37,355
l.
l.
l.,
86
l.,
l.,
l.
Mr. Hume
insisted, that the noble lord had increased at every point the expense of his department, and was prepared to prove, that if 20,000
l.
l.
l.
87
Sir H. Parnell
complained of the amount of the superannuation list, and also of the expenses of the pay master's establishment. He complained of the number of offices connected with the military accounts, which were, he thought, by far too expensive. He particularly referred to the establishment of commissioners of military accounts in Ireland. In the whole military system there seemed a determination to resist all recommendations which had economy for their object. Why were not the allowances consolidated according to the recommendation in the 4th report of the commissioners? If done, it would not only simplify the process of keeping the accounts, but also considerably diminish the expenses.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the Irish board of commissioners were appointed by act of parliament. He thought a consolidation of the accounts alluded to would be very inexpedient.
Mr. Bennet
remarked upon the increase of the compensations latterly. These compensations in 1807, were only 6,771
l.,
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that no part of the money passed through his hands. There was a part of his office which merely examined the accounts of these corps, and the warrants were issued from his office for their payments on the paymaster-general.
Mr. Maberly
said, that at least one half of the amount of the charge for agency, 30,000
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that if the House should deprive the army of their agents, it would be a deprivation of a, great part of their comforts.
Mr. Wilson
expressed his determination to vote for a saving of 5,000
l.,
88
Lord Palmerston
said, that the present vote had nothing to do with the agency department.
Mr. Creevey
was of opinion that the committee were bound to go more into detail. He saw by the estimates that the deputy secretary of war had a salary of 2,500
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the amendment 67. Against it 106.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visc.
Johnson, col.
Barratt, S. M.
Lambton, J. G.
Bastard, E. P.
Lushington, S.
Belgrave, visc.
Macdonald, James
Benyon, B.
Maberly, John
Bernal, R.
Marjoribanks, S.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Monck, J. B.
Bury, visc.
Newport, sir J.
Calcraft, John
Nugent, lord
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.
O'Grady, Standish
Calvert, C.
Parnell, sir H.
Cavendish, Henry
Palmer, C. F.
Chaloner, R.
Philips, G.
Chetwynd, G.
Powlett, hon. W.
Colborne, N. R.
Price, Rd.
Creevey, Thos.
Ramsden, J. C.
Crompton, S.
Rice, T. S.
Davies, T. H.
Ricardo, David
Denison, W. J.
Rickford, W.
Duncannon, visc.
Robarts, A. W.
Dundas, hon. T.
Robarts, G.
Evans, W.
Robinson, sir G.
Farqhuarson, A.
Sebright, sir John
Fergusson, sir R.
Smith, John
Gipps, G.
Smith, W.
Glenorchy, visc.
Tierney, rt. hon. G:
Gordon, Robert
Townshend, lord C.
Graham, Sandford
Whitbread, S. C.
Haldimand, W.
Wells, John
Heron, sir R.
Wilson, sir Robert
Heygate, alderman
Wilson, Thomas
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, alderman
Honywood, W. P.
Wyvill, M.
Hume, J.
TELLER.
James, W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
89
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 9, 1821
WOOL TAX.]
Mr. Wilson
presented a petition from a number of dealers in wool praying for a repeal of the new duty on Foreign Wool. The petitioners set forth, that, in consequence of this tax, the importation of foreign wool had fallen off very materially, the consequence of which was, that certain branches of the woollen manufacture had suffered greatly. He had learned from a letter which was dated so late as the 8th of February last, that in one port of Spain no less than three American vessels were loading with wool, which it was found useless to send here, on account of the high duty with which it was charged. This was a circumstance entirely new in our commercial transactions, and showed the bad effect which the tax produced. A gentleman having 300 bags of wool consigned to him, was compelled on account of the duty to send them abroad; and a merchant at Liverpool having purchased 350 bags, finding that the commodity could not bear the extent of duty, had shipped the wool to the United States. A communication had been made to him, from a respectable house in the city, stating that a demand to the amount of. about 6,000
l.
Mr. Baring
said, that a more important subject could not possibly be brought under the consideration of that House. He could not help stating his conviction, that if parliament did not listen to the voice of the manufacturers, Great Britain was in danger of losing a large portion of her trade.
90
Mr. Huskisson
said, as notice of a motion for the repeal of the tax had been given, it would be better to go into a consideration of the question when that motion was made, instead of arguing it on the
ex parte
l.
Ordered to lie on the table.
AFRICAN COMPANY'S BILL.]
The House having resolved into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Bennet
objected to the clause empowering his majesty's ministers to grant allowances to the discharged servants of the company, contending that they were engaged for public purposes, and had no vested or other right that could entitle them to compensation.
Mr. Goulburn
defended the proposed compensation, maintaining that, according to every principle of justice, individuals should not be allowed to suffer by arrangements made for the public service, especially where a great saving would result to the public from such arrangements.
Mr. Hume
denied that it was the disposition of his hon. friend to refuse compensation where a fair claim was made out. But his hon. friend objected, as he did himself, to invest government with the discretion to allow pensions to whom they pleased, and to what extent they pleased. The noble secretary for foreign affairs had himself justified the principle of such an objection, by declaring that a similar discretion, in the act of the 50th of the late king, had been so abused, that he was willing to give it up. Upon the ground of this declaration then, he would I oppose the proposition to which his hon. I friend had objected. But he had still stronger grounds. In the Ordnance office for instance, he found, from a document on the table, that in consequence of a similar discretion, superannuation pensions were allowed to young men of 23 years of age. He could not then grant a discretion so liable to be abused. Let a case be stated to the House, where, from services rendered, compensation was fairly due, and he had no doubt that it would be promptly granted. But, then,
91
l.
Mr. Gordon
thought, that, as the company's charter had been taken away, the least that could be done was, to afford some provision for its servants, he did not disapprove, however, of the check proposed to be instituted.
Mr. Bennet
then moved as an amendment, the introduction of the following words—"that no such allowance be finally or conclusively granted, until submitted to the consideration of parliament;" which was agreed to.
BANK CASH PAYMENTS BILL.]
The order of the day was read for going into a committee on this bill. The question being put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Baring
rose to offer an amendment. His original intention, he said, was to move, that it be an instruction to this committee to re-consider the former act of 1819, in order to see whether some provision could not be made to lessen the existing evils under which the public interests laboured. But that mode of moving by way of an instruction, he after I wards thought to be a very inefficient one in the first place; and secondly, such an instruction might seem to imply an opinion on the part of the House as to this j subject, before it was examined; therefore he had come to the conclusion, that the most proper mode of all would be, to move for the appointment of a select committee to reconsider the whole subject. The more he considered this question, the more he felt it to be one not only of the utmost importance, but as "the" one in which were involved all the distresses experienced by the country and their remedy. Not only was he anxious to record on the Journals of the House, his sense of the necessity of adopting a measure such as that he should propose; but, if he found any encouragement, he should certainly divide the House upon it. They all felt, no doubt, that the country did at present stand in a very extraordinary situation. After the termination of
92
l.
l.
1.
l.
l.
l.
1
93
94
l
95
1
s
d.,
s.
d.
1
s.
d.,
s
d.
s
96
s.
s.
97
Mr. Attwood
said:
*
*
98
99
l.
100
101
102
103
l.
same
l.
104
l.
105
*
*
l.
l.
s
l.
l.
s.
d.
d.
s.
s.
† The following Statement, shewing what the fall in the price of ships has been since 1818, appears in a speech of Mr. Marryat's, reported in Vol. 1, p. 849 of the New Series of the Parliamentary Debates: "The Sesostris, launched in 1818, 480 tons, cost 12,175
l.
l.
l.
l,
l.
l.
106
milar instances. The depreciation in the value of ships, he says, (1820) "is proceeding more rapidly than ever." It has been said, that the importation of grain in 1817 and 1818, gave employment to ships. It did so; but it must be taken into account likewise, that in those years we exported seven or eight millions of gold, supplied by the Bank, at 3
l.
s.
d.
107
108
*
*
109
the price of corn at the conclusion of any one of the three great wars in which the country was engaged the course of the last century; on the contrary, there appears a uniform rise; and there would have been no fall in corn at the conclusion of the late war, if that conclusion had not been accompanied by the removal of the restriction act, and an attempt to return to cash payments. The manner in which seven millions of gold was issued by the Bank of England in 1818, in an attempt to re-establish cash payments, was equivalent to giving a bounty of 25 per cent, on the foreign corn imported at that time. The following table shews the manner in which the price of wheat was affected by the establishment of peace at the conclusion of each of the three great wars in the last century:—
per Quarter.
1712 last year of war—the average price of Wheat £.
2
6
4
1713 Peace establishment in July—the average price of Wheat £.
2
11
10
1714 Peace establishment in July—the average price of Wheat £.
2
10
4
1762 last year of War the average price of Wheat £.
1
19
0
1763 Peace in February the average price of Wheat £.
2
0
9
1764 Peace in February the average price of Wheat £.
2
6
9
1782 last year of War the average price of Wheat £.
2
7
10
1783 last year of War the average price of Wheat £.
2
12
8
1784 Peace in February the average price of Wheat £.
2
8
10
1785 Peace in February the average price of Wheat £.
2
11
10
During the nine years of the American war, beginning with 1775 and ending with 1783, the average price of wheat for that nine years was 2
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l
s.
110
111
112
113
*
*
114
contracted their issues; but to answer the demands of the market in the present state of the currency, other banks will increase theirs: to keep up the present prices, as one draws in, the other will shoot out. Being secure
115
against the only true test of their soundness, and their profits depending on the amount of their issues, can it be imagined, that they will ever of their own accord contract those issues?" [Second Letter to Mr. Peel, p. 12.] It might have been expected from a writer who is so intemperate, and loud in his accusations of ignorance, towards those who differ from him on these subjects, that he would have himself shown some degree of knowledge of the principles, at least, if not of the practice of circulation. If Dr. Copplestone believes that the country bankers are restricted or protected from paying their notes by any act of Parliament, as the latter part of this sentence seems to imply, then he is right, and the country bankers, if so protected, would undoubtedly have shot out their circulation, and have filled up any existing void very much to their own profit. But the country bankers have always been liable to pay their notes in notes of the Bank of England; and their circulation has been consequently always reduced by a scarcity of Bank of England notes, and can only be extended in consequence of an extension of the Bank issues. If the country bankers had attempted to proceed according to this plan, it would have terminated in their ruin and they could not have succeeded in keeping one single note more in circulation. In what manner the country bank circulation has in fact, since this time, been increased, to keep up prices, may be judged of from the degree in which prices have kept up, as well as from the following statement of stamps on their notes:
Amount paid for Stamps on Country Hankers1 Notes.
For the half year ending 5th April 1819
£.58,400
For the half year ending 5th October 1819
27,400
For the half year ending 5th April 1820
26,900
For the half year ending 5th October 1820
27,400
The amount paid for the half year ending Oct. 1818, was
73,800
116
By the side of this prediction as to prices, and the amount of the country bank circulation, may be set one by Mr. Ricardo, which is found in a reported speech of his, made about the same time, that is in May 1819. He says, "This question (the bank cash payment question) is one of immense importance in principle; but in the manner of bringing it about, is trivial, and not deserving half an hour's consideration of the House. The difficulty is only that of raising the currency 3 per cent in value. A most fearful and destructive depreciation had at one time taken place, but from that we had recovered, and he was happy to reflect that we had so far retraced our steps. We had nearly got home, and he hoped his right hon. friend would lend him his assistance to enable them to reach it in safety. He would venture to state, that in a very few weeks all alarm would be forgotten, and at the end of the year we should all be surprised that any alarm had ever prevailed at a prospect of a variation of 3 per cent in the value of the circulating medium."
The value of money since this period has risen 20 or 30 per cent, and not 3 per cent. The cause is to be seen in the reduction of the country bank circulation* There is less money in existence. In May 1819, the Bank of England had in a great degree effected its necessary reduction; but the reduction of country bank paper necessarily following the Bank of England reduction, was an operation that had only recently commenced, and was then going on with great rapidity.
117
118
119
*
*
120
them subservient to the purposes of his preposterous argument. He has taken a review of the stale of the country in the time of Elizabeth. That was a period in which an operation took place, similar to that which followed the Restriction bill. A great increase of money flowed into circulation in consequence of the discovery of America, and was accompanied with a striking and unexampled increase of national wealth and prosperity. This Dr. Copplestone admits; but he says that he finds it was accompanied with a great deterioration in the condition of the labouring classes. That is the point in question. To prove it, he gives us a table, in which he sets down the price of provisions, and the wages of labour, at different periods, commencing with the year 1459, and ending with 1601. The conclusion he professes to draw from this table is, that in the earlier part of that period, before the rise of prices took place, the wages of the labourer would purchase a greater quantity of provisions than in the latter part of it, after that rise of prices. The first circumstance which strikes us in this table is this, that the price of wheat first given in the year When it commences, viz. 1459, is set down at 3
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d
s.
d.
Now, in the first place, sir F. Eden's tables do not give the average price of wheat for the
121
twenty years beginning with 1501 and ending with 1520, at 5
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
s.
s.
122
prosperity and wealth. The picture of a worsened condition of the labourer, at a period when it suited the author's purpose so to describe it, is completed by a similar use of facts and history. Harrison, in his description of England, reckons the annual executions at the end of the reign of Elizabeth, at 300 or 400; and this is at once made use of to shew that the depreciation of money during that reign had involved the people in misery, and driven them to the commission of multiplied disorders and crimes. [Second Letter to Mr. Peel, p. 51.] Now this same Harrison states, that in the reign of Henry the 8tb, which is before any fail of money and rise of prices had taken place, the number of executions were nearly 2,000 annually; and Mr. Hume, who quotes both passages, almost in the same line, says, that it is asserted in an act of parliament of Henry the 8th, that the number of prisoners in the kingdom, for debts and crimes, were above 60,000; but this part of Harrison's statement Dr. Copplestone leaves behind, because it would have destroyed his argument altogether, and takes just as much as he can make to suit his purpose.
It would be idle to trace this miserable perversion of fact and reason further, except that the next statement refers to the effect on the condition of the labourer, of the rise of prices in our own times. A contrast is drawn between the rate of wages and the price of provisions now and at the commencement of the past century. "A comparison," it is stated, "of the price of provisions with the price of labour in the first twenty years of the eighteenth century, and the last twenty years before the termination of the war, would exhibit nearly the same melancholy reverse of fortune to the labourer as we found in comparing the reign of Henry the 7th with that of Elizabeth. The price of provisions advanced about fourfold, whilst that of labour was not even doubled. Generally speaking the first might. be said to have become as seven to two, the second hardly as three to two" [Second Letter to Mr. Peel, p. 83.] And then he asks, "can we wonder therefore at a scene of helpless parents, starving children, &c. &c. all of which is imaginary as applied to the period of the war and of high prices." There are in this statement two facts given, with an apparent attention to accuracy; and they are both of them false; the price of provisions did not advance fourfold nor as seven to two; and it is not true that the wages of labour advanced hardly as three to two. The average price of corn for the twenty years referred to, beginning with 1701, was 2
l.
s.
123
quarter, and its average price for the twenty years before the termination of the war was not either 7
l.
s.
.
s.
The annals of the poor are at all times short and obscure; what their real existing condition at any time and place is, is never generally and seldom accurately known. It is not easy to know what even the money wages of labour are at any particular time; and there is nothing more difficult, nor more unsatisfactory than to determine what the wages of labour, and the condition of the poor have been at remote and distant periods. We have only a few scattered facts to guide us, and these, unaccompanied with particular circumstances connected with them, are frequently more calculated to deceive than inform us. The wages of labour differ more than is apt to be considered at the same time in places a little distant. Adam Smith observes, that the wages of labour in 1775, were 1
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
d.
124
and 8
d.
There are however obvious circumstances connected with the condition of the labouring classes, universally observed and known, and which are sufficient to convince us that during the late war their condition was highly prosperous. We know that their numbers did never at any period so rapidly increase z we know also that the diet of the lower classes became better, more wholesome and nutritious. Bread made from the inferior species of grain, oats, barley and rye, became every year more disused, and was at length only to be seen in some few, and those very poor and remote districts.
125
126
l.
l.
127
128
129
130
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he had been often called upon in repeated discussions in that House to return to the old metallic standard, and frequently reproached as one that prevented that desirable return to the ancient currency from being realized: he was reproached on the ground of supporting an artificial system, destructive of the public credit and the public prosper, and entreated to support the ancient legitimate standard. He had never any other opinion than that it ought to be supported, and believed it would never have been departed from, but on account of the pressure of circumstances, which established a strict and overwhelming necessity, a necessity that was not to be controlled or resisted; but although that standard had been so departed from, it had never been lost sight of; and accordingly, when circumstances allowed its re-adoption, it was solemnly restored. He was now called upon to accommodate that standard to engagements contracted during the war. He would ask what was the standard of 1797? precisely that of the war which ended by the peace of Amiens, and which the act for the resumption of cash payments proposed to restore. After the peace of Amiens the price of silver rose, and an alienation took place between the paper and bullion value, but it was not very perceptible till after some time; afterwards the standard varied year by year, month by month, and sometimes post by post. Now he wished to be informed, which of those fluctuating standards was it that the hon. member would fix upon for the fulfilment of our war engagements? Were these engagements to be fulfilled only in part or altogether? If the whole were intended
131
l.
s.
s.
l
s.
d.
l.
s
l.
s.
132
s.,
l.
s.
133
Mr. Grenfell
expressed his surprise at the contradiction between the principles advocated by his hon. friend the member for Taunton on a former occasion, and his practice on the present. His hon. friend had formerly supported the necessity of placing our currency on a basis which nothing could shake, and he now made a motion to refer the whole question to a committee, the effect of which would be to set all afloat again, to undo every thing that had been done, and to replunge the country into all those embarrassments and ail those fluctuations from which so
134
Mr. Monck
was of opinion, that the cause of all the distress which existed in the country might be summed up in these two principles—the pressure of excessive taxation, rendered still more heavy by the attempt to return from a false and fictitious, to a sound currency. But however much we might feel that for a time, it would be better than to return to that unsound state of our currency from which we were now emerging. The question now was, whether, owing the immense debt which had been contracted for the country, we should pay it in a debased or in a sound and metallic currency. On this subject, he thought the conduct of ministers had been most reprehensible. The chancellor of the exchequer had induced the House, ten years ago, to come to a resolution, which certainly he considered a disgraceful one. He had proposed, and the House had adopted the proposition, that a pound should not be taken for less, nor the guinea sold for more than its nominal value; and upon this, soon after, an act was passed, making it a misdemeanor to take more than 21
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.,
s.,
135
l.
s
l.
s.
l
s.
d
s.
s.
l.
l.,
l.
136
l.
137
Mr. Ricardo
said, he would not have troubled the House if he had not been so pointedly alluded to in the course of the debate. He was not answerable, he said, for the effect which the present measure might have upon particular classes; but he contended that if the advice which he had given long ago had been adopted—if the Bank, instead of buying, had sold gold, as he recommended—the effect would have been very different from what it was at present. It was impossible, on any system of metallic circulation, to guard against the alterations to which the metals themselves were liable; yet all the complaints they had heard that night referred to the changes in the value of the metals. When the measure of 1819 had been adopted, they had known that the alteration that it would make between gold and paper would be 4 per cent: yet with that knowledge, they had, in all the difficulties with which they were surrounded, recommended the measure. The hon. member for Taunton had entered into a speculation on the subject, as if a gold standard had been an innovation of 1819. But that standard had been adopted some time between 1796 and 1798. Up to that period, gold and silver had been the standard. The chancellor of the exchequer had laboured under a mistake when he had said that silver had been a legal tender only to the amount of 25
l.
l.
138
139
l.
s.
Mr. Gurney
said, that several lion, gentlemen, in the course of these discussions, had professed themselves shaken in the opinions they had at first entertained. For himself, every thing had gone to confirm him in that which he had
140
s.
s.
Mr. Ellice
said, he had offered himself to the House immediately after his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo), not to controvert the principles he had stated, in most of which he concurred, but to deny the correctness of his statement, that the depreciation of property occasioned by the measures of 1819, did not exceed 4 to 6
141
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
142
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l
l.
143
144
Mr. Pearse
thought there was no necessity for going into a committee on this subject, after that House had given such ample deliberation to it. He was convinced that it was the political events of Europe, and not the report of the committee of 1819, which had brought about the state of things so much complained of. For some time there had been a very steady favourable exchange with foreign countries; and being satisfied that this would continue, he should vote against any further revision of the question.
Mr. Irving
corroborated the statement of the hon. member for Coventry, respecting the losses sustained by those whose speculations had commenced in the years 1817, 1818, and 1819. He had seen a statement of the concerns of a mercantile House, which had vested 360,000
l.
l.,
l.
145
maximum
Mr. Cripps
said, it was admitted on all hands that some shock would be felt by the country. To make that shock as slight as possible was the business and the duty of parliament. He agreed, that to return to cash payments by degrees was the best plan that could be adopted; but, at the time that it was. resolved to adopt that plan, he was not given to understand that the one pound notes were to be altogether withdrawn from circulation—he thought that it would be left at the option of the public either to get at the Bank a one pound note or a sovereign; but he was now informed that the Bank intended to withdraw one pound notes altogether—a step of which the country had just reason to complain. If it was intended as a means to prevent
146
Lord A. Hamilton
said, he would vote for the amendment, because he was convinced the subject was one which would ultimately force itself upon the attention, of the House. Inquiry must come, and he looked upon the present as the most convenient time for instituting that inquiry. The House would recollect how often he and his hon. friends had, as it were, persecuted that House with motions to compel the Bank to return to a sound currency. The right hon. gentleman opposite, and those who acted with him, uniformly resisted those motions. The right hon. gentleman boldly asserted, that there was no depreciation to guard against; and there was a resolution framed by him, and supported by a majority of that House, which broadly declared that no depreciation existed. Now, however, the right hon. gentleman, with great simplicity, and certainly with great candour, talked of the great depreciation, and was willing to found legislative measures upon it. His noble friend (lord Folkestone) had been charged with abetting rapine and spoliation, because he wished the whole subject revised; while, so far from being exposed to such imputations, he was on the contrary the best asserter of public faith. It was said that it would be time enough to reconsider the claims of the public creditor when the agriculturist had paid his all. If the statements of agricultural distress were not exaggerated, that
all
Mr. John Smith
could not agree, that the depreciation of the currency was the real cause of the agricultural distress. As a proof that that could not be correct, he had only to advert to the fact, that within the last nine months corn fell 80 or 90 per cent, whilst the currency had not depreciated at all in the same proportion. He never knew capital so easily obtained as within the last two or three years. The Bank refused no accommodation to persons who offered a fair security. In his opinion, the effect of issuing two or three millions by the bank of
147
Mr. Wilson
said, he should support the amendment. If good resulted from the inquiry, so much the better; at any rate, it would be some satisfaction to know that so important a question had not been disposed of with every possible consideration being paid to it.
Mr. Wodehouse
thought the subject required immediate consideration. He should therefore also support the amendment.
Mr. Hart Davis
thought the question ought to be fully inquired into.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that the real point on which the public distress hinged was the change of the currency. The bill now insisted on might drive Bank notes out of circulation to the amount of six millions, which, together with the six millions of gold locked up in the coffers of the Bank, would diminish the currency by 12 millions. How was such a diminution to be supplied? It was the policy of the Bank to return to cash payments; because it was their interest to pay off a number of small notes which had been repeatedly forged. The prosecutions occasioned by forgeries had led to great expense, which it was desirable to prevent. The proposed measure might tend to reduce forgeries, but burglaries and highway robberies would increase as forgery decreased. He implored the House maturely to weigh the question, which was ten thousand times more important than the malt tax.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes 141. Noes 27. Majority against Mr. Baring's amendment 114.
List of the Minority.
Attwood, M.
Gurney, H.
Baring, A.
Heygate, Ald.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Irving, John
Benett, John
Lethbridge, sir T.
Bridges, Ald.
Nolan, M.
Brogden, J.
Onslow, A.
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.
Shelley, sir J.
Clifton, lord
Thompson, W.
Corbet, P.
Walker, J.
Crawley, S.
Western, C.C.
Davis, H.
Whitmore, W. W.
Eliot, hon. W.
Wilson, T.
Gascoyne, Gen.
Wodehouse, E.
Gordon, R.
The House then went into the committee.
148
Mr. Baring
maintained, that prior 1797, gold and silver formed a legal tender; and that if they did not choose now to return to the double standard, they would be perfectly justified in raising the value of the sovereign to 21
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his belief that if the present measure did not restore them to a permanent metallic currency, it was in vain to hope success from any other.
Mr. Baring
observed, that they would now have a gold standard distinct from all the nations in the world.
Mr. W. Pole
entered into a short statement of the amelioration that took place in the state of the coin in 1776, and argued, that gold was then considered as the legal standard of the country.
IRISH BANK CASH PAYMENTS BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Grenfell
wished to learn, whether there was any foundation for the rumour, that an application had been made by the bank of Ireland for a renewal of their charter. If such an application had been made, and ministers were to accede to it the bank of England would have a good right to demand a like privilege; and when the House considered the immense profits made by that establishment, it must strike them as being a subject well worthy of their attention.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed himself unprepared to give an immediate answer. He trusted, however, that whatever measure might be brought forward upon this subject, would meet with the approbation of parliament.
Mr. Hume
said, that he would gratify his hon. friend with an answer. When they recollected the immense profits which the bank of England had made, and that that body was not disposed to take care of the national debt without being paid a large sum, they ought to take care that no proposition was acceded to without being brought regularly before that House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the apprehension of the hon. gentleman was unfounded. No negotiation of this kind could be brought near its termination without the knowledge of parliament.
Sir H. Parnell
said, from the manner in which the right hon. gentleman had evaded the question, it might be inferred that some foundation existed for the ru-
149
Mr. Baring
did not know how a great country like this could go on without a national bank. At the same time he thought that to renew the charter of a bank, of which charter several years remained unexpired, was a question of very great importance.
Mr. Bennet
wished distinctly to know whether any negotiation had already commenced. He knew very well that if ministers came down to that House and stated that they had made an engagement with the bank, the House would at once sanction it; and therefore, when the right hon. gentleman spoke of an appeal to parliament, he begged leave to say that it was no appeal at all. In a poor country a national bank might be of great service; but in a rich and powerful country like this, he could see no necessity for such an overgrown etablishment, with their bonuses and their hangings. He traced all the evils which had afflicted the country for many years, to the proceedings adopted by the Bank and by the government. He must enter his protest against the negotiation.
Mr. Pearce
deprecated such observations as those that had fallen from the hon. member. With respect to bonuses, they had always operated beneficially for the public; and the Bank, it should not be forgotten, had on all occasions shown themselves most anxious to assist the country. As to the number of forgeries, it was certainly a most unfortunate circumstance; but could the hon. member suppose, that the Bank had any interest in multiplying prosecutions? They did all in their power to prevent the commission of the crime; but their object was not so easily effected as the hon. gentleman imagined.
Mr. F. Lewis
observed, that the question relative to the bank of Ireland was second to one other only, in its import-
150
The House then went into the committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 11, 1821
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGH TRADE.]
The Marquis of Lansdown,
on presenting the Report of the Committee on Foreign Trade, said, he would state, in a very few words, the objects to which it related. Those objects were, our Asiatic trade, and the facilities which might be given to it. The subject was considered under the three following points of view:—That part of our Asiatic trade which was
151
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that as he understood that no objection would be offered to the Bill in its present stage, all parties being agreed to go into evidence upon the subject, he would confine himself to a very few observations. The present bill differed from the former one, inasmuch as the former went to remove the franchise altogether, while the present transferred it to another place. It had been improperly compared to a bill of pains and penalties; it was, in fact, a bill of regulation. Besides, it was to be recollected, that nearly one-half the voters had been already convicted, who were now said to be put upon their trial, and that so far from awarding any punishment against individuals, by the bill, they had passed an act of indemnity to protect them in giving evidence to sustain a remedial law. A
152
Lord Ashburton
objected to the Bill altogether, as it not only exercised the power of disfranchising one borough, but of transferring that franchise to another. If they resolved to disfranchise the rotten borough now under consideration, they did not know how soon they might be called upon to adopt the same proceeding with regard to other places; and when they reflected, that the House of Commons owed the introduction of some of its most distinguished members, among whom were the names of Pitt and Fox, to small boroughs, they ought to pause before they recognized a principle which might end in their extinction.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he could not agree to the mode of conducting the inquiry proposed by the noble lord; for whether they looked upon it in the light of a bill of Pains and Penalties or not, they had derived great advantage in a recent case, which was a bill of Pains and Penalties, from adhering to all the rules of evidence. The rule of evidence was, that counsel should be permitted to offer legal objections to any question; of course in doing so, they would observe the respect which was due to the House; but he had lived long enough to know, that in judicial proceedings, there was no man who did not stand in need of assistance. If, however, the House should object to the interference of counsel, he hoped they would excuse him if, in his anxiety to do justice, he submitted questions on behalf of the persons interested.
The Earl of Harrowby
suggested, that as it was proposed to hear counsel against the bill, it might be proper for the House to appoint counsel to argue in support of the bill.
The Earl of Rosslyn
objected to the hearing of any counsel, as it would be the
153
Lord Erskine
hoped the bill which had passed the other House, would have the most important effects; it would, he trusted, raise that House in the affections and confidence of the people.
The Marquis of Lansdown
was decidedly against calling in counsel on both sides, as the bill was wholly of a remedial nature.
The Earl of Rosslyn
thought, that counsel were not necessary to argue at ther lordships' bar the wisdom of a legislative measure.
It was agreed, that counsel should be called in to-morrow, for the purpose of proceeding on the examination of wit-nessess.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 11, 1821
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL—PETITION FROM LIMERICK.]
Mr. Spring Rice
rose to present a Petition from the Roman Catholic Bishop, and between 80 and 90 Roman Catholic Clergymen of the diocese of Limerick. It stated, that the Petitioners are ready to testify in any manner that may be required of them, their unbroken and undivided allegiance to his majesty: that there is no language too strong or too significant to express the sincerity of their disclaimer of foreign authority; but they objected, on religious grounds, to the second bill which had been lately introduced into the House. They stated their objections temperately, but firmly, casting themselves, however, on the judgment and impartial justice of parliament, not to pass a law which may be a violation of conscience. There was no individual more entitled to respect and deference, than the prelate who had signed the petition, and no class of the community had proved themselves more deserving than the Catholic clergy. He would take that opportunity of setting himself right with the House, with regard to what fell from him on a former occasion. He had then stated, that by the capitulation of Limerick, Catholics would have been protected from all the disabilities of which they had now to complain. He had stated, that those articles had been violated, and that to their infraction, all the sufferings of the Catholics might be traced. When he made this assertion on a former occa-
154
155
Ordered to lie on the table.
BRITISH MUSEUM.]
Mr. Lennard,
in submitting the motion of which he had given notice, stated, that his object was to put the House in possession of the number of persons who, in the last five years, had applied for admission to the reading-room of the British Museum without success. It appeared, indeed, by the returns, that the number of admissions was exactly equal to the number of applications, and that the greatest inconvenience to which applicants were subjected by the present regulations, was merely a postponement as it was called. But when this postponement was continued till the person applying for admission obtained a recommendation from a trustee, or an officer of the house, in many cases it must amount to a refusal. All he thought necessary was, that the officers should ascertain that the persons applying were of that respectability and station in life, which, were they personally known to them, would procure their admission. The names of all the persons who had applied within the last five years might easily be furnished; and if no list had been kept of those whose applications had been postponed, then another mode must be taken to ascertain their numbers, and he must apply to the persons themselves to come forward. He concluded by moving for an "account of all applications to be admitted to the Reading, Room of the British Museum, within the last five years, which had been postponed till the person applying could furnish the required reference."
Mr. Bankes
observed, that the hon. mover complained of the discretion vested in the officers of the House being too narrow; but surely it was fitting to see that the persons applying were of that description that ought to be admitted. He believed there was no instance of a proper person being refused admission; and therefore he hoped the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion.
Sir C. Long
challenged the hon. gentleman, if he had any case of grievance, to state it to the House; but at present he
156
Mr. Dickinson
bore testimony to the facility with which proper persons obtained admission.
Mr. Gurney
could not help adverting to the opinion which had gone abroad, that the libraries on the continent, particularly in France, were more easy of access than that of the British Museum. That this opinion was Unfounded would at once appear by adverting to the fact, that the library of the British Museum was open six hours a clay, with only a vacation of three weeks in the course of the whole year; whereas the libraries of Paris were open only four hours a day, with a vacation of six weeks.
Mr. Lennard
was not disposed to press the motion to a division. As the right hon. baronet had challenged him to produce a case of hardship, he would mention two. The first was the case of a gentleman engaged in the profession of the law, and who had been a contributor to the Museum. This gentleman, whose name was Jones, wrote to Mr. Planta requesting admission to the reading-room, and and was answered that a reference was required. The consequence was, that for these three months Mr. Jones had been unable to obtain admission. The other case was that of the son of an eminent professor at Geneva, who wished for admission to see the manuscript of Rousseau's works, but who received the same answer, and consequently had not been able to procure admission.
The motion was negatived.
ILCHESTER GAOL.]
Mr. Alderman Wood presented a petition from James Hillier, a prisoner in Ilchester Gaol, complaining of his treatment there. The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Alderman Wood
then rose. He said, he would not enter at much length into the subject at present, because he believed the motion for the appointment of a committee of inquiry would not be objected to. It would be, therefore, only necessary briefly to point out the principal topics of complaint which an inquiry would go to redress. The first was the irregular and inconvenient construction of the gaol. It was built near the river, and its foundation in some parts being
157
158
159
Mr. Buxton
seconded the motion, but in doing so, did not pledge himself to any opinion; his object was to ascertain whether the charges were true or false. They were charges of the most serious nature, and if they were not substantiated, he hoped every one would join with him in giving the character of the gaoler its just vindication; but if they were true, or bore the slightest approximation to truth—if any one of the gross acts of irregularity and debauchery charged on the gaoler had been committed, he was sure every member would join with him in visiting the gaoler with the severest punishment. He was charged by a person who had published a pamphlet on the subject of the prison (Mr. Hunt), with having given a high character of the gaol contrary to all fact. He could only say, that he had visited the prison, and discovered the errors of its construction; but he found there such a system of discipline and industry, as reflected the highest credit on the character of the gaoler; but he acknowledged, that in minor matters he might be liable to deception: whatever was good in those things was made obvious to every one, what was evil was concealed and kept out of view. He had gone to the prison, unacquainted with the name of the gaoler: he did not even know one of the magistrates, and it was through the intervention of a friend that he procured admission. What he had seen he had faithfully described: if he had been imposed upon when he gave that description, there was but one atonement which he could make, and that was, that when in the committee he would be as ready to expose his own mistakes as those of any body else. He would most heartily join with the worthy alderman to detect the truth; and he would join with others to do justice to the character of the gaoler,
160
Mr. Dickinson
confessed that, knowing what he did of the gaoler, he should be extremely surprised if these allegations could be proved. As to the disorders which were said to have prevailed in the gaoler's house, it was true that they had existed; and it was also true that the magistrates lost not one moment upon information being conveyed to them, in inquiring into the truth. It being found that these malpractices had gone on through the connivance of five or six servants, whose duty it was to have informed the gaoler, they were instantly discharged but the evil was proved to have existed entirely without the knowledge of that individual. As to the infirmary, the ground had been purchased and the building was still going on. With respect to the water, he had himself tasted it, and he understood it was uniformly good. He could of his own knowledge affirm that the bed of the river was 18 feet below the surface of the prison; and so far from the cells being exposed to any noxious effluvia, they were airy and commodious. The hon. gentleman then entered into some explanation relative to the case of Esther Church, a Quakeress, confined for debt, and read a letter from an individual of her own persuasion, to prove that the most humane attentions had been uniformly rendered to her by the gaoler. More than this, her own voluntary acknowledgements, had confirmed the account of her good treatment. He submitted, on the whole, whether it would not be better—as no person was more anxious than himself that the truth should be elicited in this case—to have a commission rather than a committee.
Sir Isaac Coffin
stated, that having been represented by the writer of a pamphlet on the gaol, as having played cards there and got drunk, he would support the motion for investigation.
Dr. Lushington
observed, that he had made some inquiry relative to these charges, and the result not having been satisfactory to his own mind, he thought a further inquiry ought to take place, and was due not only to the character of the gaoler, but of the magistrates. He thought the conduct of the magistrates entitled to commendation; they had made great improvements by introducing accommodation and discipline into the gaol, which did not exist there before. He
161
Mr. Bathurst
admitted, that this was a case fully justifying inquiry, and was decidedly of opinion, that the circumstances of the case called upon them to appoint a commission in preference to a committee.
Mr. Bennet
observed, that some of the complaints respecting Ilchester gaol were now allowed to be true by gentlemen who, when the subject was on a former occasion brought before the House by the worthy alderman, denied every word he uttered. One hon. gentleman had even gone so far as to state, that he believed the worthy alderman had not visited the gaol at all. In such a case as this, the House would do wrong not to take the inquiry into its own hands. He thought the best mode of inquiry was by a committee, and not by commission, which in the case of Lincoln castle, had turned out a mere mockery. He had
162
Sir M. Cholmeley
said, that the hon. member was not justified in calling the commission of inquiry relative to Lincoln Castle a mockery. He objected to the source whence the hon. member drew his information; he believed he had it from Mr. Finnerty.
Mr. Bennet
stated, that he had had no communication with Mr. Finnerty on the subject, but he believed him to be entitled to as much personal credit as the hon. baronet himself.
Sir T. Lethbridge
did not pretend to say that the conduct of the gaoler might not be exceptionable, but he was sure that not the slightest blame could be attributed to the visiting magistrates. The best means had been used to improve the gaol, especially with regard to its relation to the river; the foundation was several feet above the level of the river. He preferred a commission, by which both time and money would be saved.
Mr. Creevey
would vote for a committee in preference to a commission. In one case the House had the affair in its own hands; in the other it listened to commissioners appointed by the Crown, of whom he confessed he entertained a peculiar jealousy. He did not like to see places made on such occasions as this, of 1,000
l.
l.
Mr. D. Browne
hoped the House would not allow itself to be led into a serious discussion by all the babbling trifles that were uttered with respect to every gaol in the kingdom. The appointment of commissions or committees was a power which the House ought to exercise rarely.
Mr. Hume
expressed his surprise at the words used by the hon. member. As the hon. member had come from Ireland, where oppression, especially in prisons, was notoriously so familiar, his feelings might be steeled to the complaints or sufferings of prisoners. But the parliament of England was not yet, he hoped, prepared to adopt such indifference, or to sanction such scenes as had desolated and degraded Ireland. The case stated by the worthy aldermen was so flagitious, that he could not conceive it possible for the House to refuse inquiry.
163
Mr. Robinson
spoke in favour of a commission, observing, that although all the witnesses for the complainants might be at large, it did not follow that some of the witnesses on the other side might not be in prison. So that if a committee were even appointed, it might be necessary to resort to a commission at last. As to what had been suggested by the hon. member for Appleby, that the appointment of the commission might invest government with some trumpery patronage, he was not surprised at such a suggestion from such a quarter; but he had no hesitation in stating, that no consideration of patronage could weigh with him, or any of his friends near him, upon a question of this nature.
Mr. Harbord
thought that if a commission were appointed, it ought to consist of persons perfectly acquainted with the prison. He would object to any paid commission.
Mr. Goulburn
then moved as an amendment, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to issue a commission to inquire into what has been, and now is, the condition and treatment of prisoners confined in Ilchester gaol, the conduct and management of the said gaol, and the site and buildings of the same." After some further conversation, the question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," was put and negatived. The main question as amended, was then put and agreed to.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, lord Palmerston moved, "That 6,844
l.
Mr. Hume
was utterly at a loss to know for what purpose such an expense was necessary. In 1796 or 1798, a period of war, the whole establishment of the office of the commander-in-chief consisted of sir H. Bunbury and three clerks. The expense of that establishment in the present year was near 6,000
l.
l.
l.,
l.
164
l.
Lord Palmerston
observed, that the duties of the adjutant-general's office were multifarious, and quite distinct from those of the commander-in-chief. They consisted in receiving half yearly returns from every regiment in the service, returns twice a month from the inspecting-officers instituting inquiries into claims of every kind, transacting all the business which arose from the recruiting and dismissal of soldiers, granting leave of absence, &c. The House must be sick of references to the year 1792: it was really nonsense to talk of what existed in 1792, unless it could be shown that the business which was now to be carried on was the same as in that year. There was no office under government in which clerks were more closely employed. In 1792, there was nothing known of the state of regiments, or of the claims of individuals. Injustice was then endured from the difficulty of obtaining redress; now, every man of the lowest description in the kingdom knew if his claims were just, that they would be attended to; and his claims often occasioned more correspondence than cases of higher importance. He had seen a hundred letters on the subject of the claim of a private soldier.
Colonel Davies
allowed that it was not desirable to go back to the system of 1792. But his hon. friend made no such proposition. His amendment was, to allow three times the sum expended in 1792. The duties of the office were considerably greater in 1807 than at present, and the expence much less.
Mr. Bennet
observed, that the amendment was founded on the report of the committee of that House, appointed, and he might say packed, by the gentlemen opposite. The reduction of the number of regiments must have considerably reduced the duty of the adjutant-general's office. He wished to ask the House whether, in the present state of the country, they were determined not to reduce one shilling of these estimates? If so, there would be but one opinion as to what that House was in the mind of every honest man in the country.
Mr. John Smith
said, that an hon. baronet who had been in the War-office, was
165
l.
Lord Palmerston
replied, that sir Ralph Cooper, had been a clerk in the foreign department of the War-office, on the abolition of which, he received, as was invariably the usage, the pension alluded to.
The Committee divided:—For the Resolution, 83. For the Amendment, 54. Majority 29.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Alexander, J.
Holmes, W.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Hope, sir W.
Attwood, M.
Hotham, lord
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Hulse, sir C.
Beckett, rt. hon J.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Beresford, lord G.
Keck, G. A. L.
Blake, R.
Leigh, J. H.
Bradshaw, R. H.
Lockhart, W. E.
Broadhead, T. H.
Long, rt. hon. C.
Browne, P.
Lowther, lord
Browne, rt. hon. D.
Lushington, S. R.
Brydges, G.
Martin, sir B.
Burgh, sir U.
Martin, R.
Calvert, J.
Metcalfe, H.
Cawthorne, J. F.
Monteith, H.
Clinton, sir W.
Neale, sir H. B.
Clive, H.
Palmerston, lord
Cockburn, sir G.
Pearse, J.
Cocks, hon. J. S.
Pechell, sir T. B.
Congreve, sir W.
Pitt, W. M.
Cooper, R. B.
Plumber, J.
Copley, sir J.
Pole, rt. hon. W.
Courtenay, T. P.
Powell, E. W.
Courtenay, W.
Prendergast, M. G.
Croker, J. W.
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Dawkins, H.
Rocksavage, earl
Domville, sir C.
Scott, hon. J. J.
Downie, R.
Shaw, R.
Dundas, rt. hon. W.
Somerset, lord G.
Ellis, T.
Strutt, J. H.
Fellowes, W. H.
Taylor, sir H.
Fynes, H.
Temple, earl of
Gascoyne, I.
Townshend, hon. H
Goulburn, H.
Trench, F. W.
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Hardinge, sir W.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Hart, G. V.
Ward, R.
Harvey, sir E.
Wilson, sir H.
Harvey, C.
TELLER.
Holford, G.
Clerk, sir G.
MINORITY.
Bankes, H.
Chaloner, R.
Benyon, B.
Chetwynd, G.
Bernal, R.
Corbett, P.
Boughey, sir J.
Creevey, T.
Bury, visc.
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Buxton, T. F.
Crompton, S.
166
Davies, T. H.
O'Grady, S.
Denman, T.
Palmer, C. F.
Dickinson, W.
Parnell, sir H.
Duncannon, visc.
Philips, G. jun.
Evans, W.
Rice, T. S.
Farquharson, A.
Rickford, W.
Glenorchy, visc.
Robarts, A.
Gordon, R.
Sefton, earl of
Graham, S.
Smith, hon. R.
Grattan, J.
Smith, R.
Guise, sir W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Harbord, hon. E.
Tremayne, J. H.
Heron, sir R.
Whitbread, S. C.
Honywood, W. P.
Whitmore, W.
Hume, J.
Williams, W.
Hurst, R.
Wilson, sir R.
James, W.
Wilson, T.
Johnson, col.
Wodehouse, E.
Lennard, T. B.
Wyvill, M.
Lushington, S.
TELLER.
Monck, J. B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
On the Resolution, "That 6,192
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that though the office of quarter-master-general was one of considerable labour and importance in time of war, it was monstrous that the country should be burdened with so many quarter-master-generals, &c. in time of peace. Above 3,000
l.
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
observed, that the hon. member was upon this occasion completely caught in his own toils; for this was one of the establishments which was precisely on the same footing of expense that it stood in 1792.
Mr. Hume
contended, that there were five permanent district quarter-masters at present, whereas there were no such officers in 1792.
After some further Committee divided:—tion, 104. For the Majority 44.
On the Resolution, "That 922
l.
Mr. Hume
requested to hear from the noble lord, the particular duty the officer had to discharge.
167
Lord Palmerston
said, the office was as old as the Scotch Union, and the duty of the quarter-master-general was to make such arrangements as would prevent the troops in Scotland clashing on their march.
Mr. Bennet
objected to the item, and moved a reduction to 600
l.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the public were to pay 900
l.
The Lord Advocate
stated a recent instance, when the quarter-master-general was called upon to discharge an extensive and important duty, in consequence of several regiments of the line marching to Glasgow.
The Committee divided:—For the Resolution, 98. For the Amendment, 56. Majority, 42.
On the Resolution, "That 5,180
l.
Mr. Chetwynd
objected to the grant as a profligate expenditure of the public money. The allowance to the judge-advocate exceeded the salary of the lord-chief-justice of England, and he had not only a deputy-adjutant, but an assistant-deputy in his office. Fie hoped the country gentlemen would remember their pledges to their constituents, and draw the strings of the public purse a little tighter. With that view, he should move, as an amendment, that the sum of 3,180
l.
l.
The Judge Advocate
complained that the hon. gentleman should have brought the charge of profligate expenditure against him, without having previously informed himself of the fact. The present arrangement had been made in 1807, and the duties of the office had considerably increased. The salary of the judge-advocate-general was not, as the hon. gentleman supposed, 5,180
l.,
l.
Sir R. Fergusson
perfectly agreed with the lion, gentleman as to the extravagance of the sum proposed; and wished to know at how many general courts-martial the present judge-advocate-general had presided? The deputy-judge-
168
Mr. W. Smith
said, they had that night had another proof of the unfair manner in which observations originating on his side of the House were treated; for no sooner had a complaint been made of a general system of profligate expenditure, than the right hon. gentleman rose, and took the whole charge to himself, whereas, the charge was against the system, and not against the individual.
Mr. Chetwynd
said, he had no idea whatsoever of making apersonal allusion to the right hon. gentleman. He could have harboured no such intention, as the right hon. gentleman was perfectly unknown to him. He said, and would repeat it, that he considered the whole system to be one of profligate expenditure. His majesty's speech from the throne, and the speeches of ministers, had led him to expect a great reduction of expense. But he had been so much disappointed, that though no man was more inclined to support ministers, he could not do so when he saw them resist every proposition that tended to retrenchment. He was determined to do his duty to the country, while he had the honour of a seat in that House, without indulging in any personal feeling or motive.
Mr. Denman
had no hesitation in saying, that the labours, not only of the chief justice, but of the puisne judges, far exceeded those of the right hon. gentleman. He regretted, that particular circumstances prevented him from attending in his place to assist those who had so honourably opposed the enormous grants of the public money—exertions which if they did not tell at the present time, would operate most beneficially hereafter.
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, was as ready to economize as any man, but it was neither economy nor prudence to reduce the salaries of public officers. The army should have the highest legal talent. The judges were not liberally paid; and therefore a comparison of their salaries and that of the right hon. gentleman was unfair. He should vote for the larger sum.
Mr. Hume
begged to remind the House, that the salary of the former advocate-general (sir C. Morgan), who not only acted as advocate-general, but as secretary to the board of general officers, amounted in the whole to 1,033
l.
169
l.
l.
l.
Dr. Lushington
said, that the judge-advocate had been under secretary of state for 12 years, and could not therefore be entitled to any compensation on the ground of giving up his profession. If the salary of his office was 2,500
l.
l.
l.
Lord Milton
protested against the idea of taking the salaries of 1806 as any standard for the salaries of the present day. In 1806, corn was sold at 88
s.
s.
Mr. Bennet
said he should be glad to see any the smallest reduction made in the estimates.
Mr. R. Martin
said, if the hon. gentleman would propose a reduction of 5
s.
Mr. Bathurst
said, the ground for the reduction of the salary of the judge-advocate had failed, because it had been shown that the business was as great now as it had been in time of war. The argument drawn from the depreciation of money would apply to all offices.
Mr. Hume
said, that the right hon. gentleman who now filled the chair of that House, and who preceded the learned gentleman in his office, had, he understood, attended, with one exception, every general court-martial held in London during the
170
The Judge Advocate
said, the rule which he found established, and which he had observed was, for the judge-advocate to attend in person only at the trial of general officers. The trouble and investigation in other cases were however just the same.
Sir R. Fergusson
begged to ask, how-many courts-martial on commissioned officers the right hon. gentleman had attended since he held his office?
The Judge Advocate
stated, that he had attended all the courts-martial held at headquarters except one, and their number, he believed, amounted to six.
The committee then divided: For Mr. Bennet's amendment 44; against it 92: majority 48.—For Mr. Chetwynd's amendment 51; against it 83: majority 82.—For Dr. Lushington's amendment 53; against it 82: majority 29.—The original resolution was agreed to. The chairman obtained leave to report progress, and at a quarter after two in the morning the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 12, 1821
PETITION FROM LYME REGIS RESPECTING THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.]
Mr. Lambton
rose to present a petition relative to the state of the representation of the people in that House from the resident but non-represented freeholders of the borough of Lyme-Regis. The petitioners stated, that, from the 23rd of Edward 1st, to the 14th of George 1st, 1727 the elective franchise was exercised by all the resident freeholders in the borough; but at the latter period the right was disputed, and by a decision of that House, in 1780, the right of voting was declared to be vested in the mayor, burgesses, and freemen only; since which time the borough had been under the patronage and disposition of a peer of the realm, who by his sole influence returned members to parliament for a series of years, generally his own personal friends or relations. It was perfectly well known who the peer here alluded to was; but as his name was not mentioned in the petition, he did not
171
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that with all deference to his hon. friend, he did not think it the right course that the petition should merely be laid on the table; for if the petitioners had stated that which they could make out by evidence, when they said that a peer of parliament had habitually interfered in the election of members, he thought it impossible that they could suffer a practice to go on in defiance of their declared privileges—and constantly repeated votes, and of the law of the land, without taking notice of it. That the petition should lie on the table would be a very inadequate measure, and he should therefore move to refer it to a committee of privileges. Whatever opinions might prevail in the House as to a sweeping parliamentary reform, there could be no doubt as to the principle that the constitution disallowed the interference of peers in elections. It was provided so early as the reign of Edward 1st by the first statute of Westminster, that no peer or great man should interfere in elections, either by force of arms or malice—which malice meant (according to lord Coke's interpretation at least) the malice of money. In the reign of Elizabeth, the evil of patronage had got to some height; for they heard of a dame Dorothy Packington, who returned two members to the House. Of its height in modern times they had proof in a petition which had been presented to the House from the "Friends of the people" on the 6th of May, 1793, in which the petitioners stated and offered to prove at the bar, that a majority of the House at that day was returned by the nomination or influence of 154 patrons. So late as 1813, a petition had been presented to the House, staing that two seats in the House had been bequeathed by the will of the late sir John Johnstone, and the codicil was
172
Sir J. Graham
said, the case of the electors of Lyme Regis, in which borough there had been more litigation than in any other part of the kingdom, had long since been decided. It was not proper to make a complaint at this time relative to the right of enjoying the elective franchise. That could only be done by a petition against the returning officer immediately after an election. With respect to the allegation against a peer of the realm, how could the complaint be entertained when no name was mentioned and no act specified? He believed a great number of gentlemen who sat opposite could be pointed out as being returned to parliament by peers, or the relations of peers, for close boroughs. This, however was not a close borough. The electors consisted of a certain number of freemen and burgesses, who were not the dependants of any peer. He knew some of them who, he would venture to say, were as respectable as any men in the kingdom.
Mr. Hurst
said, that as this petition did not complain of a particular election, it could not be the subject of an election committee. But as the, Petitioners complained that, for a long course of years,
173
ex debito justitiœ
Lord Lowther
said, that the right of election which was claimed by the petitioners, had been frequently decided against.
Mr. Lambton
said, this was not an election petition, as it did not complain of an election, but complained that for many years the franchise had been taken away from them. The statement of the hon. baronet that he saw many members who were nominated by peers, was certainly a bad answer to the complaint of the petition. He rather wondered that the hon. baronet had not been called to order. But it seemed now a too generally admitted fact, to affect any squeam-ishness about, that members were nominated by peers. The question now was, whether the House would take any particular notice of this petition? Certainly it would be more consistent with its ordinary usage to admit the facts alleged, and to let the petition go forth to the world uncontradicted. However, as his own opinion was, that the subject was fit to be discussed in a committee, he should agree to the amendment.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he would withdraw his amendment on the understanding that he should propose it as a substantive motion.
The Speaker
said, that could not be done on the same day that the petition was laid on the table.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he should then press his amendment.
Mr. Huskisson
said, the petition was confined to the statement of a general evil, coupled with a complaint of the decision of the House as to the right of voting for the borough. No particular election was complained of, and no specific ground was laid for the interference of the House. The subject of the petition might be very proper for reference, upon a motion respecting the general state of the representation; but he did not think it a case to justify a reference to a committee of privileges.
Lord Althorp
said, the present was not a general complaint; for it alluded to an individual instance, and an individual peer, though he was not mentioned by name; and it also stated, that that peer influenced the election. He considered this a direct breach of privilege, and highly fit to be considered in a committee.
174
Mr. Monck
said, if there was any thing more clear than another it was that the interference of a peer in an election was a breach of privilege. If the complaint had referred to a particular election it would have been only cognizable by an election committee, but. as the abuse was alleged to be of long continuance, it formed a fit subject for a special examination. If the House suffered it to pass over without notice, it would not increase the confidence of the people out of doors.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that as it was distinctly stated by the petitioners, that a peer of the realm had for some years interfered in the election of members, the petition ought to be forthwith referred to the committee of privileges.
Mr. J. H. Smyth
was of opinion, after having read the petition, that it did not contain such a complaint as the House was bound to refer to the committee of privileges. After alluding to the right of exercising the elective franchise, the petitioners went on to complain, that a peer of the realm had used his influence in the election of members for this borough. This was a grave charge. But he was not prepared to say that influence arising from title, property, rank, distinction, was the same thing as interference. The House only condemned a corrupt and improper influence.
Mr. Wynn
said, that this was a petition which the House could not refer to a committee of privileges. The charges were of a vague and general nature; no peer was specified as having interfered; and therefore if the petition were referred the committee would have to ascertain what peer the allegation was directed against. But if this influence were proved, what punishment could they enforce? Except the peer happened to be the lord lieutenant of a county, or held an office under the Crown, from which he might be removed, by addressing his majesty, he feared that the House could inflict no punishment, A complaint of this kind had been formerly made against the duke of Bolton; but the committee found they could not bring it to a useful conclusion; and, after examining some witnesses, adjourned for four months. If bribery or some undue influence, which might be made the subject of a prosecution, were not proved, the House had no means of inflicting punishment.
Sir J. Newport
said, that if the position of the hon. member was correct, the
175
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," being put, the House divided: Ayes, 82. Noes, 33. The original question was then put and agreed to.
USURY LAWS.]
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
rose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to the subject of the laws for regulating or restraining the interest of money. He alluded to those laws which had been passed for the avowed purpose of preventing usury. When he, in the year 1816, brought them under consideration, it was admitted by the chancellor of the exchequer, that they were in principle indefensible, but that the state of the public mind was at that time such as to render the agitation of the question dangerous. The right hon. gentleman added, that a time would no doubt arrive when the discussion might be safely entered on. He had afterwards consented to a second postponement of the subject, in consequence of representations made to him by the solicitors of the Bank. The committee to whom the question had been referred, had gone with the greatest attention into every branch of the inquiry, and had received very important evidence both from persons favourable and persons hostile to an alteration of the existing law. Amongst other witnesses, the hon. member for Portarlington (Mr. Ricardo) had been examined, Mr. Kaye the solicitor to the Bank, some of the first representatives of the monied interest in the city, and a name never to be mentioned without veneration, the late sir S. Romilly. The concurrent opinion of these last mentioned individuals was, that the usury laws answered no good purpose whatever. He would now state the substance of the resolutions to which the committee, on a full review of the evidence, had finally agreed. The first was, that the laws in question were continually evaded with success: that of late years they had been converted into a means of greatly increasing the expense to borrowers; and that
176
l.
Mr. Davenport
said, that the measure
177
Sir Robert Heron
did not mean to oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, but was at the same time desirous of expressing his decided opinion that it was the most mischievous ever proposed for the adoption of that House. It would if it should pass, have the effect of introducing uncertainty into all mortgages; nor would any parties be disposed to lend until they conceived that they had obtained the highest possible interest. At present all money borrowed upon annuity must by law be registered, and this was a very operative check on that ruinous mode of raising money. By the proposed measure, this necessity would be removed. If unhappily it should receive the sanction of the House, he should move for an alteration of its title, and that it be called "a bill for more speedily ruining the young nobility and gentry of the country."
Lord Althorp
could not conceive how a bill of this nature was likely to operate injuriously towards the landed interest. On other points of legislation, the House was called upon to consider principles, but in the present case it was enabled to decide from practice. It was known that when the legal interest upon money was so much as eight per cent, money was at that rate invested in mortgage, and although eleven per cent could be obtained upon annuities with liberty to insure the life of the borrower, money was not transferred from mortgages to annuities. Why thon should the apprehension of such transfer be entertained in the present case, or that enabling men to sell the use of money at the market price would operate against the landed interest?
Mr. Philips
thought that those who calculated upon any disadvantage to the landed interest from the measure, had never read the evidence taken before the committee upon this subject. From that evidence it appeared, that a measure of this nature was peculiarly calculated to serve the landed as well as the commercial interests. He could not see why money should not be an article as free in the market as land or goods. From the state of the laws referred to in the motion, many men in trade were often obliged,
178
Mr. R. Gordon
deprecated the theory which this proposition had in view, cautioning the House to beware of theories from the sad experience of the measure for the resumption of cash payments. This, however, was the age of theories, and nothing was heard of but a recourse to first principles. He must, notwithstanding this cry, sanctioned as it was by authority, deprecate the proposed change in the laws against usury, as well as other changes, which he deemed wild and visionary speculations.
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that his hon. friend who spoke last seemed to him to have mistaken both the disease and the remedy. The distress which existed arose from theory, and from the preposterous theory of a legislative interference with money dealings, which was not applied to any other branch of commerce. Some persons had been of opinion, that the same principle ought to be introduced into the manufacture and sale of bread; but in practice it would always be found most advantageous to leave the seller and purchaser, the lender and borrower, to make their own contracts according to their several necessities. It was by this course that they would ensure the best supply at the cheapest rate.
Mr. Calcraft
confessed, that his prejudices were strong against the proposed alteration, and were founded in reflection upon what the country had suffered at former periods from an unlimited rate of interest. With regard to the sale of bread, there had been a maximum fixed by assize; and when that was repealed, great advantages, none of which had been realized, were anticipated to the consumer. The country, it should not be forgotten, had risen under the existing laws to an unrivalled degree of commercial prosperity, and trade had flowed into every channel where capital was found. He greatly feared that the measure was calculated to unsettle mortgages, and to persuade lenders that they ought to have obtained better terms.
Mr. Ricardo
thought the House and the public were very much indebted to the learned gentleman, for the measure which he had proposed; and expressed
179
Mr. Baring
said, that the measure would be of the greatest benefit to the country, and came before the House at the most safe and seasonable period. When introduced about six years ago, it might perhaps have created that alarm and derangement which some hon. members supposed it calculated to produce; because the war rate of interest was at that time above five per cent; but at present, when the rate of interest in the money market was below 5 per cent, there was no reason to apprehend such an inconvenience. He conceived that the measure would not be attended with so much benefit to the mercantile interests and moneyed men as to the landed interest.
Mr. Monck
spoke strongly in support of the measure under discussion, which proposed to remove one of the remnants of the old and irrational system of assize, the servants of the Ordnance department We had had, in ancient times, an assize
180
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
CIVIL OFFICES IN THE ORDNANCE
Mr. Hume,
in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice, regretted that a question of so great constitutional importance had not fallen into the hands of some member more competent to do it justice. There were two points of view in which he wished to represent the subject to the House: first, as a constitutional question involving the consideration how far individuals under the influence of the Crown ought to be allowed to vote for members of parliament; and next, how far that influence was likely to lead to extravagance in keeping up offices and appointments not necessary for the public service. His attention had been more especially directed to this subject, in consequence of the inquiries which he had made into the state of the brought of Queenborough; and it would be in the recollection of the House that some weeks ago he had called their attention to various mal-practices, peculations, and abuses on the part of certain individuals in Sheerness, belonging to the borough of Queenborough, and connected with the Ordnance department. In almost every department of the Ordnance there were to be found individuals from the borough of Queenborough. Not only had new situations been created for freemen of that borough, but some most meritorious individuals had been turned out to make way for them. The object of his present motion was, to disqualify from voting at elections, in the same man-
181
*
*
182
183
184
l.
l.
l.
l.
185
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
186
l.
l.,
l.
187
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
ABSTRACT.
NO.
1.
147
Freeman
14,766
32 houses and apartments, and 9 servants found; officers at public expense.
2.
11
Freemen's sons or relatives
2,629
three houses and three servants.
3
Estimated profits arising from craft employed by the Ordnance, belonging to freemen of Queenbrought
1,642
£19,037
total 25 houses and 12 servants.
4,
32
Freemen,—28 belonging to Customs and preventive service, ineligible to vote; the other 4; eligible to vote
3,735
exclusively of provisions, which several have found them by government.
190
£22,772
to which the expense of houses and servants in the Ordnance, and provisions
188
in the Customs, makes it 25,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
189
Mr. Bernal
said, he felt very considerable pleasure in seconding the motion, not on the mere principle of economy alone, but on the general principle of protecting the purity of election. He did not look upon it as affecting any particular administration. He would support it under any. At the same time, he was far from denying that every administration ought to have its fair influence in the country. Such fair influence he was not disposed to curb; but he did not wish to see it overflow its proper bounds, and carry every thing by power alone, without leaving any thing to depend on the mere character of an administration. He had listened with attention to the many cases cited by his hon. friend, in which, in his opinion, the influence of the government had been unduly exercised: but it was not on the strength of any of those cases, or all of them, that he should vote; for if all of them could be satisfactorily explained, still the principle of his vote would remain unaltered. He thought, however, that even by those cases that principle was strengthened; and he hoped his hon. friend would extend his diligent labours to other branches of the civil government. He did not mean by this, that the great officers of the Crown should be excluded from seats in that House; on the contrary, he wished that they should be in parliament; but he did not wish that they whose support depended entirely on the patronage of ministers in several public departments should be allowed to vote so long as they held such situations.
Mr. Robert Ward
said, that in rising to answer the hon. mover, and to state his opposition to the bill in every part, he had some difficulty, whether to commence with the conclusion of the hon. member's statement, or to go back to those with which he commenced. Notwithstanding the impression which the hon. member might have made on the House by his latter statements, he thought it would be better to take up the question and go on with it, as the hon. member had done; as he was confident, that he was enabled to give a satisfactory answer to every part of his speech. But first he begged to say of the proposed bill, that if it were of that vast importance which the hon. gentleman attached to it; if it went to create such a great change in the constitution of that House, he would put it to the hon. member, whether it would not have been bet-
190
in limine,
191
192
*
*
193
194
s.
d.
195
l.
l.
l.
l.
196
197
Colonel Davies
supported the motion, which he contended was founded on the best and the most ancient principles of the constitution.
Mr. Tierney
said, that upon this question he could not give a silent vote, lest his conduct should be exposed to misrepresentation. In deciding upon the vote which he meant to give on the present occasion, he entirely threw out of his view the general charges brought by his lion, friend against the Ordnance department, as well as the reply made to them by the right hon. gentleman. He did not know, indeed, how he could come to a safe vote upon these charges, without having the benefit of a previous investigation of them through the labours of a committee. Throwing these out of view, the point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was, that upon which he was inclined to support the proposition of his hon. friend. He was bound to show that in acceding to this motion, he was adopting no novel proceeding—that he was pursuing no new theory; but on the contrary acting remedially, and in the spirit of the existing law. As the law stood, it prevented numerous classes from voting at elections. In 1782, a law was passed to prevent public officers in the Excise and Customs from voting at elections. That law was found so salutary, the advantages of it were so universally felt, that twenty years afterwards, on the union with Ireland, the provisions of the
198
199
Mr. Bathurst
contended, that the principle of the bill, were it entertained by the House, could not be confined to Queenborough nor to the Ordnance department; it would extend a great deal further, and would be applied in the next instance to the navy and to others. It was impossible to separate the present question from the general subject of parliamentary reform. He could not approve of a measure which went to disfranchise, without adequate cause, a number of his majesty's subjects.
Mr. Hume
replied to the statement of the right hon. clerk of the Ordnance. He had understood the right hon. member to say that Savory had not applied to the board for employment: upon that point he would lay proof positive before the House, for he held in his hand a document no less decisive than the answer of Mr. Crewe to Savory's application, stating, that his request had been laid before the board, and that no situation could be found for him. The hon. member then went on to charge undue partiality upon the arrangements of the Ordnance department, and the grant of especial advantage to those servants of that department who chanced to be freemen of Queenborough. The voters of that borough took, he said, annually from government a sum of not Jess than 25,000
l.
200
l.
The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 118;—Majority against the motion, 58.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
A'Court, E. H.
Cust, E.
Bankes, G.
Cust, P.
Bankes, H.
Dent, J.
Bathurst, C.
Dobson, J.
Beckett, J. R.
Domville, sir C.
Beresford, sir J. P.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Bernard, vise.
Drummond, J.
Brandling, C. J.
Elliot, hon. W.
Brogden, J.
Ellis, C. R.
Browne, J.
Estcourt, T. G.
Browne, D.
Finch,G.
Browne, P.
Fleming, J.
Bruce, R.
Forbes, C.
Brydges, ald.
Gladstone, J.
Buchanan,
Gordon, R.
Burgh, sir U.
Grant, A. C.
Calthorpe, F. G.
Graves, lord
Calvert, J.
Grosett, J. R.
Canning, G.
Hardinge, sir H.
Cheere, E. M.
Hare, hon. R.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Hart, W.
Clements, J.
Hill, sir G.
Clerk, sir G.
Holford, G.
Clive, H.
Holmes, W.
Cockburn, sir G.
Hotham, lord
Collett, E.
Huskisson, W.
Congreve, sir W.
Innes, sir H.
Cooper, B.
Irving, J.
Cooper, E. S.
Lester, B.
Copley, sir J.
Lewis, W.
Corbett, P.
Lockhart, E.
Courtenay, T. P.
Long, sir C.
Courtenay, W.
Lushington, S. R.
Cranborne, lord
Luttrell, H.
Cumming, G.
Macnaughten, E. A.
Cust, W,
Marryat, J.
201
Martin, sir B.
Russell, J. W.
Martin, R. (Galway)
Scott, H. J.
Metcalfe, H.J.
Shaw, R.
Money, W. T.
Shiffner, sir G.
Monteith, H. G.
Sneyd, N.
Musgrave, sir J.
Somerset, lord G.
Nolan, M.
Sotheron, F.
Nightingale, sir M.
Stewart, W.
Onslow, A.
Strutt, J. G.
Osborne,lord
Suttie, sir J.
Paget, B.
Townshend,—
Palmerston, lord
Twiss, H.
Pearse, J.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Penruddock, J.
Walker, J.
Percy, hon. H.
Wallace, T.
Phipps, hon. E.
Walpole, lord
Pitt, W.
Ward, J. W.
Pitt, J.
Wemyss, J.
Pole, rt. hon. W.
Wetherell, C.
Prendergast, W. G.
Wyndham, W.
Rae, sir W.
Yarmouth, lord
Ricketts, C.
TELLERS.
Robinson, F.
Goulburn, H.
Rocksavage, lord
Ward, R.
MINORITY.
Allan, J. H.
Lennard, T. B.
Althorp, visc.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Barratt, S. M.
Marjoribanks, S.
Benett, J.
Martin, J:
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Monck, J. B.
Birch, J.
Moore, P.
Bright, H.
Palmer, C. F.
Bury, vise.
Pares, T.
Cavendish, H.
Parnell, sir H.
Chetwynd, G.
Ramsden, J. C.
Colburne, N. R.
Ricardo, D.
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Rickford, W.
Davies, T. H.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Denman, T.
Robarts, A.
Duncannon, vise.
Roberts, G.
Ellice, E.
Rumbold, C.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Scarlett, J.
Gordon, R.
Smith, hon. R.
Graham, S.
Smith, W.
Grant, J. P.
Smith, J.
Grattan, J.
Stewart, W.
Guise, sir W.
Stuart, lord J.
Haldimand, W.
Sykes, D.
Hamilton, lord A.
Taylor, M. A.
Heron, sir R.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Whitbread, W. H.
Hornby, E.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hurst, R.
Williams, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Wyvill, M.
James, W.
TELLERS.
Jervoise, G. P.
Bernal, R.
Johnson, col.
Hume, J.
Lambton, J. G.
SCOTCH MALT TAX.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
202
Mr. Monck
opposed the motion, upon the ground that England and Scotland ought, as regarded the duty, to be upon an equality. He hoped, in a future session, to see the tax overcome by the united efforts of both countries.
Sir G. Clerk
observed, that the question as it regarded Scotch barley was very distinct from the general question of the malt tax. A motion respecting the additional duty exacted from Scotland had been brought forward by the noble member for Lanarkshire. On that occasion the chancellor of the exchequer had pledged himself to take the subject into consideration.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he knew the course he was about to take was unpopular; but, as he believed the committee was proposed, not with a reference to the merits of the measure itself, but as a boon to the Scotch members to vote with the minister, he would oppose the motion.
Mr. Mackenzie
denied the assumption, that the present measure was intended to induce the Scots to vote with the administration. It was too much for gentlemen to oppose a committee on such an opinion as that. The leading object of the committee was, to enquire whether the statements of some of the Scots counties were correct. If their claims were not well grounded, he was sure the House would not listen to them.
Mr. J. P. Grant
supported the motion though he confessed it was brought forward under very suspicious appearances.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he would vote for the motion, if the chancellor of the exchequer would give a proof of his sincerity, by allowing the committee to consider the case of the growers of inferior barley in England also. In Northumberland they suffered as much under the tax as in any part of Scotland. The House divided: Ayes 56; Noes 17.
List of the Minority.
Allan, J. H.
Fergusson, sir R.
Althorp, lord
Graham, S.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Bright, H.
Hume, J.
Colborn, R,
Johnson col.
203
Palmer, F.
Smith, J.
Ricardo, D.
Taylor, M. A.
Ridley, sir M. W.
TELLERS.
Smith, hon. R.
Gordon, R.
Smith, W.
Monck, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, April 13, 1821
BANK CASH PAYMENTS BILL.]
On the motion, that the bill be read a third time,
Mr. Ellice
wished to draw the attention of the chancellor of the exchequer to one provision, which appeared to have escaped his observation; but which a number of persons who were very much interested in the effects of this bill considered of great importance. By the law as it now stood, the Bank was not compelled to give small notes in exchange for large ones. Now, as some inconvenience might arise to the public, in consequence of the alteration proposed by this bill, and as country banks might be placed in a certain degree of difficulty, if they could not procure small notes to meet any casual run upon them, under peculiar circumstances, he thought a clause might be added, as a rider to the bill, compelling the Bank to give, in exchange for their larger notes, either legal gold coin of the realm, or bank of England one-pound notes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not see the necessity of adding such a clause to the bill. There would, he was sure be no objection, at the Bank, to exchange those large notes for current gold coin of the realm, or for one-pound notes. An hon. director had distinctly stated, that the Bank was prepared in any possible event, either to give small notes or the current coin of the realm, in exchange for notes of a large amount.
Mr. Ellice
observed, that if he understood the right hon. gentleman, he stated that the Bank were now bound by law to exchange large for small notes or the current coin of the realm. If this were so, then certainly the clause he proposed was unnecessary. He did not wish to press the clause against the consent of the right hon. gentleman; but if he withdrew it, it was on a distinct understanding that the Bank were now compelled by law, to give either 1
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that rather than be responsible for any mistake, with respect to the existing law, he would agree to the clause.
204
Mr. Grenfell
believed that the Bank neither was nor would be bound by law to pay its large notes in smaller notes or in cash, until 1823. Having this impression, he hoped his hon. friend would press his proposition.
Mr. Scarlett
said, before the late bill passed, the Bank were precluded from paying in cash at all. A new discretion would be given to them by the present bill; but there was no law that he knew of, which rendered it imperative on them to pay their large notes in small ones.
Mr. Littleton
was confident that if the clause proposed were not enacted, great mischief would be the consequence. He could assure the House that the subject was one on which the country bankers felt much anxiety. It would inspire them with great confidence, if the clause were added to the bill.
Mr. Bankes
was convinced that to withdraw the small notes from circulation would serve to aggravate the distress of the country. The Bank should be obliged to supply the country with one pound notes for the accommodation of the public. If, indeed, small notes were withdrawn while gold was issued at its sterling value, he could not conceive it possible to prevent the export of gold. Small bank-notes should be circulated in conjunction with gold; and so long as that was the case, he had no doubt that the former would be generally preferred, as notes were so much more convenient to carry than gold, and formed a great protection against robbery, thieves very naturally feeling it dangerous to deal in articles so likely to lead to detection. In order to guard against the export of our gold coin, it would, in his opinion, be expedient that it should rather be a token than a representative of value. This was the only country in Europe which did not charge seignorage; and that was a disadvantage to us which might be as fairly met by issuing gold, and silver also, as tokens above their real value, as that the banknote should be the standard of value. Such a plan appeared to him the only one that could be devised to prevent our gold coin from being exported. For instance, he would have the sovereign pass for a guinea, and the crown, as well as other denominations of coin, for something more than their real value.
Mr. Bennet
said, he should prefer a very great degree of public inconvenience to the numerous and dreadful evils which
205
l.
l.
206
l.
Mr. Cripps
expressed his opinion, that the wants of the community could not be adequately supplied by a cash circulation. If any-alarm should arise, and a run upon the banks take place in consequence, the gold would be immediately exported. He could not agree, however, with the suggestion, that it would be more advantageous to circulate the gold in the shape of tokens rather than as coin. With regard to the increased number of forgeries, it was to be attributed, partly to the increase of population, and partly to the general substitution of paper for coin. He believed that a reference to the late assizes would show, that offences of every other kind had also multiplied.
Mr. Pearse
observed, that there seemed to be but one opinion with regard to the propriety of passing this bill. He really did not see any reason for the alarm that was represented to have taken possession of the country banks. The Bank of England had alway been solicitous to consult the interest and convenience of the public, and to afford all the accommodation in their power. In confirmation of this, he might allude to the respectable authority of the late Mr. Horner in 1810. Here the hon. director read an extract from the bullion report. The Bank had, in the judgment of the committee, exercised a very great degree of forbearance and discretion, in not converting to their own profit the means placed at their disposal, and had fully justified the confidence reposed in them by the public. He was not aware that any thing had subsequently occurred which ought to change this opinion of their conduct.
Mr. Grenfell
said, that the hon. gentleman was never more mistaken than when he represented him as differing in opinion from his late lamented friend Mr. Horner. On the contrary, there was no one step which he had not taken in perfect concurrence with that learned gentleman. The hon. member adverted to a speech of Mr. Horner, in which he characterised the transactions between the government and the Bank, as a scene of rapacity on the part of the directors, and of extravagance and profligacy on the part of the chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Monck
begged to call to the recollection of the House, what had been the extent of the great forbearance of the Bank of winch so much had been said.
207
l.
l.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that hon. gentlemen had argued as if the Bank restriction act was a measure asked for by the Bank, whereas it was forced upon them by the government, and by the political occurrences of the day. It should be recollected that the Bank was the representative of a large body of persons, whose interests they were bound to protect. He saw nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the Bank; on the contrary, his opinion had always been, that their conduct reflected the highest, credit upon them as trustees of the body for whom they acted.
Mr. Wilson
said, that when the hon. member spoke of the increased issues of
208
Mr. Alderman Heygate
expressed his doubt as to the efficacy of the bill. He wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether the Bank had a sufficient quantity of specie to replace, not only the whole of their own small notes, but those also of the country banks, which must be drawn out of circulation. He made this inquiry because it was not unlikely that the country bankers would withdraw their one pound notes as soon as this measure came into operation. The issue of those notes, by country bankers, was the least profitable, but most troublesome part of their business; and they had some time since an intention of withdrawing their small notes, which was not carried into effect, purely out of a consideration for the inconvenience it would produce to the country. If the Bank had been forced into their situation by the government, it was not fair to blame them for the effects which that situation had produced.
Mr. Ricardo
said, he should not have blamed the Bank if they had only increased their issues to an amount sufficient to replace the gold coin that had been removed from the country; but they had extended their issues far beyond what was necessary for that purpose, and to this increase of circulation he ascribed all the depreciation which had followed.
l.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and parliament moved, "That 14,474
l.
s.
d.
209
Mr. Hume
said, he rose to move a reduction of 2000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, that in the refer-
210
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Bernal
contended, that the country had a right to look for some reductions in the sixth year of peace. He objected to the practice of making an augmentation once allowed perpetual. The argument against reduction upon this
211
Lord Palmerston
said, that the argument of the hon. member was not correct. The charge for this establishment was not of a fixed nature, but varied according to circumstances. The estimates were always made out with a view to the necessity of the current year.
Colonel Davies,
though he agreed that the commander-in-chief was not overpaid, considered it absurd that the present reduced number of clerks in the office should receive an equally large amount of salary as when they were eight more in number. He had the strongest objection to the continuance of the chaplaincy, which might very well be dispensed with.
Mr. Sykes
said, there was always an ingenious excuse offered for any increase of public expense. The noble lord had argued, that large patronage justified large salary; but if this were correct, the commander-in-chief ought to have had three times his present salary during the war. He confessed that he looked at the situation of the country with dismay; especially as he saw no disposition on the part of the House to economize. The salaries had been raised on account of the unfavourable change in the currency, and as that currency had now arrived at a more favourable state, those salaries ought to be proportionably reduced.
General Gascoyne
bore testimony to the severe duties of the military secretary to the commander-in-chief. The present holder of that important office had been there so early as the year 1793; and surely the same principle of remuneration which prevailed in every other public office, might reasonably be applied to the office of the commander-in-chief. When the duke of York was first appointed commander-in-chief, his salary and allowances were lower, than at present, because his own rank was then lower. When the duke of Wellington was made field-marshal he had insisted upon his full pay for the situation as well as for his rank.
Lord Palmerston
said, that so far from the duke of Wellington having insisted upon his full pay for his situation and his rank, that arrangement was made without my previous communication with his grace.
212
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that if the 2,000
l.
Lord Milton
could not consent to give the same salaries now as in former years. The situation of the country was much altered from what it had been, when those salaries were granted. It behoved parliament to look into the different statutes by which increased allowances had been made to the royal family, the salaries of the judges, and so on; and into all the other acts passed at a time when the state of the currency and the rise of prices made such previsions necessary. He called upon the landed gentlemen not to lose sight of this important duty. They could not collect their rents; the farmer could not dispose of his produce; and almost every class had to deplore the same overwhelming depreciation. He saw no reason why persons in public offices, and annuitants upon the public, should be alone exempted from any decrease of means or fluctuation of property.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that such an argument, if it were good for any thing, was equally applicable to the stockholder and public annuitant—a doctrine which was too absurd to require refutation.
Mr. Abercromby
suggested the expediency of a review, by government, of the situation of all the clerks of all the public departments, with a view of making every possible reduction.
Mr. Monck
contended, that the time had arrived when every possible reduction ought to be effected.
Sir H. Parnell
observed, that when in 1804 Mr. Pitt proposed an increase of salaries to various public officers, it was on the ground of the depreciation of the currency. That depreciation no longer existing, the salaries ought to be reduced to their original amount.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the highest offices ought to sacrifice a part of their salaries, and then they might fairly call upon the subordinates to do the same.
Mr. Hume
expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the worthy alderman. The commander-in-chief should begin the reduction, and not the minor clerks.
213
The committee divided on Mr. Hume's amendment, that 2,000
l.
List of the Minority.
Beaumont, T. W.
Milton, lord
Bennet, hon. G. H.
Monck, J. B.
Benyon, B.
Nugent, lord
Bernal, R.
Ord, W.
Carter, J.
Parnell, sir H.
Denman, T.
Pryse, P.
Gordon, R.
Ricardo, D.
Grattan, J.
Sykes, D.
Guise, sir W.
Wood, ald.
Harbord, hon. E.
Wyvill, M.
Hurst, R.
TELLER.
Johnson, col.
Hume, J.
The committee again divided on an amendment, to reduce the vote to 2,474
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
Colonel Davies
objected to this vote, on the ground that there were not above two courts-martial in the course of a year requiring the attention of such an officer.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the judge advocate had been called upon to attend six courts-martial last year.
Mr. Bennet
did not think the arduous duty of attending six courts-martial out of 3,000 men, sufficient to justify the payment of so large a sum.
Mr. O'Grady
thought, that any field officer might discharge the duty of a judge advocate.
Mr. Hume
wished to know whether if 2000 men were about to be sent to a foreign station, the noble lord would think it necessary to appoint a deputy judge advocate to attend them. If not, he did not see how he could defend the appointment for the same number in Scotland.
Lord Palmerston
said, it would be beneficial to the service in general if such appointments were made, although in pursuance of that system of economy which had been adopted in the military departments, many foreign deputy judge advocates general had been reduced.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that ministers heretofore were put to their shifts; but now they had not a rag to cover them.
214
Mr. W. Dundas
contended, that the office was an ancient Scotch office.
Mr. Ellice
observed, that the reason stated by the hon. gentleman for preserving the office, was precisely the reason why he would wish to abolish it, namely, that it was an old Scotch office.
Mr. Bennet
considered the office nothing but a Scotch job.
Sir R. Fergusson
considered the office as altogether unnecessary.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: Ayes 111; Noes 74. majority 37.
On the resolution, "That 12,642
l.
s.
Colonel Davies
objected to the item. He said, that in 1797, when the army extraordinaries amounted to upwards of six millions, the expences of the comptrollers did not amount to more than 4,475
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, there was no parity between the duties of army comptrollers in 1797 and the present period. The nature of the duties was almost wholly changed since 1806. In point of fact, their business was increased four-fold. Besides, they were not only comptrollers but auditors.
Mr. Bernal
supported the amendment.
Mr. Bankes
thought that an inconsiderable saving ought not be put in competition with the perfect auditing of accounts.
Mr. Creevey
observed, that as on a former evening he had said he should like to see one of those clerks who had 1,400
l.
l.
l.
215
Sir R. Fergusson
could not avoid complaining of the conduct of government to general officers of a particular class. By a former regulation, an allowance was made to general officers without regiments. This allowance was now withdrawn, and thereby the public faith had been broken with those officers. At the close of the war it was determined that only a certain number of general officers should be kept up: and those who were reduced had only a claim to the half-pay of that rank which they had held in the army before their promotion as general officers. This, he conceived, was a great injustice to very many meritorious general officers, some of whom had spent 30 years in the service. Many general officers, who, before the termination of the war, and before their promotion, might have made a considerable sum by the sale of their commissions, were now living upon their half pay as majors. This he considered as not just treatment to so deserving a class of men. Major-generals were deprived of all pay, except the half-pay which they had before they had been promoted.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that if the system of the gentlemen opposite were acted upon, instead of producing regularity and uniformity it would produce the utmost confusion. He was confident that by adopting the wild theories laid down, the whole affairs of the country would be thrown into disorder.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he wished it was in the power of the government to reward military officers to a greater extent: but nothing could be more unjust than to charge government with illiberality.
The committee divided: For the amendment 45. For the resolution, 105. After which, the chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.
SMUGGLING PREVENTION ACTS.]
Mr. Lushington
Mr. Bernal
deprecated the continuance of laws which were attended with such fatal consequence to the peace of the country. Skirmishes and battles were stated to have taken place between the people and the troops, which had been attended with the loss of lives. He hoped
216
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the whole of the coast of Sussex was in a state of irritation and alarm, which had been aggravated by a recent melancholy occurrence. A fisherman had been, as was well known, killed under very suspicious circumstances; two juries had declared that the seaman of the preventive service who killed him was guilty of wilful murder. The judge had thought fit to recommend the man to mercy, on which recommendation the government had acted. The alarm was now such that all the fishermen at Hastings had drawn up their boats, and the whole population were in fear of the recurrence of these dreadful atrocities. Within the last eighteen months, some dozen of persons had been put to death on that coast. It could never be maintained that these murders should be committed (for some of them undoubtedly were murders) to prevent gin or lace from being now and then landed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that a judge who conceived that a prisoner was innocent of a crime of which he was found guilty by the prejudices of a jury, and yet did not recommend him to mercy, would be unworthy of his station. To a recommendation in such a case, the government could not do otherwise than attend. With regard to the feelings on the coast, they unhappily shewed that a great portion of the population was disposed to smuggling, and that, that disposition could only be repressed by moderate, yet efficacious measures. Conflicts similar to those now complained of had formerly taken place, when the state of the revenue was very different front what it now was.
Mr. R. Gordon
deprecated the existing state of the revenue laws, and assured the House that the const of Dorsetshire and Devonshire were in a state quite as disturbed as the coast of Sussex.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, there were no grounds for the alarm which prevailed on the coast. He lamented what had recently occurred as much as any man. The person who was accused of murder on going into a boat to search, had been in the first instance thrown out of it. This led to that struggle which had occurred, and which grew out of the resistance offered
217
Mr. Bennet
said, he had no doubt the men on the preventive service behaved with moderation. It was the system he complained of. If, instead of prohibiting those goods which formed the objects of smuggling, the principles of free trade were admitted, and moderate duties imposed, this evil would be put an end to. As to Ireland, no place in the world, with the exception of La Vendee during the revolution, had been treated as the North of Ireland had been under the distillation laws. He could not consent to extend to that country the other detestable securities against smuggling with which this country was cursed.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, that if, after all the expence of Martello towers and preventive service, smuggling was not repressed, it must be done by other means than violence.
Mr. Robinson
agreed as to the expediency of taking away many of the restrictions on the importation of French goods, which now existed.
The House went into the committee.
218
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 16, 1821
PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ROMAN
After numerous petitions had been presented for and against the Roman Catholic Disability Removal bill,
Earl Grey
rose to present two petitions. The first was from a large body of persons in this country, professing the Roman Catholic religion. The petition had been drawn up before the bill now before their lordships had passed through the other
House, and it prayed for general relief from the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured. The petitioners felt grateful for the acts passed for their relief during the benevolent reign of the late king; but they complained that they still laboured under great disadvantages, and that they were marked out as persons dangerous and unworthy of public trust. In answer to these unmerited imputations, they appeal to those persons who have had an opportunity of observing their conduct in a political as well as a moral point of view, and call upon them to declare whether they deserve the character thus attempted to be fixed on them; and whether, on the contrary, they have not always been distinguished for loyalty and attachment, and submission to the laws. The petitioners have been accused of giving to a foreign potentate the submission which is due from them to the king of this country; but this they deny, and state that they fully recognise the sovereign power of his majesty. The second petition he had to present was signed by six Roman Catholic peers—the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Arundel, lord Petre, lord Clifford, and lord Stourton. These petitioners stated, that they had read the bill which had passed through the other House of Parliament, and had been read a first time by their lordships, and that it received their full concurrence. The petitioners had hitherto been prevented from sitting in their lordships' House, in consequence of the form of the oath which they were required to take as a necessary preliminary to the enjoyment of that privilege. He felt great satisfaction in presenting these petitions, not only on account of the characters of the petitioners, but also from the feeling which he entertained of the justice of their claims, and of the temper and moderation with which they were advanced. He felt himself bound to answer the appeal which had been made by the petitioners, and to state, from the result of his own personal observation, that there did not exist men more distinguished for the exemplary discharge of their public and private duties through all the various walks of life. This would be acknowledged even by those who felt themselves under the painful necessity of opposing their claims. He remembered on a former occasion to have heard the noble earl opposite (Liverpool) say, that, for distinguished loy-
219
220
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
The order of the day being read for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Donoughmore
rose. He said, it was now a long period since the Roman Catholics had been the objects of intolerance and cruelty. In the reign of his late majesty, however, a better prospect was presented to them. By the British statute of 1778, and the statute passed by the Irish parliament about the same time, the first breach was made in the system of proscription which had so long been pursued towards the Roman Catholics. This breach was still further widened by the British statute of 1791, which gave to the Roman Catholics of this country, all the privileges which they were at present capable of possessing. A spirit of liberality and just feeling had been evinced by a large portion of the public towards their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. The progress of this tolerant feeling had been particularly rapid among the higher classes. The Irish parliament of 1782, granted many more concessions to the Roman Catholics, which were still further extended by the same parliament in 1792. But, by the Irish statute of 1793, by which the elective franchise and other important privileges were restored to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they were placed in a situation of superiority to the members of the same religion m England. The preference which the Irish Roman Catholic thus possessed could not be justified on any principle of reason or expediency.
221
pro forma;
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
The Earl of Mansfield
said, that in addition to the embarrassment he must always feel in addressing their lordships, he laboured in the present instance under peculiar difficulty from the conviction that he could offer nothing which had not been more ably stated by others on former occasions, and from an apprehension that, by an injudicious selection of arguments, he might injure the cause he was anxious to serve. He had no hope of making any deep impression on the House; but he felt it to be his duty to express, as concisely as the nature of the subject would admit, his sentiments, which time and reflection, and even the conduct of those whom he most respected had not been able to alter; but which on the contrary all that he had seen, and a long residence in Catholic countries, had but tended to confirm. The present bill consisted of two parts: the first part went to admit Roman Catholics to almost all offices in the state; the second, to regulate their intercourse with the see of Rome. To the latter, many Catholics strongly objected; but it was to the former part of the bill that his objections would be directed; and he would begin by moving: —"That the bill should be read a second time this day six months." This bill ap-
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
The Bishop of London
said, that on the present occasion he could not reconcile it to his feelings to pursue the same course which he had followed on former occasions when this subject was under their lordships' consideration, namely, to express his dissent by a silent vote. The question came now before them in a shape which was entitled to their most respectful attention; for it came in a legislative form from the other House of Parliament. Against such a bill, it became now his duty to state his conscientious objections. He meant to offer an opposition, not only to the principle of the measure, but also to the details as embodied in the present bill. In taking this course he begged to disclaim all hostile or illiberal feelings towards the Catholic body, for such he had never entertained; on the contrary, his feelings and principles were ever to grant to all classes of his fellow subjects the full exercise of their religion without molestation or insult, while that religion contained nothing repugnant to morals or decency. To the Catholics he was always ready to grant the unfettered enjoyment of their form of worship, the free disposition of their property, the fullest personal protection, and an equal security under the laws. Beyond these was political power, and if he could not grant that, it was from a sincere apprehension for the safety of the Protestant establishment. He was ready to admit the loyalty of the Catholics, and particularly those of England, whose peaceable disposition and order had been for a century remarkable: and if any agitation had taken place among the Catholics of Ireland, he was sensible it was often attributable to the peculiar
242
243
244
245
The Duke of Sussex
said, that if at any time he had risen upon this great question, with a full impression of the necessity of curbing his feelings, and arguing with coolness and temper, the present was the time when he felt the fullest necessity of dispassionately considering the important subject involved in this bill. The noble earl opposite had, in his powerful speech, thrown out a hint that the effect of passing this bill might be to induce a secession among Protestants, who otherwise would remain devoted to their church. Now upon this remark he should merely say, that he yielded to no man in the necessity of inviolably maintaining the Protestant religion. He had always felt this necessity when he had on former occasions advocated this vital question, and advocated it, he believed and trusted, upon the great principles which had placed that family, of which he was an humble member upon the throne of these realms. In looking at the great question now under their lordships consideration, he thought it behoved them, before they entered into the general argument, to examine what was the origin of the penal laws against the Catholics; to see whether the cause which led to them still required their continuance, and also to investigate how far the present state of society was constituted like that which provoked those laws, and if not, what changes that state had undergone, which required their modification or abrogation. It was very material to see how far the provisions of the bill were consistent with the state of things which had sprung up since the original enactment of the restrictions, and also how far they accorded with the opinions professed by Catholics in this and other countries. Much had been said of the proportion of confidence to be given to the obligations of Catholics. On this he would say, that before any man was justified in casting suspicions upon another, he ought seriously to reflect how far those suspicions were well-founded. In referring back to the origin of these laws,
246
bene placitum
247
à fortiori
248
The Marquis of Buckingham
observed, that the arguments which had been used in the course of the debate referred more to the existence of certain tenets and doctrines in the Roman Catholic religion, than to the question whether the restrictions under which the Catholic population laboured were such as were just and deserving of a longer continuance. This circumstance arose from the peculiar nature of the subject then before their lordships, which, on every occasion that it was discussed, added strength to the advocates of emancipation, not so much from any increase of talent that they acquired, as from the perpetual variation of arguments to which they drove their opponents. Time after time had the defenders of the restrictions been obliged to take refuge from their old arguments behind some new intolerances; and time after time had that intolerance been proved as untenable as those which had been previously abandoned. The noble mar-
249
250
251
252
The Bishop of London
rose to explain. He had never said that Catholics were not to be believed upon oath: all he had said was, that a Papist on taking an oath took it with a reservation of the duty which he owed to his church, which was a limitation that Protestants did not use.
The Marquis of Buckingham
said, he did not wish to misrepresent the reverend prelate; but taking the matter upon his own exposition, it amounted very nearly to the same meaning as he had put upon it. He thought, however, from what had fallen from the reverend prelate, that he had never read either the oath proposed to the Catholics in 1793, or that now proposed to them, and which had been drawn up by a gentleman, who certainly was not one of their greatest friends That reverend prelate and those noble lords who acted with him must believe either that a Catholic was to be trusted upon his oath or that he was not. If he was to be trusted upon his oath, their lordships had bound him by one—if he was not, and if he disregarded oaths altogether, what was it that prevented him from sitting among them in parliament? By his not being there, he showed that he regarded an oath; and it was too much, after their lordships had framed an oath, and he had showed that he regarded it, for them to turn round and to say that he could not be believed even upon an oath—The noble marquis then read the oath of 1793, which disclaimed all the objectionable points imputed to the Catholics, and which they had declared their readiness to take. He then asked, what had become of the fears which a noble earl had expressed for the property of Ireland, and a reverend prelate for the property of the church? He next implored the House to go into a committee, and to consider what securities would be sufficient, if those in the present bill appeared to be insufficient. This he conceived it to be the imperative duty of their lordships to do; for he did not think that there was one man among them who could lay his hand upon his heart and say that he was convinced that this measure would not ultimately pass both Houses of Parliament. The bill was recommended to their lordships by one of the Houses of Parliament; it was recommended by the petitions and pledges of the Roman Catholics; it was recommended by the ac-
253
The Bishop of Chester
thought this a most important subject, and he therefore thought, let the result of that night's discussion be what it would, that he should not discharge his duty as a bishop and a Protestant if he gave his vote against the second reading of this bill, without stating as briefly and as clearly as he could his reasons for giving that vote. It appeared to him, that the Catholics were already in possession of complete religious toleration; and it would, he conceived, be a waste of their lordship's time to go into any arguments in proof of that opinion, as the doors of Roman Catholic places of worship were as open as the doors of Protestant churches; but the jet of the argument was, that civil immunities and privileges which were enjoyed by the Protestants were denied to the Catholics. This appeared to him to be done for the wisest of purposes, because, he was of opinion, when an invariable connexion was observed between the religious opinions and political conduct of any body of men, the legislature was called upon to interfere. But, before he said any more, he should beg leave to disclaim all reflections upon the Catholics as a body, and all insinuations against any individual Roman Catholics, and to state, that in no part of the kingdom was there a greater number of Catholics than in his Diocese, and he was proud to declare that the most friendly intercourse subsisted between them and their Protestant neighbours; but his objections lay not against
254
255
256
The Bishop of Norwich
said, that he had never acted in that House as a party man. He conceived that a bishop ought not to act in that House but where religious matters were involved. He had frequently before advocated the question then under discussion, and humanly speaking, that would be the last time that he should ever have an opportunity of addressing their lordships upon it. He would then ask what was the church which it was proposed to secure by disa-
257
Lord Redesdale
opposed the bill. He said, he could see nothing in it but a principle of contradiction. Throughout the whole, one Clause was in direct contradiction to another. Protestantism had been established in this country on a principle of exclusion, it was on that principle the throne was made hereditary in the Protestant line. This bill was inconsistent with the permanent establishment of Protestantism. Was it by the words of an act of parliament, by a mere piece of parchment that it could be secured? No, exclusion was the security, and the only security on which they could rely. It was for this reason that a Catholic or any person who married a Catholic was excluded from the throne. When, in the time of Charles 2nd a bill had been introduced to prevent James from succeeding to the throne, it was opposed on the same ground on which the present measure was supported. The arguments were the same as those now used. It was asked, whether they would exclude that monarch from the succession for entertaining conscientiously his religious belief as a Roman Catholic? The answer was, Yes; because a Catholic monarch could not
258
259
260
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
regium donum,
The Earl of Harrowby
said, he could not consent to give a silent vote, both on account of the importance of the question and the part he had taken in former debates upon this subject. The tone assumed by the opponents of the measure, who did not indeed denounce its supporters as enemies to the church establishments, but insisted that the whole course of argument in its favour tended to its destruction, also induced him to press a few remarks upon the House. He would yield to no man in the sincerity and warmth of his attachment to the established church, and he declared that this measure would meet with his decided opposition, if he could be persuaded that there was any just ground for apprehending danger to the church. It was an object of no small importance to remove every galling feeling from so large a portion of the community, and to unite every man in the empire in its defence against every danger that might assail it. This was an advantage, however, which, great as it was, might be purchased too dear. The principle of the present bill
261
262
263
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that as there was no probability Of the debate being gone through that night, he thought it convenient at that time to move an adjournment until to-morrow; for, whatever might be the ultimate decision of the House, it was desirable, that no one within or without this House
264
The debate was accordingly adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 16, 1821
TIMBER DUTIES BILL.]
The order of the day being read for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Wallace moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that it was his intention to move as an amendment that the question should again be referred to a committee. The learned member proceeded to argue, that the duties contemplated by the bill, went to impose a tax of 600,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
s.
s.
265
Mr. Wallace
said, he was glad of the opportunity of obviating a few of the objections to his proposition which had before been stated in the House, and had that night been reiterated by the hon. gentleman, who had prefaced his amendment by an outline of certain measures expedient to be adopted, but in the propriety of which he could not concur. When he had himself first brought a measure forward visibly affecting the interests of the colonies, he had naturally anticipated a great deal of opposition. As he expected, it had proceeded principally from quarters connected with those colonies; but he would candidly avow that he had not anticipated so extensive, so detailed an opposition as he had experienced. He had rather startled at the proposition which had been just insisted on by the hon. gentleman, that there was nothing in this subject which he had particularly to attend to but the interests of the British consumers. He differed greatly on this point from the hon. gentleman. He thought that he was justified in taking a much more enlarged and important range, and such a one as the magnitude of the subject seemed to him to require. As to the report of the committee on foreign trade in the other House, he was disposed to admit the general correctness of the principle there laid down, and quoted by the hon. gentleman; bat he was yet to learn that his own proposition was incompatible with that general principle. As to the various hypotheses which had been so often discussed, as arising out of this subject, a question might hereafter arise (although he sincerely hoped it never would), upon the employment of foreign bottoms in preference to English ones, on account of the cheaper freight payable to the foreigner; but surely it was not necessary for him to enter by anticipation, upon the merits of so difficult and so ungrateful a matter. And the same might be observed of an almost infinite variety of other propositions; which, although they might naturally enough present themselves in the course of the argument, he could scarcely be required to go into, unless they bore immediately upon the
266
l.
l.
pro tanto,
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
267
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
268
l.
l.
l.
269
s.
l.
Mr. W. Smith
said, he was inclined to vote for the amendment. All persons must admit that the shipping interest was one of the most important branches of our commercial prosperity; but it might still be a question whether it was wise to encourage it by sending ships ten times as far as was necessary for particular commodities. Could it be politic, or was it rational, to send to America, for what we might obtain at a lower price, and of a better quality, from the mouth of the Elbe? In fact, this was just as absurd, as it would be to send to the East Indies for the sugar which we could get from the West. It appeared to him to be altogether a mistaken view of policy, to aim at the advancement of our colonial interests, by purchasing from the colonies articles inferior to those which might be had nearer home. The whole capital vested in saw-mills and machinery was said to be very small in this country. But why was it so? Was it not because we had thought proper to encourage the importation of deals from Russia? As to what bad been said of the consumption he must observe, that every body was in some degree a consumer of timber. By equalizing the duties on such foreign timber as we imported, we should only
270
Mr. Marryat
said, that the principles maintained by the hon. gentleman were contrary to the whole system of our commercial policy, and if adopted would prove destructive, both of our shipping interests, and our manufactures. He now alluded particularly to that principle of buying every commodity in the nearest and cheapest market. The hon. gentleman had remarked that the effect of this measure would be to make us purchase an inferior article. But the representation was not quite accurate. The purchaser was under no compulsion: he might, if he chose to go to the additional expense, buy the article for which he had a predilection; and this was pretty much the state of things in every other department of commerce. To show the nature and tendency of monopoly in trade, reference had been made to the historical fact of the Dutch burning their spices in the East Indies; and perhaps, if the whole of our commercial marine belonged to one individual or corporate body, the charge for freight might be greatly augmented by the destruction of a part of our shipping. But this was fortunately not the case; and as, if an army were on the point of being decimated, few would be found to volunteer as objects of that decimation, so in the multitude of ship-owners he doubted whether there was one willing to destroy his own vessels for the sake of enabling others to procure better freight. Much had been said with regard to the preference manifested towards Russia over Norway, but the truth was, that Norway was very much favoured by the bill. If he saw any chance of carrying an amendment in the committee, he would support the motion of the learned gentleman, for the purpose of suggesting one directly opposite to that which the learned gentleman had in view. As he did not, however, apprehend that he should succeed in the attempt, he thought it as well to abstain from making it, and that the
271
Mr. Ricardo
was much surprised at the course of argument adopted upon this question. Norway was said to be benefitted by the new arrangement, merely because she had before suffered a still greater injustice than it was now proposed to inflict upon her. The proposition made by his learned friend went only to place Russia and Norway, as respected the importation of their timber and deals, on the same footing; yet this had been described by the right hon. gentleman, as giving a monopoly to Norway; and it had been contended that such a regulation would cause a proportionate rise in the price of Norwegian timber. Now, a slight degree of attention must convince every one, that the higher the price of Norwegian timber rose, the more able must Russia be to compete effectually with Norway. It was contended, that the interest of the producer ought to be looked to, as well as that of the consumer, in legislative principles. But the fact was, that in attending to the interest of the consumer, protection was ac the same time extended to all other classes. The true way of encouraging production was to discover and open facilities to consumption. An hon. gentleman had observed, that timber of a superior quality might be had by those who chose to pay a higher price, and that there was therefore no compulsion on the purchaser. But it was a little too much to raise the price of the best article by means of import duties, and then tell the consumer that he was not obliged to buy the cheap and inferior one. The practical effect of these duties was to raise as much compulsion as could be introduced into commercial affairs.
Mr. Keith Douglas
thought an intermediate scale of duties might have been adopted, so as to arrange the matter more equitably between the Baltic powers. It was most desirable that a competition should be established in all branches of the timber trade. One great objection to the proposed regulation was, that it would not come into operation for near two years. In a further stage of the bill, he should propose what he imagined would prove a more equitable principle.
Sir W. De Crespigny
trusted the House would not forget how much was due to the interests of its colonial trade in any future arrangement.
272
Mr. Gladstone
said, that as far as he was informed, the commercial interest generally approved of, and was satisfied with, the new arrangement. He thought it extremely unfair to describe the shipowners as a class of men favoured and enriched at the expense of the community. A good deal had been said on the subject of competition between Russia and Norway, but any preference shown to the latter would operate not so much to the loss or detriment of Russia, as to the injury of our own revenue. Nine-tenths of the importations from Norway were in the shipping of that country, whilst the trade with Russia was carried on chiefly in our own. He must oppose the amendment, because he was satisfied that it would prove ineffectual.
Mr. Bennet
remarked, that the interests of the ship-owners were directly opposed to those of the public, and whilst the former were engaged in adjusting or reconciling particular interests, it was not surprising that the consumer should be entirely overlooked. A few sound principles had been embodied in this report, apparently as a foil to the bad practice which it concluded with recommending. If the latter were now adopted, and a revision should be proposed three or four years hence, after a greater portion of capital was engaged and a greater number of interests should have become dependent on it, the answer would be, that a full opportunity had been afforded for consideration, and that, although country gentlemen had neglected their duty and left the question to be decided by merchants interested in it, it was too late to unsettle what had been then established. But he would put it to the House, whether it was right at any time, and more especially at a time like the present, to tax the community to the amount of 400,000
l.
273
The amendment was negatived; and the bill went through the committee.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, lord Palmerston moved, "That 10,517
l.
Mr. Hume
proposed, as an amendment, that the vote should be reduced to 7,000
l.
Lord Palmerston
acknowledged that the higher order of these officers was not liable to serve abroad. He shortly hoped to introduce a further economical arrangement in this department, by consolidating the medical staff of Ireland with that of England.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the present system was excessively expensive, and that in many branches the offices on the Irish establishment were sinecures.
Mr. Bennet
said, that if the House went on disregarding the petitions of the people, and voting such estimates as those now before it, such a House would no longer be a blessing but a curse to the country.
Lord Palmerston
said, that no strain of inflammatory invective should prevent him from doing his best to reduce the military establishment, whenever such a reduction could be safely effected.
The committee divided: For the amendment, 45. Against it 99. Majority, 54. The resolution was then agreed to.
On the resolutions, "That 27,824
l.
274
Colonel Davies
said, that the medical expense of the army was greater now than in the time of war; and moved an amendment for reducing 5,000
l.
Sir R. Fergusson
called the attention of the committee to the ninth report of the military inquiry, wherein they recommended, that the patent place of apothecary-general, held by Mr. Garnier, should be discontinued, and the medicines for the army purchased at Apothecaries Hall. He expected some explanation on that subject as well as the botanical garden.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the office of supplying the army with medicines had been held by Mr. Garnier up to his death. Two years ago Mr. Clarke who was deputy to Mr. Garnier was employed by government to buy medicines. He did buy the medicines from the merchants, from whom the Apothecaries' company bought them. He produced the medicines and his bills to the medical board, and the consequence was, that the Apothecaries' Hall lowered their prices to the public 15 per cent. Mr. Clarke was a most respectable and upright man.
Mr. Hume
was surprised to hear that the reduction was so little as 15 per cent, when there was a fall in the price of all drugs of 50 per cent. He enumerated several items which required examination.
Mr. W. Smith
asserted, that Mr. Garnier had in some cases charged 40 per cent more than the fair price of the drugs. He thought that a very considerable reduction might be made in the estimate, and that some postponement was necessary.
After some further discussion, the committee divided: For the postponement 59. Against it, 109. Majority against the amendment, 50. For the reduction, 58. Against it, 110. Majority, 52.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Creevey, T,
Baring, A.
Crompton, S.
Barrett, S. M.
Davies, T. H.
Beaumont, T. P.
De Crespigny, sir W.
Benett, J.
Denison, W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Duncannon, visc.
Bernal, R.
Dundas, hon. T.
Birch, J.
Ellice, E.
Bright, H.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Brougham, H.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Bury, visc.
Gordon, R.
Calcraft, J.
Graham, S.
Cavendish, C.
Grant, J. P.
Chaloner, R.
Haldimand, W.
Concannon, L.
Heathcote, G. J.
275
Hobhouse, J. C.
Ramsden, J. C.
Honeywood, W. P.
Ricardo, D.
Hume, J.
Rickford, W.
Hurst, R.
Robarts, A.
James, W.
Robarts, G.
Lambton, J. G.
Sefton, earl of
Lushington, S.
Smith, hon. R.
Maberly, W. S.
Smith, W.
Martin, J.
Smith, R.
Milton, visc.
Stuart, lord J.
Monck, J. B.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Noel, sir G.
Townshend, lord C.
Ossulston, lord
Whitmore, W. W.
Palmer, C. F.
Wilson, sir R.
Parnell, sir H.
Wood, alderman
Price, R.
Wyvill, M.
On the resolution, "That 170,000
l.
Mr. Bernal
said, he was not prepared, in the seventh year of peace, to vote for such an increase beyond the estimate of last year, unless a sufficient reason for employing these volunteers were shown.
Mr. F. Palmer
asked, why the yeomanry cavalry was tripled within the last year in the county of Bedford? Was it to afford gratification to the personal vanity of some men, who would be pleased at seeing themselves in red clothes? or was it to increase the number of dependants on government?
Sir W. De Crespigny
asked, why there bad been a corps raised in the peaceable town of Southampton?
Mr. Brougham
asked, why the peaceful vallies of Westmoreland were disturbed by the clang of arms? Was it to give the government the means of indulging their favourites with red coats and horses?
Mr. Hume
asked, why the increase of the volunteers was so great since 1816? What was the consequence to the finance of the country? There had been 29,000 men, whose horses were not charged, and thereby the revenue was deprived of 90,000
l.
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was easy for members to talk of the seventh year of peace, but they should recollect that this was only in fact the first year of domestic peace. They should recollect that a part of this volunteer force was but lately engaged in active operations against bodies of their countrymen leagued against the tranquillity and the laws of the country. It was too much for the government to
276
Sir Robert Wilson
conceived that ministers had set out on a wrong system, and had adopted measures, which, if persevered in, would render rebellion a duty. [Hear, hear.] Rebellion might not be an approved term—he would say resistance then.
Mr. Hume
attributed all the disturbances which had taken place in Scotland to the malpractices of the emissaries of ministers, particularly the man Franklin, who was employed by parties connected with the government. The placard which, had caused the people at Glasgow to rise was written in London, and carried down to Scotland. Had they not seen that man protected at Bow-street by the magistrates, and permitted to escape? What other conclusion could be drawn, but that this individual, to whom so many hundred pounds had been advanced, was in connexion with the government? He (Mr. Hume) had been made acquainted within this day or two with another most flagrant instance of the employment of these emissaries, which he should shortly expose to the public.
Mr. Bathurst
said, it was impossible for any member of the administration to be silent when they heard acts of treason in Scotland charged as the act of his majesty's government. The hon. member had brought forward a charge for which there was not the slightest foundation. It was a gross calumny. It was too much, at the same time, for any reasonable person to credit. The members of government knew nothing of that man Franklin. The hon. member should abstain from making charges unless he could support them by proof.
Mr. Hume
recapitulated the facts respecting the apprehension of Franklin, his liberation by the magistrates of Bow-street, and the refusal of the Home-office to issue a reward for his apprehension until eight days had elapsed, which gave him time to escape. He appealed to every man of common sense for the rational conclusion which such facts warranted, and asked if it was possible that lord Sidmouth's office should be unacquainted with Franklin, and his treasonable designs.
Mr. Bathurst
observed, that all that the hon. gentleman had said amounted to mere suspicion: no charge of any thing
277
Lord Milton
alluded to the part which Oliver had taken in stirring up the people to seditious acts, and asked, whether instructions had not been sent to the magistrates of the West Riding of Yorkshire not to apprehend him? This connection between the secretary of state and Oliver gave colour to other charges of a similar nature.
Mr. Bathurst
said that Oliver was employed by government to ascertain the designs of the disaffected, and not to foment them.
The Lord Advocate
said, he could vouch that the placard in question was written, printed, and published at Glasgow.
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that the lord advocate was never supposed to have any connexion whatever with this placard; but it did appear to him, and to all whom he had conversed with on the subject, that that placard was neither written nor printed in Scotland.
Mr. Monteith
said, he could produce the names of the persons who wrote and the printers who printed the placard in question. He therefore thought the insinuation was most unfounded, and the House was never more abused than by the charge brought against the government.
Mr. Brougham
denied that the hon. member for Aberdeen had made such a ridiculous charge against the government, as that of sending down placards with a view to spread disaffection in the manufacturing districts. His charge was, that they employed spies clumsily and incautiously, and with an anxiety for information, and that those spies did engage in the promotion of treasonable practices. He would admit that the connexion of Franklin with the government was not proved; but it led to violent suspicion when coupled with those of Oliver and Edwards, both of whom were connected with government. He did not say that government employed them to do as they had done, but that they shewed such an over anxiety for information as suggested to these persons the expediency of making work for themselves where they did
278
Mr. Wellesley Pole
entered into a defence of the administration, against the insinuations of the learned gentleman. If he intended to insinuate that they had employed such an infamous wretch as Franklin to act as he was accused of having acted, the insinuation was base, false, and foul. It was disingenuous in any man to say that he did not suspect the government, and yet endeavour to lead the country into a belief that he did. Such conduct was not candid or manly.
Mr. Brougham
said, that as the committee had listened to the scandalous charges which the right hon. gentleman had dared to bring against him, he was sure they would permit him to reply.
Mr. F. Robinson
rose amidst repeated calls of Chair! Chair! and several other members presented themselves at the same time. The Chairman intreated the Committee to apply themselves rather to allay the inflammation which had arisen from misunderstanding, than to excite it by any violence of their own.
Mr. F. Robinson
declared that such was his motive in presenting himself, He was sure there was a misunderstanding as to certain expressions, which a moment of reflection would be sufficient to explain.
Mr. Tierney
expressed himself to the same effect; and added his conviction that his learned friend would cease to feel the expressions as he had naturally felt them, when they came to be properly explained.
Mr. W. Pole
said, he should be sorry to utter any thing in the warmth of debate which could hurt the feelings of any hon. member, and if he had done so he was not aware of it.
Mr. Tierney
was sure the explanation would be considered sufficient; for if the right hon. gentleman was not aware of having made use of the expressions, he could not have intended to apply them offensively.
Mr. Brougham
said, that no person could be more unwilling than he was to take up expressions captiously which had fallen in the heat of debate. He had no right to recur to those expressions after the explanation of the right hon. gentleman, and therefore he should only say that he was not a man who was capable of insinuating what he would not state in distinct terms.
279
The resolution wás agreed to. The chairman then reported progress.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 17, 1821
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.]
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned debate, on the motion, "That this bill be now read a second time,"
The Bishop of St. David's
said:—my lords; though I am wholly unable to do justice either to the great importance of the subject before the House, or to my own convictions, yet I am unwilling to give the vote which I shall do this night against the second reading of the bill, without endeavouring at least to state the grounds of my objections to it. But, before I state those grounds, I wish to make a single observation on what fell from the noble earl, whose eloquent speech closed the debate of last night. The noble earl observed, that the constitution of this country is "essentially Protestant, but not exclusively so." My lords, the history of the constitution, if I mistake not, requires both terms. From the Constitutions of Clarendon downwards, its Protestant character was forming. It was forming by the variety of checks which were given to the intrusive authority of the pope by the laws of Edward 1st and 3rd, Richard 2nd and others. It was formed, and in great measure completed by the laws of Henry 8th. It was finally completed by the statute of the 30th of Charles 2nd. It was completed, my lords, by the active exclusion of the pope and his jurisdiction from the constitution. I object to the bill, because it appears to me contrary to the very end for which your lordships are here assembled. The writ of summons convened parliament expressly to consult for the defence of the church of England; super rebus quibusdem arduis defensionem regni Angliæ et Ecclesiæ Anglicanse concerventibus. But the church of England never can be defended by giving political power to her greatest enemy, the church of Rome. I object to the bill, because it appears to me contrary to the oath which I took at the commencement of the present parliament. The bill recognizes the foreign jurisdiction, which I then swore does not exist, and ought not to exist within this realm. The oath expressed my real sentiments. I took it
280
281
The Duke of York
rose, he said, with the utmost reluctance to oppose the second reading of the bill; but there were occasions on which it became an individual not to step aside, but to come forward and boldly avow the sentiments which he entertained. The present he considered to be one of those occasions; for, were not their lordships called upon to sanction a measure, which it was admitted, even by its advocates, would effect a great change in the constitution as established at the revolution of 1688, and in the system which had seated his majesty's family on the throne? When measures similar to the present had been proposed by a statesman, who had rendered the most eminent services to his country, his royal highness said, he had strenuously opposed them, on a thorough conviction of their dangerous tendency. The more he had since heard the subject discussed, the more he had been confirmed in the opinion which he had then expressed. He had always understood that the Church of England was an integral part of the constitution. Long might it remain so! But let not their lordships imagine that he was an enemy to toleration. He should always be happy that every sect should have the full exercise of its religion, as long as it did not affect the security of the established church, and as long as its members remained loyal subjects. But, there was a great difference between allowing the free exercise of religion and granting political power. As he felt, himself inadequate to
282
The Earl of Darnley
said, that no one could feel more respect than he did for the illustrious personage who had just sat down, but it was with regret that he heard the sentiments just uttered, though he was confident, that they sprung from the purest conviction, and the most conscientious regard to truth and honour. He regretted to hear the deliberate opinion of the heir to the Crown delivered in opposition to such a measure as the present. He had himself for many years attended to the discussions on the subject, and his opinion had been formed by the same honest conviction for which he gave credit to the illustrious personage. The more he read, and heard, and saw, the more he was confirmed in the opinion which was diametrically opposite to that which had been just expressed. He had for the most part abstained from taking any share in the debates which had arisen upon the subject, leaving it to abler hands to advocate its merits; but the measure now came recommended by the Commons of England; the prejudices against it had in a great degree given way, both in this country and in Ireland, and he was anxious to avail himself of the present opportunity to state why he differed from the illustrious personage and the noble lords who supported the same side. He would confess that he was much surprised at the tone and manner in which the question had been taken up. He was surprised at the arguments of the noble earl (of Mansfield) who had spoken second in the debate of the preceding night. The speech was certainly a good speech with reference to other times—it was a good speech, but it ought to have been delivered a century and a half ago. The era to which it was adapted was that in which a noble lord was known to have declared, that he would not have in his establishment "a Popish man or a Popish woman—a Popish dog or a Popish cat." At that period the speech of the noble lord would have received due honour; but at this time of
283
284
285
The Lord Chancellor
rose.
*
*
286
this
this
this
287
this
288
289
permanently
inviolably:
permanently
inviolably.
i. e.
all
290
291
292
293
294
in ordine ad spiritualia;
in pari materiá
contemporanea exposilio;
295
in or dine ad spiritualia,
in ordine ad spiritualia.
unrivetting
296
unrivetting
being Pro-
297
testants,
being Protestants.
not Protestant.
or
and
and
and,
298
299
impedimentum dirimens.
300
the revolutions
301
302
303
i. e.
304
restored
for ever.
305
*
*
The act of the 6th of queen Anne, for rendering the Union more complete, and providing that there should be only one privy council in Great Britain, made it necessary to make other provisions in the proceedings as to the election of members of the House of Commons, and the sixteen peers; but the acts making such provisions do not appear to alter the provision, that both electors and elected should be Protestants.
And the act of the 33rd George III. which, as to persons professing the Roman
306
Catholic religion in Scotland, substitutes a new form of oath instead of the formula required by king William's statute, does not appear to affect this provision requiring as to parliament the electors and elected to be Protestants.
The proposed bill had no clause continuing to confine the right to elect and to be elected, to Protestants, with respect to the sixteen peers, and forty-five members of the House of Commons for Scotland.
Was it then intended to alter the articles of Union with Scotland in this respect, and with regard to one of their most fundamental provisions?
Or, was a special clause to be finally inserted in the bill, excepting those peers and members, and their electors, from the operation of this bill, and preserving the aid of Scotch Protestants, representing Scotland in the two Houses of Parliament, in support of the Protestant succession and government in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, when the doors of both Houses should be opened, as to England and Ireland, to peers and commoners professing the Roman Catholic religion?
Was it intended that a native of Scotland, not a peer, professing the Roman Catholic religion, might be a representative of an English county or city, but that he should not represent a Scotch shire or burgh?
307
308
309
310
311
essential, fundamental, and to continue for ever!
312
all
you
313
others,
314
315
*
*
316
317
"Persecution for religious opinions,"
318
319
Lord Grenville
said, that how reluctant soever he was, to intrude upon the House at any time, there was something in the present measure so closely connected with the transactions of his past life, and still more with the future prospects of his country, that he could not reconcile himself to be absent from this discussion, or being present to give a silent vote in behalf of a measure, the principle of which, on so many other occasions, he had so zealously and earnestly advocated. Much as he had considered the subject since the time when he had last the honour of addressing their lordships, he was but the more strengthened in his firm conviction, that there was no way in which it was possible for parliament to convey so great a benefit to the people of this united realm, as by giving effect to the principle of the proposition before them. In offering himself as the advocate of this bill, the importance of which it was impossible for zeal to exaggerate, his first duty was, to hail the altered character in which the proposal for the relief of their Catholic fellow-subjects was now presented to their lordships. It had formerly come before the House, crowned by the sanction of many eminent names, but now it came before them recommended by the weight of the ether House of Parliament. It was not now a question as to the authority of individuals, however respectable; but, after a discussion carried on with a temper and calmness which to him were scarcely less gratifying than the result, the representatives of the Commons of the United Kingdom had determined that the happy moment had arrived for which even the noble lord on the woolsack allowed they ought to pant, when they might safely remove from the Catholics these
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he rose with reluctance, and the more so, because he had urged on former occasions all the topics it was possible for him to advance on the present. He was ready to admit, at the outset, that the question came before the House in a new shape: as the noble barcn had remarked, it was not introduced on the recommendation of an individual peer, or by the exertions of a particular party; but it was recommended to peculiar regard as the opinion of the other branch of the legislature. On all accounts, therefore, it ought to receive a full, a temperate, and a candid discussion. It had been asked last night, and this night repeated, why in this new view of the subject, he did not agree that the bill should be read a second time and referred to a committee? He answered, that if he agreed in the general purview and object of the measure, though differing upon clauses and particular provisions, he should have consented to that farther step. He had no difficulty, however, in saying, that after the most thorough consideration—after looking carefully at the two parts of the bill, the one relating to concession and the other to security, he found in it scarcely three lines to which he could in any way give his consent. It was not a fair view of the question, to say that every man who was for curing certain anomalies, or who even thought that some farther concession might be made beyond what was given in 1793, ought to vote for the second reading. He felt that he could not honestly consent to that stage of the bill, as approving generally of the provisions, and then reduce in the committee a measure of this magnitude and extent to any thing so limited and insignificant. What was the bill? Stating it fairly, and upon the principles of its supporters, its object was to remove, with certain exceptions, all civil disabilities from persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. Those exceptions were three:—but if he thought merely that they were too few, he would vote for the second reading, because those exceptions came correctly within the province of a committee. Without prejudging the question whether certain minor points might or might not be granted, his opinion was this—that the great direct influence of the state in parliament, and in the privy council, ought to be kept where it was; and so thinking, the more honest and manly course was; to take his stand upon
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he desired it might be distinctly understood, that how gratifying soever it might be to his feelings to give his vote for the admission of any description of his majesty's subjects to those constitutional privileges and blessings which they had a right to enjoy, the ground on which he rested his support of the present bill was, not the "advantage of the Roman Catholics, or of any description of men whatever; but the advantage of the state and the church, the strength and stability of which must depend on the unanimity of all the subjects of the realm. He was glad to hear it conceded by the noble earl who spoke last, that the period was gone by when attempts were to be made to exterminate the religion professed by a great portion of the subjects of this kingdom, and that their lordships were now arrived at that state of feeling, in which it only remained for them to consider whether they ought to admit the professors of that faith to the privileges enjoyed by other subjects. The noble earl had stated, that this measure of favour, even if extended, as proposed, to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, might prove a boon which after all would not be acceptable. What might be the result of some of the provisions of this bill he was not prepared distinctly to say; but this he would confidently state, that the main part of it would be received with gratitude by the great body of the Catholics. The noble earl had next stated, that the effect of the measure would not be so great or so beneficial as was expected. He knew not by what advocates the noble earl had heard it stated that Catholic emancipation in Ireland would have the immediate effect of quieting and dissipating all the discontent and dissatisfaction which a long continued system of misgovernment had created in that country: but he was still more at a loss to conceive where the noble earl had found that the privileges granted by this bill would not give satisfaction to the great body of the population, because the immediate benefits of it would be experienced by only a small number of individuals. Did the noble earl mean to say—and did the sentiment tome with a good grace from him—that the privileges of the superior orders were not held for the public good? Were the privileges of their lordships held for their own sakes solely? Could it be reasonably supposed that the eligibility of the superior orders to offices of honour and
348
349
350
351
Viscount Sidmouth
began by observing, that it was with the most painful feelings he felt himself called upon to oppose the measure before the House. Nothing was more revolting to his mind than to declare it necessary to withhold from so large a portion of his fellow subjects, as the body of Roman Catholics, the privileges enjoyed by the other classes of the community. The measure came before their lordships now under different circumstances than on former occasions; for it had already obtained the sanction of one branch of the legislature. Could he believe that all the beneficial consequences would result from the measure which the noble marquis who spoke last, and other noble lords anticipated, he should consider it the greatest blessing ever conferred on the country by the wisdom of parliament. It had been said, that the bill would put an end to religious differences and cement the union of all classes of his majesty's subjects; but he was sorry to say that he thought no such effects would result from the passing of the bill. He objected to the first part of the bill on grounds which would be offensive to many of the most ardent supporters of the measure; he objected to it, not on the ground of individual distrust of the Roman Catholics, but because of the nature of the tenets and principles inherent in their religion. He objected to it for the reasons assigned by a noble earl; namely, that the Catholic religion was hostile to civil and religious liberty. He was ready to admit that many of the obnoxious tenets
352
353
Viscount Melville
said, that under the very particular circumstances in which he was placed, he felt it to be his duty to state to their lordships the reasons which induced him to give his vote for the second reading of this bill. That vote he intended to give from a strong conviction of the utility and necessity of the measure. In giving his decided opinion that the bill should be read a second time, he had to regret that it was his misfortune to differ from many noble friends with whom he was usually in the habit of agreeing. Notwithstanding the ability with which the debate had been conducted, and the number of noble lords who had delivered their sentiments, he had not been so fortunate as to hear one main point sufficiently touched upon, to which, above all others, he thought their lordships' attention ought to be directed—he meant the consequences of rejecting the bill. They had heard a great deal of the danger, which he thought magnified—he would not say entirely visionary—of carrying this bill into effect; but little or nothing had been said of the danger which was to be expected if it should not be carried. Under any government, particularly under one like our own, the exclusion of a considerable proportion of the population from rights and privileges enjoyed by others must be attended with risk. The population of the colonies and of India, though under the same government, was placed in circumstances which rendered it necessary that a different rule should be applied. The population he referred to was one like that of which their lordships were a part, having the same kind of education and the same feelings as themselves, and engaged, as far as they would allow them to be engaged, in the service and the defence of the country. It had been said, that the passing of this bill would not make the population to which he had referred either better or worse. But if any people were told, that such as they were they must remain—that whatever talents, what ever industry they might exert, it was all in vain, for a boundary was put to their rank in society—surely it was not
354
355
Lord Ashburton
, in looking at the immunities enjoyed by Protestant dissenters, found it difficult to perceive why similar advantanges should be denied to the solicitations of the Catholics. It did appear to him that in its political qualities and effects the Catholic faith approached more nearly to the established religion of the country than did the Protestant sects so especially favoured. The Catholics certainly did acknowledge—just so far as they could acknowledge it without failure in their allegiance to their sovereign—a foreign spiritual supremacy; but what there was about foreign spiritual supremacy for people to be afraid of, he had yet to learn. The country, as he thought, might as reasonably suspect sir Humphrey Davy of treason, because he was a member of foreign scientific associations; or the illustrious duke opposite a dangerous man because he had received titles or orders of knighthood from foreign states. Those who doubted the loyalty of the Catholics had perhaps forgotten that Catholics in the reign of Charles 1st fought and fell for their king—for that king who was deposed and murdered by Protestant dissenters. Their lordships had been told that the grant of the requested rights would little benefit the
356
Lord Somers
had no difficulty in voting for the second reading of the bill. Had his noble ancestor, to whom allusion had been made, been living, he would assuredly have been friendly to this measure. The circumstances of the country were changed, and what the greatest patriot might in a former age have thought necessary, was now no longer so. He did not apprehend any danger from the admission of a few Catholics into the House of Commons. That House was intended to represent all the interests of the country; but as things now stood, that intention was not carried into effect. The admission of a few Catholics would repair the deficiency, and cause another interest which had hitherto enjoyed no representation, to be duly represented. He had no doubt that if the measure passed, and if the Catholics at any future period had an opportunity of establishing their own religion, they would avail themselves of it; and so would the dissenters, of whatever class or description. There was, however, no prospect of the occurrence of any such opportunity; and the apprehension of that which might be treated almost as an impossibility would not justify the House in refusing a course of justice and of conciliation.
The House then divided:
List of the Contents and also of the Not Contents.
CONTENTS.
Present.
Duke of Sussex
Grafton
Lord President
Argyll
Harrowby
Leinster
Dukes Devonshire
Marq. Buckingham
357
Lansdown
Melville
Headfort
Granville
Camden
Duncan
Anglesea
Hood
Conyngham
Bishop Norwich
Earls Thanet
Lords Clinton
Jersey
Dacre
Elgin
Saye and Sele
Cassilis
Howard of Effingham
Galloway
Stair
Howard of Walden
Roseberry
Aberdeen
Colville
Cowper
King
Harrington
Grantham
Warwick
Holland
Fitzwilliam
Hawke
De la Warr
Foley
Spencer
Ashburton
Fortescue
Somers
Carnarvon
Amherst
Charlemont
Grenville
Darnley
Auckland
Besborough
Dundas
Donoughmore
Calthorpe
Belmore
De Dunstanville
Limerick
Rosslyn
Wellesley
Grey
Lilford
Minto
Abercrombie
Morley
Lauderdale
St. Germains
Crewe
Blesington.
Ellenborough
Viscounts Torrington
Hill
Proxies.
Duke Somerset
Earls Hutchinson
Bedford
Melbourne
Marq. Stafford
Berwick
Bute
Clancarty
Queensberry
Sherborne
Earls Mulgrave
Dartmouth
Breadalbane
Mount Cashel
Lynedoch
Kingston
Hillsborough
Cawdor
Yarborough
Darlington
Sondes
Oxford
Essex
Grosvenor
Mendip
Gwydir
Monteagle
Bolingbroke
Carysfort
Braybrooke
Ducie
Suffolk
Carlisle
Albemarle
Hardwicke
Waldegrave
Granard
Alvanley
Keith
Hereford
Anson
Derby
Belhaven
Carrington
Glastonbury
Lord Erskine
Tweedale
Bishop of Rochester
NOT-CONTENTS.
Present.
Duke of York
Earl Westmoreland (L. P. S.)
Archb. Canterbury
Lord Chancellor
Dukes Beaufort
Archb. York
Newcastle
358
Northumberland
Sydney
Sidmouth
Wellington
Lake
Marq. Winchester
Exmouth
Lothian
Curzon
Cornwallis
Bishop London
Northampton
Winchester
Donegal
Lincoln
Earl Pembroke
St. Asaph
Bridgewater
Bangor
Winchelsea
Exeter
Cardigan
St. David's
Shaftesbury
Salisbury
Kinnoul
Ely
Glasgow
Chester
Plymouth
Peterborough
Coventry
Oxford
Macclesfield
Gloucester
Pomfret
Landaff
Harcourt
Clogher
Bathurst
Killaloe
Aylesbury
Kilmore
Chatham
Worcester
Abergavenny
Lords Dynevor
Mount Edgecumbe
Saltoun
Napier
Digby
Boston
Mansfield
Bagot
Liverpool
Kenyon
Mayo
Selsey
Enniskillen
Rolle
O'Neill
Bayning
Romney
Bolton
Powis
Northwick
Chichester
St. Helen's
Lonsdale
Redesdale
Cathcart
Dufferin
Verulam
Arden
Whitworth
Gambier
Brownlow
Harris
Longford
Beresford
Abingdon
Walsingham
Visct. Hampden
Proxies.
Duke of Clarence
(Aboyne)
Rutland
Ferrars
Richmond
Malmesbury
Marlborough
Maynard
Dorset
Farnham
Marq. Exeter
Prudhoe
Hertford
Willoughby de
Salisbury
Broke
Bath
Tyrone
Cholmondeley
Rous
Thomond
Strange
Earl Scarborough
Stamford
Kellie
Beauchamp
Loftus (M. Ely)
Rodney
Poulett
Suffield
Morton
De Clifford
Huntingdon
Middleton
Zouche
Denbigh
Orford
Graham
Sheffield
Salterford
Carrick
Norwich (Gordon)
Meldrum
359
Gordon (Huntley)
Rivers
Charleville
Stewart (Moray)
Lord Carleton
Manners
Home
Combermere
Harewood
Dudley and Ward
Fgremont
Falmouth
Wodehouse
Radnor
Gray
Aylesford
Archbishop of Armagh
Balcarras
Portsmouth
Bishop of Hereford
Nelson
Carlisle
Craven
Chichester
Brodrick
Durham
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, April 17, 1821
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.]
After petitions in favour of a Reform of Parliament had been presented from Northampton, Tavistock, Devon, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Suffolk, Cumberland, Southwark, Nottingham, and sundry other places,
Mr. Lambton
* rose, and addressed the House as follows:
*
360
*
*
361
362
no
l.
l.
363
364
Hoc fonte derivata clades,
In patriam, populumque fluxit.
l.
365
366
367
368
369
Lord A. Hamilton
, in explanation, said, that, the learned lord seemed to have understood him as using the fact of the absence of the baron of the exchequer, as an "argumentum ad hominem:" but it was with quite a contrary intention. All that he meant to say was, that, judging from the absence of this gentleman for two or three years (a term which the leaarned lord had corrected, by substituting one year in its place), it appeared that four barons were sufficient for the business of the court.
The Lord Advocate
remarked, that individuals were always liable to indisposition. He had felt it necessary to make the observations which he had made in justice to the character of a distinguished individual now no more.
Sir John Newport
contended, that the House were justified in entertaining a distrust of his majesty's ministers upon this subject. Three cabinet ministers had voted in the first instance against the institution of a commission; but such a distrust, was further reasonable, because his majesty's ministers had done every thing in their power, first to delay, and afterwards to frustrate the objects of that commission. After the address which was voted had been carried to the foot of the throne, seven months elapsed before any thing was done in the business. At last the commission was appointed; but the learned lord had said that commission had travelled out of its jurisdiction in meddling at all with the constitution of the court, as regarded the judges. Now
370
371
whereof every of them pretended a voice
have
shall very likely rise and be
s.
s.
possessing property, however small its value, from which they contributed to taxation,
resident
resident,
372
373
374
losses and damages
civil and politick maintenance and governance
remedy to restore quietness, rest and peace
liable to all payments, rates, and subsidies,
equally concerned with them
375
*
all
*
376
bona fide
to
377
378
379
s.
380
l
381
382
*
*
275.
383
384
385
—Though perils did
Abound as thick as thought could make them, and
Appear in forms more horrid—yet my duty,
As doth a rock against the chiding flood,
Should the approach of this wild river break,
And stand unshaken."
Mr. S. Whitbread
began by saying, that he was perfectly convinced that a reform in the Commons House of Parliament was essential to the existence of the rights and even the property of the people of these kingdoms. He had given this important subject his most full and earnest consideration; and he hoped that the House would give him credit, in rising as he did to second a motion which had been so ably stated and illustrated by the eloquence of his hon. friend for a desire only to perform that which he Conceived to be an imperative duty to his constituents. He spoke the opinion of his constituents when he said, that, as the House was at present constituted, it was nearly the reverse of what it was intended to be by the theory of the constitution. It was too notorious a fact to be denied, that a great number obtained their seats in violation of the principle of election, and in contempt of the standing orders of that House. The hon. gentleman then remarked, that without the least disposition, on a topic of such vital interest to the country, to manifest any thing like unbecoming levity, he hoped he might be permitted to make one remark which forcibly suggested itself to him. With respect to the tenacious regard for its forms and its character which that House always manifested whenever its character was called in question. The existence of rotten boroughs was notorious; the existence of corruption in the returns made of members to serve in parliament was acknowledged; the charge of selling seats in that House had been gravely laid against, and openly admitted by noble and hon. members, and yet it was not orderly to speak of these practices in plain terms, as they deserved. Really, it appeared to him, after this, that the House was much in the situation of a woman of bad charac-
386
Mr. Wilmot
spoke as follows:—If, Sir, the hon. mover has thought it necessary to offer apologies to the House for the execution of the task which he has undertaken to perform, how much more incumbent is it upon me to press such apologies, and even to throw myself upon the mercy of those from whom I am compelled to differ upon this important question; for I perceive that the benches around me are nearly deserted, while the hon. gentleman is surrounded by a great proportion of his political friends; however, I cannot allow that this thin attendance is owing to any feelings of disrespect towards the hon. member, But to the interest excited by another more vital question in another place, the success of which I trust is far less problematical than that of the measure which we have just heard proposed. I will not stop to compliment the hon. gentleman upon the talents which he has just evinced; he will receive such compliments from others whose praise he will be more disposed to value. He says, that he shall be opposed by the misrepresentations of some, the sophistry of others, and the fears of many. He will not receive any misrepresentation intentional, at least from me; he has nothing to dread from any sophistries of mine, and as for fears, I cannot allow myself to feel the slightest, that this House will consent to a measure so dangerous, so unavailing, and so subversive of the real and tried constitution of this great country.
387
went entirely
388
inevitable
Nullus liber homo
389
390
the scale
Commons;
new
too long
391
legally
l.
l.
392
s.
"In vain may Liberty invoke,
"The spirit to its bondage broke,
"And ease the neck that courts the yoke."
393
Choose Rich Men;
394
395
Mr. Hobhouse
said — Mr. Speaker; If, Sir, my friend, the hon. mover, thought it necessary to make an excuse to this House for the details into which he judged it necessary for him to enter, how much the more must I feel an apology requisite for a person who has not his experience in parliament, and who has besides, on this occasion, the disadvantage of following his very able exposition of the great question now before us. I trust, however, that the House will have the goodness to recollect, that there are some members amongst them whose constituents sent them here principally to advocate the cause of parliamentary reform; and who, however unwilling or incompetent they may be, must therefore, upon these occasions, trespass on the attention of the House. Standing as I do in this predicament, I shall venture to enter somewhat at detail into the examination of the momentous subject now under discussion.
396
397
*
*
398
l.
l.
l.,
399
l.
l.
l.
400
esse
posse,
"Ask where's the north—at York, 'tis on the Tweed;
In Scotland, at the Orcades—and there
At Greenland, Zembla, or the Lord knows where."
401
402
*
few
*
403
404
*
*
405
406
new
407
annual,
408
quas vulgus elegerit,"
409
410
liber homo
liberi tenentes,
411
bona fide
resiant
412
413
414
415
416
bona fide
417
such
such
418
vade mecum
ben trovato
419
420
421
secundum consuetudinem parliamenti,
422
423
424
*
*
425
"Beauty that shocks you, parts that none can trust,
"Wit that can creep, and pride that licks the dust"—
426
"Him, thus exalted, for a wit we own,
"And court him as top-fiddle of the town.
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, it was not desirable that this House should be a representation of the people in the sense required by the hon. member who had spoken last; The opinions of the people, though trustworthy guides from age to age, were not to be safely followed from month to month; and it was better, in most cases, for the House to be a little behind public opinion, than a little before it. It was a mistake, however, to suppose, as some appeared to do on the authority of the petition presented by lord Grey in 1793, that 157 individuals returned a majority of the House. Among those 157 were reckoned rather unfairly, not only the proprietors of close boroughs, but all men whose property or whose character gave them a leading power in popular elections: beside which error, it was also to be remembered, that 100 Irish members had, since that petition, been introduced by the Union, of whom at least 80 were returned upon popular principles. Nor was the body returned by individual patrons, a united body, pulling together against the people; but a body split into parties; parties, which, in spite of the objection to the principle of party, must always exist, while mankind should continue to differ upon great political measures. The lateness of the hour would withhold him from entering at large into the details of the subject; but he could not help observing upon the misapprehension which seemed to exist as to the probable effect of triennial parliaments. For reasons of caution, not less beneficial to the people than to the Crown, parliament
427
Sir Robert Wilson
said, he rose to support the motion of his hon. friend from his conviction of its necessity and propriety and in compliance with the wishes of 2,000 of his constituents. Before he proceeded to state his reasons for voting for the motion, he begged, in the name of the friends of reform, to offer his acknowledgments to his hon. friend who had brought it forward, not for the talent he had displayed in support of the motion—for that was the natural fruit of his genius and application—but for the industry he had bestowed on the subject. The opinions and views of the great body of the reformers were now embodied. It would now be seen whether the reformers could show, not poison, but balm, for a sickening state. Even the enemies of reform admitted that the reformers were theoretically right in demanding a free, full, and fair representation. He could say, from his intercourse with the people this country, that if reform were a mere theory, it would not have interested them. Many might contend for the victory of truth over fallacy; because fallacy must prove remotely pernicious; but the people would not take a deep interest in abstract theory. In other countries
428
429
Mr. Abercromby
said, that as he had
430
431
432
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
intreated the House to enter into a dispassionate investigation of the state of the representation, and assured them that, if they did so, conciliation would take place between themselves and the people; but that, if they did not, a tremendous convulsion would ensue, of which no man could anticipate the consequences.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he gave the highest credit to the lion, member for the county of Durham for the motives which had led him to bring this question before parliament. That hon. member had introduced it with a gentlemanly temper and feeling, to which even those who could not give him their votes were compelled to give their admiration. Though he agreed with that hon. member in thinking that many gentlemen were returned to that House by the power and under the influence of other persons; and though he believed that there was a strong and general feeling in the country that some reform was necessary in the Constitution of it, he would still contend that the House, even as constituted at present, was the only assembly for successfully carrying on the business of the nation. In arguing that point, he must beg leave to inform hon. members, that when they called upon him to look back to distant times for the constitution, he should not look back to the reigns of the Henries, but to those periods in our history in which the great struggles for liberty took place between the sovereign and the people. At those periods he would contend that the rotten boroughs were exactly in the same state of decay as they were at present. He would take Corfe-castle and Old Sarum as his instances, and would challenge the hon. members to point out any time at which they were not under the same species of domination as now existed. They knew both when and how the right of representation had been bestowed on those boroughs, and that knowledge was sufficient to prove the correctness of his assertion. He likewise agreed with the hon. member for Calne, that if the mode of election for members to serve in that House were to be made too popular, the effect of it would be to do away with the House of Lords; and that argument might be considered as of some weight in showing that the influence exercised by peers
433
Lord Bury
stated, that the importance of the present question demanded the serious attention of every member of the House, and he trusted that would be his apology for offering his sentiments in support of the present motion. It had been for some time broadly stated, that the representation of the people required reform, and it would be but an idle waste of the time of the House to enumerate
434
435
not
not
not
not
not
436
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, complimented the hon. mover on the moderation he had shown; at the same time, he could not support his proposition. The class of resident householders proposed by the hon. member was objectionable as voters. Reform might be carried to an extent that would be not only dangerous, but criminal. During the French revolution, one of the members of the convention told the assembly that they had destroyed the aristocracy of the nobles, the aristocracy of tradesmen and shop-keepers, but still they had another class more dangerous to destroy, namely the aristocracy of talent and genius.—Danton was the monster who made such a proposition. It was an instance, proving that the spirit of reform might lead, if followed, to the most extravagant actions. Besides, scarcely any two persons were agreed as to the precise plan that should be adopted. He would pledge himself that if all the gentlemen on the government side of the House would make their obeisance to the Chair and withdraw, and leave the question to be decided by the gentlemen opposite, the motion would be negatived by the hon. members opposite by an immense majority.
Lord Milton
confessed that he had always approached this subject with considerable alarm; not that he thought it to be of itself attended with danger, but that he conceived the theories of some of those who pretended to discuss it likely to produce a complete and radical change in the country. Indeed, it had appeared to him, upon all former occasions, that the House of Commons did virtually represent the people; and, entertaining that Opinion, he could not conceive how those who called for reform could maintain the attack, which in so doing they made upon the ancient constitution of parliament. On those occasions he had looked with the warmest enthusiasm upon the constitution, and had imagined that upon every point it worked well for the community. A better acquaintance with the practices of parliament—a closer investigation of some of its leading peculiarities, and perhaps a
437
438
Mr. W. Williams
said, that from his, earliest days he had given his support to parliamentary reform, convinced as he was that nothing but reform could secure the constitution from ruin. He was desirous of tearing from the British constitution all its imperfections. He was ready to admit that parliament did much good. Indeed, the proceedings of 600 gentlemen of talent and education when reported, must do much good when circulated over the country; but the question wag, did they do enough? He was persuaded that parliament would continue under a stigma, until some regulation was adopted with respect to small boroughs, which had been found a powerful and dangerous instrument in the hands of ministers. He held in his hand an account of various divisions that had taken
439
Mr. Honywood
said, that although he was convinced of the necessity of a reform in parliament, yet he was not prepared to go the length of his hon. friend's proposition.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 18, 1821
STEAM ENGINES.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill with respect to the law as it affected nuisances by smoke issuing from Steam-engines. Of the pernicious effect of such nuisances, no gentleman could be unaware. The steam-engines productive of these nuisances were not only injurious to the health and comfort but even ruinous to the property of persons who happened to be resident in their vicinity. Of the latter effect, a very distressing instance had come to his knowledge. It was that of a clergyman, who, after having erected additional buildings for the purpose of extending his school, was actually obliged to quit his premises, in consequence of a steam-engine erected in an adjoining field, the smoke from which actually rendered his house uninhabitable. If it were said that this clergyman might obtain redress by preferring an indictment he would answer, that the gentleman could not afford to pay the ex-
440
certiorari,
441
Mr. Tremayne
was favourable to the general principle of the bill; but doubted the expediency of applying its provisions to the cases of engines worked in the mining districts.
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, that the hon. gentleman's bill must be considered as almost tantamount to a new law: it would therefore be necessary to guard against the interruption of important works, on account of a trifling inconvenience or proceedings from groundless complaints.
Sir M. W. Ridley
supported the bill, and mentioned the instance of a steam-engine in one of the largest collieries in Northumberland, where, by the application of proper machinery, the smoke had been so reduced as to lose all its offensive power.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that as there were no complaints of steam-engines in Cornwall he thought it would be better to exempt that, and perhaps some other counties, from the operation of this bill. If some such limitation were not adopted the bill would probably have to encounter great opposition. Cornwall itself they all knew, might send a pretty considerable force in hostility to it.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
expressed his determination not to exclude any particular county. If the House should agree to introduce such a provision, he would abandon the bill altogether.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.]
The debate on Mr. Lambton's motion "That this House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of: the State of the Representation of the People in Parliament, being resumed,
Mr. Wyvill
expressed his earnest hope, that the House would accede to the motion of the hon. member. In the present distressed state of the country, when the amount of the taxes was three times as
442
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
thought the measure which the hon. mover had in contemplation was in every way the most objectionable that could be proposed. It was even more obnoxious than the plan of universal suffrage, seeing that it would, if agreed to, involve the complete disfranchisement of a great number of persons who had committed no crime whatever. He knew he should be told that the persons whom it was thus proposed to strip of their franchise would still enjoy the right of voting in common with others; but still it was evident that they must in a manner be lost in the great mass of persons among whom it was intended to distribute the elective franchise. Great stress had been laid on a paper circulated in the year 1792 or 1793, in which it was stated that a certain number of peers and commoners returned a majority of that House. He had made it his business to inquire into the statements contained in that paper; and though it was sanctioned by the countenance of several persons of the highest respectability, he had never seen such a tissue of mistakes in his life, as that document presented. The names of peers had been put down in that list as returning members to that House, merely because they exercised the legitimate influence of their high lineage and distinguished characters. It was absurd to say, for instance, that the duke of Devonshire returned the member for Derby, because a member of the illustrious house of Cavendish was elected the representative of that county. He trusted, that great property high character, and amiable manners, would always maintain their natural influence in that House. He did not wish to trespass upon the time, when so many hon. members were anxious to address the House, but he could not sit down without entering his solemn protest against a measure which went to deprive any man of his franchise upon mere speculative grounds.
Mr. Sykes
observed, that he rose to discharge a duty which he owed to his constituents, rather than with the hope of throwing any new light on the subject. He felt no difficulty in saying that he was disposed to agree to the motion of his hon. friend, and should vote for going
443
commune concilium
unâ voce
444
officina.
445
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, said, he would not go at any length into the question then. It was sufficient for him to know that corruption did exist in the representation; and, as far as he knew, that House ought to be the real representative of the Commons of England. The influence of the Crown by peers and other individuals, was too great in that House to allow it to be a pure representation. They were therefore bound to vote for a committee, in which the state of the representation could be considered. As to the plan proposed, many objections might be taken against it. As to the point of shortening the duration of parliament, he was not prepared to decide upon that, and say what should be the exact term of duration; but he could not see how any man who wished for the purity of parliament, could vote against going into a committee. No man, by giving his vote For that committee, pledged himself to any specific plan. If the hon. mover had not presented a bill, the charge would have been made, which had been often made before, that nothing was referred to the committee to decide upon. If the entire plan was not adopted, he hoped some parts of it would. It could not be denied, that a certain corruption did exist with respect to the return of members, and it was not the nature of corruption to stand still. But it was said, that the machine of parliament worked well—it might do so at present, but if the principle was unsound, it could not work well long. Those who supported reform, were told, that it was necessary ministers should have a certain power in that House; for if they lost a majority, they must retire from office. He could not subscribe to this doctrine; for if it was necessary that ministers should always command a majority, why were the members on his side of the House to come there and lose their time and health, in vainly endeavouring to teach ministers that the acts of public men should be subject to the control of parliament? He hoped to see the time when the House of Commons would once more represent the people, and when seats should not any longer be sold like cattle in the market. He knew that the sale of seats was arranged upon a scale of such sytematic corruption, that they brought different prices, according to the freedom of voting. But, whatever the plan for efficiently reforming the representation might be, the notori-
446
Captain Maberly
, in giving his sanction to the motion for a committee, was anxious to guard against the supposition that be sanctioned the bill which his hon. friend had in contemplation. He had no hesitation in declaring himself to be a reformer, but one of the most moderate description; and therefore he could only approve of such a plan of reform as was moderate and temperate in its principle. It could hot be denied that there were defects in the representation; and it was natural that there should be, for it was not the result of systematic wisdom, but arose in the course of events, and adapted itself to circumstances, still carrying with it the traces of those remote ages from which it first sprung. The defects he conceived to be these—that several large towns, which, on account of their opulence, commercial importance, and populousness ought to have representatives, were at present unrepresented. In the march of time, another defect had arisen, corresponding to that, it was, that several towns, which had once a degree of opulence and consideration, ceased to possess them, and yet were represented. It was his idea that these latter places should be disfranchised, and their franchise conveyed to the others which were entitled to it. This would have the effect of conciliating the people, who were naturally irritated, from the absence of that political power which they had a right to possess. He then entered into an historical statement to show that there was of old a discretionary power in the Crown to disfranchise boroughs. No less than 68 boroughs had been disfranchised which formerly sent members to parliament, and several boroughs had claimed exemption from returning representatives. As the Crown had that discretionary power formerly of disfranchising boroughs, and exercised it in so many instances, he did not see why the entire legislature was not competent to exercise such a power, when necessary, to rectify the representative system in conformity with the spirit of the constitution. He then stated that be strongly objected to the present bill: it started upon a wrong principle, by recognising householders as competent to vote, it made property the basis of the right of voting, and if property was made the basis, the number of votes ought to be
447
Mr. Ramsden
said, he would vote for going into the committee, as he was perfectly satisfied of the necessity of some effectual reform of that House. In this conviction he had been greatly strengthened by what had taken place in the latter end of the last, and the commencement of the present year. He could not forget the very general outcry from all parts of the country against the misconduct of ministers towards the Queen. Indeed, he could not understand what object they could have had in view, in lending themselves to that act of oppression. But he would not dwell farther on that subject, as it had passed by. On a recent occasion he had supported the motion of his noble friend (lord J. Russell) for disfranchising a corrupt borough, and transferring the franchise to the large borough of Leeds. Such a reform as that was absolutely necessary; although he considered that the main benefit of the measure had been taken away by the qualifications for voters introduced by the hon. member for Yorkshire, and which, in his opinion, left
448
Mr. Harbord
said, he was anxious to state the grounds of his vote thus early in the debate, because he was satisfied that nothing but the most commanding eloquence would be sufficient to arrest the attention of members at a later hour of the evening. He would not now enter into the details of the question of reform, but would give his vote for the motion, oil the ground of necessity; for, to quote the opinion which had been so frequently referred to, he was satisfied that, if reform did not take place from within the House, it would from without. Therefore, in voting for it, he thought he should be doing not only an act of justice, but also one of necessity. If he were asked what species of reform he would wish to have effected, he would say, that which gave to the people that power of which they were now deprived—an effective check over the enormous expenditure of the public money, and also a check on those coercive measures which had been carried to so great an extent by the present administration. He did not speak of one administration alone; for he would not give his support to any set of ministers who were not substantively pledged to the question of parliamentary reform. It might be said, that if the reform spoken of took place, the House of Commons would swallow up the power of the Lords and of the Crown; but that was a result which
449
Mr. Ricardo
observed, that the subject of reform was the most important question which could come before that House. He was anxious, therefore, to declare his opinion with reference to it. He agreed with the hon. member for Durham, that it was quite necessary the House of Commons should truly represent the people. It was not necessary for him to have the proof of the recent votes of the House to be convinced that the people at present were not represented. From the manner in which that House was constituted, he was quite certain before of that fact. He would, therefore, embrace any plan which was likely to give the country an efficient representation, and should consequently support the measure now proposed. There was only one thing respecting it which he regretted; and here he was sure that what he was about to declare would be very unpopular in the House: he regretted that his hon. friend did not propose the introduction of voting by ballot, which he thought would be a greater security for the full and fair representation of the people than any extension of the elective franchise. The people would then vote for the man whom they should consider as best calculated to support their interest, without any fear of the overwhelming influence of their superiors. It might be said, that if this were to take place, the effect would be, that in time the people would get rid of the Lords. He denied that this would be the effect. The people would never, when left to their own free and unbiassed choice, be anxious to get rid of that which they considered the instrument of their good government; and unless gentlemen were pre-
450
Mr. D. Brown
would be willing to give up the present system for any better one that could be offered; but finding that it worked well, he could not consent to make the changes now proposed, without having stronger grounds for doing so than had yet been adduced.
Sir G. Robinson
said, he would vote for going into the committee, although he could by no means agree to all the parts of the plan proposed by the hon. member for Durham. That some reform was necessary had been abundantly proved during the present session by the way in which the petitions of the people had been treated in that House. It was impossible, indeed, that the people could expect redress of their grievances from a House of Commons constituted as the present was.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, he could not consent to go into the committee; at the same time he would be at all times ready to give his vote for the redress of any specific grievance which was pointed out. Whenever any instance of corruption in any borough came before the House, he would be willing to vote for its disfranchisement. He could not concur in the principle that a member of parliament was bound by the opinion of his immediate constituents. It was his duty to consider, not so much the particular wishes of those who sent him, as the general welfare of the whole community. If members were to attend to the wishes of the people, one wish would be, that they should not pay any taxes; and he should be glad to know how the business of the country could be carried on without taxes. The effect of the proposed bill would be, that the constituents would have too much control over their representatives. He was aware that in many places at the present moment, if a member happened to differ from his constituents he ran the risk of losing his seat. This, however, was not the case in the metropolis; and he could say that in the whole course of his canvass, he had only in two instances been questioned as to what his conduct would be in parliament. He did not consider himself as by any means bound to adhere invariably to the opinions of those whom he represented. Certainly,
451
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he was almost tempted on this occasion to follow the advice which had been given by his hon. friend the member for Galway, and to allow the question to be decided by the honourable members on the other side, in the full confidence that it would be negatived, for certainly no two members on that side seemed to be of the same opinion with regard to the plan which had been detailed by the hon. member for Durham. Much, however, as he disapproved of the plan of the hon. member—although he wished to pay his full tribute to the temper and moderation with which the hon. gentleman had brought the subject forward—he thought it much better, if the House must enter on the subject at all, to enter upon it with a reference to that plan, rather than to accede to the vague, general, and indecisive recommendation to go into a committee to examine the state of the representation, without having any particular proposition whatever before them. Such a step would be to condemn the existing order of things, without being put in possession of any definite measure by which it was proposed to amend it. If they went upon some distinct plan, it might be judged of by comparison; but in the committee the hon. member intended only a general resolution, which could bring them to no decisive pleasure. The proposed bill of the hon. mover would make a most important alteration in the nature and principle of elections, especially in relation to copyholders, leaseholders, and, in short, county representation generally. The extension of the franchise to householders would be very nearly equivalent to universal suffrage; but the general disapprobation the plan had met with, rendered it needless for him to go into its details. It had been taken for granted, that a great majority of the people were anxious for parliamentary reform. Now, he saw no evidence of such a feeling, and he did not believe that it existed. It was true that many petitions had been presented to that House, but they were all, whether proceeding from agriculturists, merchants, or manufacturers, founded on some particular and specified grievance, which no reform of parliament could
452
453
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Blake, sir F.
Milton, vise.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Martin, John
Bentinck, lord F.
Maberly, W. L.
Barrett, S. M.
Maberly, J.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Nugent, lord
Callaghan, col.
Price, Robt.
Curwen, J. C.
Plumer, W.
Coffin, sir Isaac
Ricardo, D.
Denman, Thomas
Rickford, W.
Ellice, Ed.
Ramsden, J. C.
Folkestone, visc.
Sykes, D.
Gordon, R.
Smith, W.
Grattan, J.
Scarlett, Jas.
Gaskell, B.
Smyth, J. H.
Haldimand, W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Talbot, R. W.
Heathcote, G. J.
Williams, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
White, W.
Jervoise, G. P.
TELLERS.
Lushington, S.
Calcraft, J.
Lloyd, M.
Whitbread, S. C.
454
The order of the day being then read for the second reading of the Scotch Hereditary Revenue bill, lord A. Hamilton was proceeding to make some observations on the bill, when Mr. Lambton, who had been absent during the division on his own motion, entered the House, and a laugh was heard from some members as the hon. gentleman was passing on to his seat.
Mr. Lambton
said, that on entering the House, he had heard a laugh, and from the countenance of some hon. gentlemen who took a part in it, he was led to suppose that the laugh was directed at him. He wished that any of those hon. gentlemen would stand up, and avow that such was the case. Some of those to whom he alluded would doubtless have the manliness to do so, if they felt conscious that the imputation was well-founded.
The Speaker
said, the House must feel that its own dignity would be best consulted and most effectually secured, by taking care that no member should meet with any treatment inconsistent with the rules of order and decorum. Whether the offence was conveyed in language or by any other mode, it was the duty of the House at once to put it down. But as the hon. member himself expressed some doubt, he would submit to him, whether the circumstance was such as could be preferred as a charge, and whether it might not be fairly presumed that nothing improper was intended.
Mr. Lambton
begged shortly to state the circumstances of the case. He had that evening retired to take some refreshment, after the discussion of the measure which he had introduced had commenced—not having taken any refreshment during the whole of the night before.—On his return to the House, he was surprised to hear from the hon. member for Middlesex, that the division had taken place. On entering the House he could not help observing that the attention of several members was directed to him in a very peculiar manner. Among others he would appeal to the hon. member for Chichester (Mr. Huskisson) and to the hon. member for Londonderry (Mr. Dawson), whether they had not particularly directed their attention towards him with a smile. He would move, "That the House do now adjourn."
The Speaker
must remind the hen. member, that he had introduced the present topic at a time when there was already a question before the House, and
455
Mr. Lambton
said, he bowed to the decision of the chair, and certainly would not pursue the subject further. He must, however, lament the unfortunate situation in which he had been placed, and that it should go forth to the people, that this question had been taken by surprise, and had not received that full and mature consideration to which it was entitled.
Mr. Huskisson
denied that the smile on his countenance had any reference whatever to the entrance of the hon. member for Durham. It arose from a totally different cause; namely, a conversation which he was at that moment holding with his hon. friend, the member for Londonderry. The fact was, that he had been absent from the division as well as the hon. gentleman, and regretted it quite as much as he could do. So far from his having used any expressions of contempt towards the hon. member, he was wholly unconscious of his presence m the House, Until he had risen to make his complaint.
Mr. Dawson
also stated, that he had not been present at the division, and that he was never more surprised than at the charge of the hon. member for Durham, of whose entrance into the House he was entirely unconscious.
Mr. Whitbread
did not rise to prolong the conversation, nor to take his hon. friend the member for Durham under his protection. He wished merely to observe, that other hon. members must not judge of his hon. friend's feelings upon the unexpected termination of the debate, by their own. The situation in which he Stood with regard to the measure, made it much more a matter of regret to him than to any other person. He was apprehensive that the country might be dissatisfied with the manner in which this great question had been disposed of.
Mr. Brougham,
in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. friend who had
456
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 19, 1821
PETITION FROM LONDON AND WESTMINSTER RESPECTING FINING A DEFENDANT DURING HIS DEFENCE.]
Mr. Hobhouse
rose, to present a Petition, to which he requested the attention of the House. It was upon the same subject as that which, some days ago, he had presented, with respect to the power of a judge to fine a defendant in the course of making his defence, and which be had been urged to withdraw, because it was deemed inadmissible, in consequence of an impression that there were some words in the petition which implied an irregular allusion to the speech of a right hon. member of that House. These words were therefore omitted in the petition which he held in his hand, and which was signed by a number of the respectable inhabitants of Westminster and London. This petition did not indeed contain any thing against which the most scrupulous person could make any objection. Upon the merits of the petition or the object which it had in view, he would not then trouble the House with any observation; but seeing the hon. member for Surrey in his place, he thought it right to take that opportunity of correcting the misrepresentation to which that hon. member had called his attention with regard to the remarks imputed to him as to the conduct of the chairman of the Surrey sessions. He had never said, as was alleged, that this magistrate had sanctioned, or had been in any degree concerned in, packing juries, but that he was under a mistake as to the extent of his power to impose a fine upon any person for contempt of court. The conception therefore of the chairman was quite erroneous. The hon.
457
458
On the motion, that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Sumner
said, he thought he could not better vindicate the conduct of the chairman of the quarter sessions, than by reading to the House the statement which that gentleman had drawn up, in consequence of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster, on a former night. Mr. Harrison admitted, that he told Mr. M'Creery, that if he pursued the line of observations which he was addressing to the Court, he would render himself unfit to serve on any jury, and that if he did not sit down, he would fine him. When Mr. M'Creery afterwards called upon him to explain these expressions, the chairman told him, that in his opinion, he did not possess that temper which was requisite for the proper discharge of a juryman's functions; upon which Mr. M'Creery rudely retorted, that Mr. Harrison stood precisely in the same situation. The hon. member panegyrised the conduct of the chairman, and observed that the county of Surrey was under great obligations to him for his services.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had never imputed to the chairman any thing but a mistake as to the extent of the power which he possessed. He begged to observe, however, that he knew Mr. M'Creery, and that his claim to respectability was fully as great as that of Mr. Harrison.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that to assert that a court of civil or criminal jurisdiction could not fine persons for any contempt or breach of order, was a most extraordinary doctrine. He believed the power of courts to fine for contempt Was as indisputable as any point in the law of England; for how could they vindicate their authority, if they had not the power to fine? Undoubtedly there were ceases in which commitment was necessary, but surely the more lenient course was, to fine.
459
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, that all courts of record, from the highest to the lowest, had the power both of fining and imprisoning for contempt, and he believed that was the first time the power was ever doubted.
Mr. Denman
admitted, that courts of record had the power both of fining and imprisoning for contempt, but maintained that fining summarily might be the severest mode of punishment which could be resorted to. It might possibly happen, from the pecuniary circumstances of a defendant, that the infliction of a summary fine would have the effect of subjecting him to imprisonment for life.
Ordered to lie on the table.
COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH IRELAND.]
Sir H. Parnell
rose to move for a select committee to inquire into the Commercial Intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland. He stated his object to be, 1st. That all goods subject to excise duties should be relieved from drawbacks and countervailing duties where the internal duties were equal; and where they were different, that the difference only should be drawn back, or paid. 2dly, That all foreign and colonial goods should be subject to the same regulations. 3dly, That the Union duties should be repealed on all articles not made in Ireland, and continued for a limited time only on those particular manufactures which actually existed in Ireland, and for which large capital and machinery were necessary. 4thly, That all the trade between both countries should be placed on the footing of the coasting trade as to Custom-house documents, port and other charges. 5thly, That the luggage of travellers should be exempt from search, except under particular circumstances of suspicion. And 6thly, That the currency of both countries should be assimilated. The hon. member said, that the policy of adopting several of these measures was so evident, that there was no necessity for making any detailed observations upon them; but on some of them there prevailed a difference of opinion, which required to be more fully discussed. As to the subject of the union duties, the question was, whether any circumstances existed to justify such a great departure from all sound principles of trade; did the interests of a few manufacturers justify she raising of the prices on all manufactured goods to the whole
460
l.
461
l.
l.,
l.
l.
462
463
Mr. Grenfell
seconded the motion. He thought it most desirable that some arrangements of the nature proposed should be acceded to, more particularly that for assimilating the Irish currency to that of Great Britain, as it would have the effect of simplifying financial accounts. By means of it, they would get rid of all that machinery which made the exchange between the two countries so complex.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
agreed with the hon. baronet so far, as to think that it was highly desirable that the subjects which he had mentioned should come under the consideration of the House, but to undertake a plan of the kind proposed in the present session could only excite alarm in the minds of persons concerned in the trade between the two countries, without producing any practical result. It was necessary to hear the objections to be urged against the plan, as well as the arguments in its favour. The session was now so far advanced, that no practical result could be accomplished by a committee of parliament; but he so far coincided with the object of the motion, as to think, that upon due notice given to the parties concerned, they should prepare their several statements, and on the evidence submitted, the parliament should undertake the investigation. By such preparatory inquiries, it was likely that a considerable mass of evidence would be procured, and in the next session some practical result might be obtained. He would therefore move an amendment to that effect. As to the assimilation of the currency, it was one of great importance and delicacy, and could not be undertaken without great disadvantage, at the moment of approaching cash payments of the two banks. It would have the effect of agitating the public mind, and could not take away the necessity of exchange, as it depended on the course of payments and remittances. With respect to the Union duties, he believed there was great jealousy on the subject among the manufacturers of Ireland; it would be therefore far better to postpone the measure until both parties were prepared. He concluded by moving as an amendment, "That the House will, early in the next session, take into consideration the duties and regulations affecting the trade between Great Britain and Ireland."
Mr. Dawson
was glad that the difference
464
Mr. Philips
thought that the trade between England and Ireland ought to be as free and as open as that between Yorkshire and Lancashire; and that these obstructions ought to be abolished as soon as possible.
Mr. Gladstone
thought the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance that early in the next session this subject would be amply discussed. The corn of Ireland was admitted into this country on liberal terms; and in the same way the consumer of English produce in Ireland should receive his supply of such articles without being excessively burdened by taxation.
Mr. Chichester
said, it was of the utmost importance that the duties on fuel and machinery imported into Ireland should be removed without delay. He wished to know what were the intentions of the right hon. gentleman upon that subject. He was convinced that much of the distress in Ireland was caused by the operation of those duties.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the act passed last year provided for the gradual extinction of those duties, and that the subject might again be investigated by the committee.
General Hart
was of opinion, that the subject required immediate consideration. He should therefore vote for the original motion.
Mr. Hutchinson
contended, that, after passing the act of last year, it would be unjust to make any alteration with regard to the protecting duties. Many persons had entered into engagements upon the ground that those duties were to be continued for the period provided by the act, and a departure from that regulation would be of the most serious consequence to them.
Sir H. Parnell
said, he had no objection to let the matter take the course proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer. The amendment was then agreed to, and the House adjourned till the 30th.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 30, 1821
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The order of the
465
Mr. Creevey
said, he wished to address a few words to the House before it went into a committee. They had been now sitting six weeks upon the army estimates, without a single reduction in any one item proposed having been agreed to; still, however, a sensation had been felt elsewhere, as he understood, that circulars had been addressed to the inferior clerks in the public offices to intimate a probable reduction of their salaries. Now, he was anxious, that, when the gentlemen opposite began to reform the public offices, they should begin at the right end. The lower clerks were the most useful class of persons in the public departments, and yet their salaries were to be curtailed, while the salaries of those at the head of the offices were not to be touched. He wished the House to pledge itself on this subject, not, indeed, to any specific reduction, but according to the terms of a resolution which he held in his hand, and which referred to several great officers in the civil department of the army, who were already provided for by the votes on the estimates; and he would only ask the House to come to the resolution of taking into its serious consideration the expediency of reducing the great salaries which they at present enjoyed, when the report of the committee of supply should be brought up. The officers to whom he referred were eleven, and they received collectively the enormous sum of 16,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
466
Lord Palmerston
said, be had never known a resolution so extraordinary in its nature, or so singular in its grounds. The hon. member had heard that some reductions were about to be made; and therefore he called upon the House to re-consider certain votes it had already come to. If the government had not come to any determination to reduce its expenses, then there might be, ground, for the amendment; but it was a, most singular reason for it that government had determined to see what reductions might be made in particular departments. It was not less singular that the hon. member should call upon the House to pledge itself to the consideration of a report, which was not yet before them. The resolutions of the committee were not yet reported, and the House could not regularly know what they were; therefore, according to every parliamentary principle, the motion was inadmissible. In a few days, the items to which the amendment alluded must come before the House, and he conceived it would be, only stultifying itself, to declare now that it would consider what, in the course, of business, must come under its consideration in so short a time. The thing carried absurdity on the face of it, unless the House admitted that it was so sluggish, that unless it thus pledged itself be-forehand, it would not otherwise consider them.
Mr. Creevey
said, his object was, not that the House should now go, into the consideration of those items, but that it should pledge itself to consider them when the report of the committee should be brought up. Such a resolution, he conceived, would not stultify the House, His object was, to direct the attention of parliament and the public to those large votes, and that our economy should not consist in the unnecessary dismissal of a, few of the lower clerks.
Sir C. Long
said, he could not listen to the assertion that it was the intention
467
Mr. Bennet
defended the motion of his hon. friend, which, he maintained, was consistent with the practice of parliament. It was not at all uncommon that the House should pledge themselves to do something which they had not already done; and that they had not seriously considered any of those estimates with a view to economy was, he thought, clear. His majesty's government had yet done nothing in that respect; and so obedient was a majority of that House to the wishes of the ministers, that, if on a sum of 5,000
l.
s.
d.
d
Mr. Hume
said, that the resolution proposed no specific reduction, and therefore did not bind the House to any thing farther than that they would seriously consider the items whenever they came before them. He had not heard of the resolution until it was proposed. If he had been consulted upon it, he would have advised his hon. friend to defer it until the bringing up the report; but as it was now before the House, he would vote for it.
The Marquis of Londonderry
felt it unnecessary to press on the House the
468
Mr. Hutchinson
maintained the expediency of agreeing to the motion, in order that the House might show its disposition to attend to the distresses of the people, by pledging itself, at the first convenient opportunity, to take into consideration the salaries specified, in order to determine whether they might not be advantageously reduced. If such motions as these were rejected, he was persuaded that things could not go on as they were; for the distressed people, finding that all their petitions for relief were fruitless, would naturally withdraw their confidence from those by whom their complaints were disregarded.
The question being put, the House divided: For the original motion, 55; For the Amendment, 22: Majority, 33.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Brougham, H.
O'Callaghan, col.
Cavendish, hon. H. F. C.
Powlett, hon. W.J. F.
Robarts, A. W.
Coffin, sir I.
Robarts, G. J.
Davies, col.
Russell, lord J.
Denman, T.
Scarlett, Jas.
Fergusson, sir R.
Taylor, A. M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, sir R,
Hume, J.
Wood, M.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
TELLERS.
Martin, Jas.
Bennet, hon. G. H.
Milbank, Mark
Creevey, Thos.
The House having resolved itself into the committee, lord Palmerston moved, "That 16,915
l.
s.
d.
469
Mr. Hume
said, he had great objection to this item. He would admit, that the expense of the establishment had been considerably reduced since 1816. It was then 33,000
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
470
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
was glad that the hon. gentleman had saved him the trouble of proving the expediency of properly educating officers for the army. With respect to the want of commissions to the number educated in the military college, he had to state that there were only fourteen cadets who had passed examination and had not received commissions. When it was considered that examinations were annual, and that this was the whole produce now unprovided for, it could not be said that the number was too great. If all were appointed to commissions who had passed examination, before the next examination took place, it was as much as could be expected. The House might feel satisfaction in learning that the number educated in this college since its institution was 2,528. Of these 1,867 had joined the service; and 248 remained at the college. Of the remaining 415, some had died, some had been unqualified, and some had preferred other professions. The expenses altogether differed very little from the ordnance and naval establishments of the same kind. The governor and lieutenant-governor were both resident, and conscientiouly attentive to their duties. He was surprised that the hon. gentleman who was so active in his inquiries, and who had sent to survey the Lord Howe, lying God knew where, had not applied his investigating faculties to the duties and salaries of the governor and lieutenant-governor of the military college, but should have come to the House and professed his total ignorance on the subject. When the number and nature of the persons educated were considered, it would be admitted, that not
471
l.
Colonel Davies,
who had himself been educated at the college, expressed his persuasion, that while the senior department was eminently serviceable to the country, the junior was wholly useless; yet the reductions which had taken place had been most injudiciously in that department principally from which alone public benefit was derived. Of the professors of fortification and drawing, three were Frenchmen, one of whom had been a lieutenant in the navy. Now, he was at a loss to conceive what this person could know of fortification. It was urged, that this establishment had furnished many officers to the army; but it should be recollected, that within the last five years no more than 52 officers had been taken into actual service from half-pay. This, therefore, was a gross injustice to the whole of the half-pay list.
Sir Lowry Cole
observed, that every gentleman who knew the governor of the Military College must acknowledge the great services which he had rendered to the country. Sir G. Murray had devoted his mind to that department, and had introduced great and effective improvements into it.
Colonel Davies
admitted the merits of the gallant officer alluded to. His objection was not to the individual, but to the
472
Sir L. Cole
said, that it was not the duty of the governor, nor would it become his station, to enter into all the minute details of the establishment. It would not become him, for instance, to inquire, on every occasion, whether one boy was to be put into the black hole, or whether another boy should receive punishment of a different nature.
Mr. Hume
said, that one would suppose, from the gallant general's observation, that the governor was above his work. If the lieutenant-governor attended to commitments to the black hole, what were the captains, and the 10 or 12 Serjeants to attend to? This was indeed drawing a cork with a ten-horse power. Either the boys at Sandhurst were the worst in the world, or their managers were the worst. The reduction he had proposed was extremely moderate, under all the circumstances, and it was the duty of the House to insist that it should be made,
Lord John Russell
said, that he, for one, did not think it right, in a free country like this, to have young men educated from their earliest youth with a view solely to the army. He entertained an old prejudice against accustoming boys to see nothing around them but military uniforms and military discipline. He did not think it proper that they should be totally separated from the affairs of civil life. However necessary such an establishment might have been during war, he thought it might be reduced in a time of peace. But even if such an establishment were necessary, still there was no occasion for sending boys to it at an earlier period than that at which persons studied for the bar or the church, which was never before 15 years of age. He also objected to the employment of four French professors, as he could not see any connection between a knowledge of the French language and the duties of a British officer.
Lord Palmerston
could not join in opinion with the noble lord, that officers should be brought up in a happy constitutional ignorance of their profession, and of the language of those countries in which they might be appointed to serve. Such was the case with the officers of the British army at one time, and the consequence was, that foreign officers were hired to do that duty, without a knowledge of which the courage of the British
473
Mr. Bennet
was of opinion, that if the college had been productive of good in disseminating knowledge among our officers, it had also produced much evil in inculcating notions inconsistent with the principles of a free constitution. It was said, that our officers were ignorant before the establishment of this college. This he would deny. He had himself, twenty years ago, known many officers, as well educated, and as well informed, as any gentleman now in the army. It would be better to allow parents to qualify their children for the army, by providing the necessary instruction. If government once established the rule, that none but the educated officer should receive a commission, those who applied would take care to possess themselves of the necessary knowledge.
Colonel Wood
defended the system pursued in the Military College, as highly beneficial to the country, particularly the first class, which was exclusively for the education of the orphans of officers who bad died in the defence of their country. He read a letter from general Wolfe to a friend, in which he recommends that all young officers should possess a knowledge of the Latin and French languages and also some knowledge of the mathematics. The letter went on to say, that all young officers should make themselves masters of these qualifications, in order that they might be enabled to discharge the important trust reposed in them, and without which we must sink under the indefatigable exertions of our restless neighbours.
Captain O'Grady
observed, that he had the concurrence of every cavalry officer in stating, that the Riding-house at Pim-Jico was totally useless, and ought to be suppressed. He trusted that that department would be again brought under the attention of the House.
Mr. Hume
maintained, that the object of this institution was not attended to. The interests of the children of officers were not benefited by it, but only those
474
Sir H. Hardinge
said, as a proof that influence was not the only means of obtaining commissions at the Military College, that he was present at a recent examination, at which a young man was presented with a commission in an old regiment, as a reward for the excellent manner in which he stood the examination. Formerly, officers sought instruction abroad, merely because in this country military education was neglected. He had no hesitation in saying, that the system of instruction now pursued at Sandhurst was superior to the system pursued at the colleges abroad.
Mr. Bright
said, that he looked with great jealousy at the establishment in question! He was convinced that a better system of education might be promoted at much less expense, and should feel it his duty to vote for a reduction of the proposed grant.
Mr. J. H. Smyth
was of opinion that the Military College was not of sufficient advantage to the community to be maintained in its present state, during the existence of so much distress in the country.
Mr. W. Williams
complained of the system of military education. If the children of deceased officers were to be educated, why not give them a civil education? He not only complained of the establishment itself, but of the wasteful expenditure attending it. For 290 children, there were no fewer than 104* masters and servants.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, that in the present state of the country, he could not support the grant, the more particularly as he apprehended that there was a perversion of the original design of the establishment.
The Committee divided: For the Grant, 32: For the Amendment, 23: Majority, 9.
List of the Minority.
Beaumont, T. W.
Gipps, Geo.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hamilton, lord A.
Bernal, R.
Harbord, hon. E.
Birch, J.
Hume, J.
Bright, H.
Latouch, R.
Crompton, Saml.
Monck, J. B.
Denman, Thos.
Philips, G.
Evans, Wm.
Rice, G. R.
Forbes, C.
Russell, lord J.
Grattan, Jas.
Smythe, J. H.
475
Williams, W.
TELLER.
Wilson, Thos.
Davies, col.
Wood, M.
On the Resolution, "That 28,201
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
asked, if government intended to keep up the charges for garrisons, which were merely sinecures? Would they not reduce the appointments of governors in places where there were no garrisons to govern? Included in the present vote were several places of that description. He would particularly instance the governorship of Gibraltar, for which lord Chatham had 2,800
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
had no hesitation in replying, that it was not the intention of government to recommend a reduction in the garrisons alluded to. They considered them as a perfectly suitable mode of rewarding the services of distinguished military officers. When he looked at the amount of these garrisons, he by no means thought it an exorbitant scale to exist for the purpose he had mentioned. The hon. gentleman had made a particular application of his general doctrine, which was not very candid towards the person bearing the illustrious name which the earl of Chatham did. That distinguished officer never contemplated his appointment as a sinecure, but, on the contrary, intended to make it one of effective service. The reason why he had not gone out to Gibraltar earlier, was on account of the death of lady Chatham; but he was at this moment about to set out to take the actual command of the garrison. As the noblelord's departure had been announced in the newspapers, he was astonished that the hon. member, with his usual general knowledge, should seem to be ignorant of it. With respect to the emolument of the office, the earl of Chatham had 4,400
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that the services of the late duke of Kent would, at least, bear comparison with those of lord Chatham: every one knew the services of his lordship, and he believed every one was convinced that those services were fully requited wherever they were performed— whether at Walchcren, or at any other
476
Colonel Davies
said, he was ready to pay a tribute to the name of Chatham; but it should be recollected, that as the son of the illustrious statesman who first obtained the name, the noble earl enjoyed a pension of 3,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
repeated his deep regret, that in times like the present, no expectation was held out to the country that the 28,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord A. Hamilton
asked, whether the ministers would say that the office of governor of Gibraltar ought to continue in perpetuity; if this was their intention, they should avow it. If not, never was there a more improper appointment than that of lord Chatham. It had been the uniform defence of sinecures, that they were bestowed as a reward for great public services: but the assertion was falsified by universal experience.
Lord Palmerston
said, it was a mistake to suppose that the whole of the offices in question were sinecures. The governors were almost the only officers that could be regarded as holding sinecures; which situations were more congenial to the
477
Mr. Bennet
asked for what conceivable reason, the establishments of garrisons were kept up at Inverness, Hull, and Stirling? Notwithstanding the splendid names which the noble lord had put at the head of his list, he had no doubt if all the names were given, that there would he found among them some excellent electioneerers.
Lord J. Russell
wished to know if it was the intention of ministers that lord Chatham should permanently reside at Gibraltar as governor, and if so, whether it was their intention to abolish the situation of lieutenant-governor.
The Marquis of Londonderry
was not prepared to give the noble lord the information he wished to obtain. He could only state, that when the appointment of lord Chatham was made out, it was distinctly understood that the noble earl would proceed to Gibraltar to perform the duties of the situation.
Mr. Philips
contended, that as the duke of Kent had been absent from Gibraltar so many years, and as lord Chatham had hitherto been absent since his appointment, it must be essentially a sinecure. It seemed to him that lord Chatham's going out was planned to take from the office the character which it had hitherto borne; but still he could not but regard it as a sinecure; and the course now taken, struck him as being merely an expedient resorted to by ministers in consequence of their determination not to give up their patronage.
Lord Palmerston
denied that the situation of governor of Gibraltar was a sinecure. An hon. member had declared, that situations of this description were granted to individuals in order to serve electioneering purposes. He had, however, given a very awkward exemplification, when he alluded to the governorship of Stirling. That post was held by lord Hutchinson, who would scarcely exert his influence for electioneering purposes, at least in favour of ministers.
The committee divided: For the Resolution, 87. Against it, 27.
On the resolution, "That 115,256
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
called attention to the manner in which this charge had been swollen out by the late temporary embodying of
478
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
said, the officers who were placed on veteran battalions, had indeed the privilege of full-pay when disembodied, but they forfeited all chance of promotion, and, even after they retired, were liable to be called on again. Officers who had so retired, were called on to serve in the new battalions alluded to; but they had been found too much worn out and broken in constitution to perform any military service. The commander-in-chief had selected, not according to length of service, which was an improper criterion, but those who, from severity of service or incapacity, were disabled for more active duty. Some of them, though they had held commissions for a short time, had served long as non-commissioned officers.
Mr. Hume
said, that the description which the noble lord had given of the persons selected did not generally apply But as a pledge appeared to have been given them, though most improperly, he should not press his amendment to a division.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, if the smallest wish for
479
l.
l.
l.
l.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Lord Palmerston
observed, that the agent alluded to had not been appointed by him. The only concern, indeed, which he had had with that officer was, to reduce the percentage allowed him from 3½ to 2½. As to the comparison between the half-pay of native and foreign officers, the former could, if in this country, receive their half-pay personally without any deduction for agency; and the agency objected to was merely meant to put those foreign officers upon the same footing.
Colonel Davies
observed, that several foreign officers receiving the half-pay of England were serving in the army of other
480
Lord Palmerston
replied, that the gallant duke had never received any half-pay from this country since he entered into the army of his legitimate sovereign, and that his name was inserted in the half-pay list merely as a record of his services to this country.
Mr. Bennet
felt it his duty to offer a tribute of respect to the character of the duke de Guiche, and concluded with moving, as an amendment to the motion of Mr. Hume, that the proposed grant be reduced 2,000
l.
The Committee divided on Mr. Bennet's Amendment; Ayes 35. Noes, 89. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Birch, Josh.
Monck J. B.
Belgrave, visc.
Milbank, Mark
Beaumont, T. W.
O'Callaghan, col.
Bright, H.
Phillips, G.
Bernal, R.
Powlett, hn. W. J. F.
Crompton, S.
Russell, lord J.
Davies, col.
Rice, G. R.
Denman, Thos.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Evans, W. M.
Wharton, J.
Forbes, C.
Wyvill, M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, M.
Harbord, hon. E.
Wilson, Thos.
Hamilton, lord A.
Wilson, sir R.
Latouche, R.
TELLER.
Lushington, S.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Maxwell, J.
On the resolution, "That 42,796
l.
Colonel Davies
said, that the eloquence of angels would be useless against the majority of that House: he would, however, do his duty. He thought the duty which was at present done by six medical attendants at this hospital, might be amply discharged by two. He also complained of the increased salaries paid to the officers of the medical establishment.
Sir C. Long
said, that all the medical attendants were fully occupied. No one acquainted with the duty they had to perform could think they were overpaid.
Mr. Gordon
said, he found a charge of 100
l.
481
Sir C. Long
explained, that tins magistrate took all the attestations necessary before the board.
Mr. Hume
thought it might hereafter be advantageous to consider whether Chelsea Hospital ought to be continued.
The Resolution was agreed to, after which, the chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 1, 1821
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up. On the first resolution being read,
Mr. Bennet
expressed his intention, and that of his hon. friends, of discontinuing the discussions upon the different items of the estimates. After the ordnance estimates should be gone through, either himself or some hon. friend of his would move a series of resolutions upon the whole amount of our army establishment. It was impossible not to see that the House was tired of the discussions which had taken place, from the scanty attendances, and particularly that of last night. Therefore it was, that they intended to make their objections upon the whole sums, and to hold them up to the public, so that the country might see what votes the House were willing to grant. With all their efforts they had not been able to prevail upon the House to reduce one shilling upon the whole of the estimates. He was confident, however, that the country would never again see such estimates brought-down in a time of peace.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the House had agreed to the present estimates without correction or diminution, because they were judged to be such as the existing circumstances of the country required. By such circumstances the estimates were always regulated, and were never considered as fixed and permanent expenditure. As to the resolutions of which the hon. member gave notice, on a general scale, when they were brought forward, would be the time to meet them.
On the question, that the resolution respecting the Half Pay be agreed to.
Colonal Davies
rose to offer some observations on the subject of half-pay, which, he trusted, would meet with due attention in the right quarter. The number of officers on the half pay of the English and Irish establishments, was 8,616, and the amount annually expended in their
482
l.
l.,
nem.
con.
Lord Palmerston
observed, that it was the anxious desire of the commander-in-chief, to relieve the half-pay list, and to satisfy the claims of the officers on that list by appointing to full pay from it, as far as was consistent with the interests of the country. From Jan. 1816 to Jan. 1821, there had been 1,105 officers commissioned. Of these, 508 had been without purchase, 114 were cadets from Woolwich, and 80 from the half-pay; the remaining 314 were appointed without purchase. On the average, therefore, 62 commissions had been given away every year, of which 38 were to cadets from the military college and to the half-pay list. If the whole of the vacancies in the army
483
Mr. Hume,
after a few prefatory remarks, in which he observed, that the effect of the present system was, that only about an eighth of those who received commissions in the army were previously educated at the college, expressed his wish that the small number of ensigns and cornets from the half-pay placed on full pay, as compared with those who had never been in the army to whom commissions were given, might be stated on the Journals, for which purpose, he would move, as an amendment to the resolution, "That it appears by the returns before the House, that from the 25th Jan. 1816, to the 25th Jan. 1821, there were 1,105 first commissions granted by his royal highness the commander in chief, in regiments of cavalry and infantry of the line, to persons who had never before been in the army; of which 597 were by purchase, and 508 without purchase; that there were, during that period, cornets and ensigns on half-pay, from whom these 508 officers might have been selected, and which appointments would have afforded, at the same time, employment to officers of experience, and a saving to the public of about £.29,464 a-year, or a total charge, if taken at twelve years purchase, of £.353,568 to the country; that in these five years, only 54 cornets and ensigns have been brought on full pay, from the great number of 1,214 cornets and ensigns which now are on the half-pay of the army."
General Gascoyne
observed, that the hon. member's motion went to exclude all but military men who had already served from entering the ranks of the army; whereas he ought to take into consideration, that after the long contest the country had been engaged in, there must be many meritorious officers whose claims in behalf of their children were entitled to attention. The appointments that had taken place within the last five years were principally of that description, and, generally speaking, those who were upon half-pay at present had no wish to return to full pay Since 1816, from 250 to 300 annually had retired voluntarily from full to half-pay.
484
Sir H. Vivian
called the attention of the House to circumstances of great hardship under which officers of the rank of major-generals laboured in consequence of the existing regulations. He knew an instance in which the officer having expended 5,000
l.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the amendment went directly to stop all promotion in the army, and to recognise the exclusion of all civil ranks of the community. The hon. gentleman was wrong in supposing that it was the general wish of half-pay officers to return to full pay. The deaths amongst the half-pay officers last year were eighty-seven, whilst the whole number of deaths which occurred in the army on active service at home and in every part of the world in the same year, was only sixty-one, which showed the description of the former to be that of worn-out soldiers, not anxious to return to active service.
The amendment was negatived; and the resolutions were agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 2, 1821
PETITION OF JAMES TURNER, COMPLAINING OF HIS IMPRISONMENT.]
Lord A. Hamilton
rose to present a petition from Mr. James Turner, a respectable person, who had resided for twenty-two years in Glasgow, carrying on the trade of a tobacconist. The petitioner complained, that he had been arrested on a charge of high treason, and had never been brought to trial, or received any compensation. The petitioner did not mean pecuniary compensation, for he was far above accepting any such; but he complained that his character had not been cleared by an acknowledgment that he was innocent of the charges for which he had suffered. He stated, that on the 9th of April, 1820, he was awoke in the night-time by officers, who entered his house with a warrant to search for papers and arms: he was taken immediately to the police-office, and was marched from thence, guarded by a file of soldiers; to the common Bridewell, where he was locked up in a solitary cell with a stone floor, and denied the use of writing ma-
485
The Lord Advocate
could not avoid calling the attention of the House to the time at which this complaint made its appearance: this transaction took place in April 1820, and eleven months had been allowed to pass before the present petition was put into the hands of the noble lord. During all that time the doors of the courts in Scotland had been open to the petitioner, if he thought himself aggrieved. This House had also been open to him; and if the petitioner had suffered the injury which he alleged, he owed it to himself to bring forward his demand for redress at an earlier period. As far as regarded himself—and he was the only party responsible—he was not bound to produce the grounds on which the charge of high treason had been made against this individual. But supposing that there were even no grounds at all, he was prepared to contend, that the petitioner should have called for redress in a court of law, where the lord advocate's mouth would have been open. He contended, that he had the best grounds for causing the apprehension of the prisoner, and denied that he was treated with harshness and severity; on the contrary, he was taken to the Bridewell instead of the prison of Glasgow through lenity, as there were then about one hundred culprits in the prison, and in Bridewell he had every accommodation which it was proper to
486
Mr. Maxwell
observed, that though he agreed that the case of the petitioner was not so severe as he had first supposed, yet he thought it was more severe than ft ought to have been. The reason why the petitioner had not brought his action was, his conviction (whether right or wrong) that he could not obtain justice in a court in Scotland against the lord-advocate. The charges against the whole of the persons arrested on the occasion alluded to were similar in their nature to those against the Spa-fields rioters. It turned out that the accused was only guilty of a riot. He was sorry that the learned lord had not taken example by what had occurred on that occasion.
Mr. Monteith
related the circumstances which had given rise to the apprehension of the petitioner, and observed, that the Bridewell in which he had been confined having been cleared of its usual inmates, was more comfortable than the gaol. Such a variety of information, some good, some bad, was laid before the magistrates, against individuals engaged in the riots in question, that it was surprising that more had not been apprehended. ts
Mr. Hume
had not heard the learned lord say, that the deposition on which the petitioner had been apprehended, was on oath. If it was not, what could warrant such an infringement of the rights of the subject?
The Lord Advocate
replied, that that was not the practice of the law of Scotland. The public prosecutor proceeded on the information which he received, and was of course responsible for his acts.
Mr. Hume
appealed to the House whe-
487
Ordered to lie on the table.
ARMY—HALF-PAY OFFICERS.]
Colonel Davies
rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move an address to his majesty for the employment of officers on half-pay in preference to individuals who had never been in the army. The address he had copied verbatim from one carried unanimously in 1740. It was indisputable, that every possible attempt ought to be made to diminish the public expenditure, and the present proposition was one which would materially tend to the attainment of that object. After the discussion of yesterday lie would only observe, that the case of many of the officers on half-pay was one of peculiar hardship; for being once reduced, it was only by the greatest interest that they could again obtain employment in active service. The hon. member then moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that, for the present and future ease of his majesty's subjects, he will be graciously pleased to employ in his army such persons as now remain upon half-pay who are qualified to serve his majesty."
Lord Palmerston
opposed the resolution, on the ground that it was uncalled for, and would therefore be a censure upon the commander-in-chief, whose conduct at the head of the army had produced the most beneficial effects, and was entitled to the highest praise. The noble lord entered into a calculation, showing
488
Sir R. Wilson
would be the last man to cast any implied censure upon the conduct of the commander-in-chief. The exertions of that illustrious personage in his department deserved the warmest praise. He could not, however, help observing, that many general officers were now living upon retired allowances of 7
s.
d.
Captain O'Grady
supported the resolution. He conceived that there were many public situations, such as barrack-masters, &c. which might be filled up from the half-pay.
Mr. Hume
observed, that within the last five years there had been 1,105 cornets and ensigns appointed, of which only 54 had been taken from the half-pay. The House divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 46.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H, G.
Pares, Thos.
Bernal, R.
Rice, S.
Chaloner, R.
Wilson, Sir R.
Creevey, Thos.
Wood, Alderman
Graham, S.
Wyvill, M.
Hamilton, Lord A.
TELLERS.
Harbord, hon. E.
Davies, Colonel
Hutchinson, Hn. C.
Hume, Joseph.
Monck, J. B.
ARMY—SUPERANNUATIONS AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.]
On the motion, "That the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply be now read,"
Mr. Hume,
after a few observations, proceeded to read to the House an extract from the sixth report of the Finance Committee, in which the committee recommended, that an inquiry should be instituted in the superannuation allowances, in order to find out those which ought to be continued, or abolished. The hon. member pointed out several instances of persons receiving superannuation allowances to the amount of 200
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
489
Lord Palmerston,
in answer to the hon. member, read an extract from a ministerial circular, of July 1817, in which it was ordered, that no person upon the superannuation list should hold an appointment greater in emolument than that from which he had been superannuated, without being deprived of the difference between such situation and that which such person had formerly held.
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that there was at this moment under the consideration of government a measure for lessening the scale of superannuation allowances, with respect to persons who held public offices.
After a short conversation, the House divided: For the Original Motion, 63; For the Amendment, 22: Majority, 41.
List of the Minority.
Baillie, col. J.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Bright, H.
Maxwell, J.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Birch, J.
O'Grady, S.
Cavendish, hon. H.
Rice, S.
Chaloner, R.
Smith, R.
Creevey, Thos.
Wilson, sir R.
Davies, col.
Wood, alderman
Evans, W.
Wyvill, M.
Farrand, R.
TELLERS.
Graham, S.
Hume, Jos.
Hamilton, lord A.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Harbord, hon. E.
490
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, lord Palmerston moved, "That 35,000
l.
Mr. Hume
thought that the idea of the public paying for the payment of its own money was the most preposterous that could be imagined. He could wish the chancellor of the exchequer to bring the whole of the fees thus paid into one account, and then to debit them to the consolidated fund. If so desirable a simplification of accounts were adopted, the House would no longer be in the dark as to the gross amount of these fees.
Sir C. Long
said, the regulation was, that two-thirds of the fees payable on issues from the exchequer on account of the army, should be carried to the consolidated fund; and an act had been passed for that purpose. Now, what was the complicated state of the accounts of which the hon. member complained? The fees paid into the exchequer on military issues had, from time immemorial, been voted in the committee of supply, and were partly handed over to certain officers whose property they were; the remainder went to the consolidated fund.
Mr. Hume
said; his proposition was, that all fees received at any public office, to which the public had a claim, ought to be brought to one account, and carried to the consolidated fund. At present the treasury account comprised four documents, and nothing could be more complicated. The duties performed at the exchequer ought not to be paid by fees.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that those fees were regulated by law, and were the vested rights of individuals. By interfering with them, the House would enter into a complicated inquiry with little prospect of advantage.
Mr. Hume
Wished to know whether, on the death of the persons now entitled to them, the fees would be abolished, or settled on their successors.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that in the event of new appointments, such appointments would be open to any pew regulation that might be considered necessary.
Mr. Bennet
said, he had no objection to pay liberally persons employed in the public service, but he would wish to see
491
The resolution was agreed to.
METROPOLIS POLICE BILL.]
Mr. Clive having
Mr. Bernal
said, there were two provisions in the bill which he conceived might be improved. By one clause the secretary for the home-department was empowered to re-imburse police officers for any extraordinary expense they might incur in the prosecution of certain duties, the fact being certified by the police-magistrates. This provision might be extended, with much benefit, to cases in which the parties aggrieved were unable, from their poverty, to employ officers. It was provided, by a second clause, that, in cases of petty misdemeanor, the constable of the night might suffer the party accused to go at large, on giving bail to appear at the police-office in the morning. It was not, however, imperative on the constable to do so. Now, he thought the constable ought to be compelled to receive bail in such cases.
Mr. Bennet
expressed his surprise that the hon. gentleman should bring forward the measure in question in the absence of many individuals who felt a deep interest in its provisions. After all that had been said on the subject of the metropolitan police—after all the evidence that had been given to show the necessity of new-modelling it—he could not repress his astonishment, when he found such a measure proposed as that which the hon. gentleman had introduced—than which no measure could be imagined so utterly imperfect for any good or efficient purpose, or containing the seeds of so much real mischief. The objection which he and other gentlemen had to this bill was, that, in the dangerous situation in which the metropolis now stood, recourse had not been had to those salutary measures for checking the evil which a wise government would have seen and adopted. He was sorry that the step which he had suggested, and which experience had shown to be beneficial in the ease of the Prison bill, had not been adopted, namely, the sending the bill to a committee above stairs, where alone details could be examined in an effectual manner. The bill had been brought in without consultation with the magistrates of the metropolis, or with those who were most conversant with
492
493
mandamus
494
495
Mr. H. Clive
said, that the hon. gentleman had suggested many things that might hereafter be proper subjects for inquiry by a committee upstairs. At present the appointment of a committee seemed unnecessary, there having already been four committees at different times, and three very full reports. These reports had been attended to in the framing of this bill.
Mr. Denman
objected to the principle of several of the clauses, especially those respecting the power of taking up persons suspected to be vagrants. He also observed that the latter part of the bill was wholly unconnected with the former; so much so, that he would suggest the propriety of dividing it into two distinct hills. If the first part relating to the payment of salaries, could be brought within a reasonable compass, no gentleman could object to it; but, as it stood at present, he must oppose it.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 4, 1821
BANK CASH PAYMENTS BILL.]
The Earl of Liverpool
, in rising to move the third reading of this bill, said, it would be necessary for him to state in a few words its object. The bill did not propose to make any alteration in the measure which had two years ago been adopted by parliament, further than to anticipate the pe-
496
l.
The Marquis of Lansdown
could not allow a measure of such importance to pass the third reading without making a few observations with respect to its general principle. The object of the bill was, not only to afford facility to the Bank, but at the same time to promote the advantage and convenience of the public. By this measure the Bank would be enabled to throw into circulation the specie which they had accumulated. And throughout the inquiries which had taken place on this subject, he had always maintained the opinion, which he saw no reason to change, that when once the currency of the country should be established on durable principles, the less of the precious metals which might remain in the Bank the better. The present bill however, did not rest its claims to the attention of the House, as being merely a measure to enable the Bank to pay in specie, but as embodying the general principle of the financial system attempted to be established two years ago. Nobody could now doubt the capability of the Bank to pay all demands upon them. All the difficulties which some persons had anticipated would attend the resumption of cash payments had been already surmounted by the Bank, for at any time within the last eight or nine months, the Bank could have paid all demands upon them without the slightest difficulty—He did not consider the bill as in the smallest degree affecting the decision of the great question with respect to which kind off
497
498
499
500
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, heap-proved of the bill; but if he were to give his advice to the gentlemen of the Bank, it would be, that they should be very cautious in their proceedings under it. In making this observation he called their lordships' attention to the remarkable circumstance, that gold had been for about six months at one price. It had continued steadily at the standard price at which it was purchased by the Bank. Now, to tell him that an article continued for any considerable length of time at the same price was tantamount to saying that it did not come fairly into the market; for the ordinary law of supply and demand rendered it quite impossible that an invariable price should be maintained. When he found that the nominal price of standard gold had been for six, or even three, months, neither more nor less than 3
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
501
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
l.
502
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
s.
503
Lord King
was very desirous to see the measure before their lordships carried into complete effect; but he believed great difficulties would be found to arise from* the junction of increased taxation with a new currency. The noble lord who spoke last could see no means of effectually reducing the expenditure. Now it was not required of him, or any individual in that House, to point out details of reductions. Let, however, the House of Commons come to a resolution to reduce the expense of the public departments to fifteen millions, or any other given sum, and he was sure the head of the Treasury, the noble lord opposite, would discover how the business might be managed. He would doubtless say to the head of the army, you shall have only so much; to the head of the ordnance you shall have only so much; for miscellaneous services so much shall be allowed, and no more. As soon as this distribution was made, the required reductions would follow of course. The great difficulty to be contended with, and one which had always been foreseen, was that of paying the same amount of taxation as before with a currency of increased value. With regard to the sinking fund, any tax for its support was most objectionable. He conceived the proper view with respect to it was this—that at the time when steps were taking to raise a depreciated currency to the legal standard, it was wrong to bring forward another measure for the support of the sinking fund. Having, by the measures taken for restoring a just currency, increased the value of the fundholders dividend, was it reasonable that we should also increase his capital? Such, however, was the effect of imposing taxes for the support of a sinking fund. With regard to the price of gold, he was of opinion that, the purchases of the Bank tended not merely to raise it to its proper value, but to carry it beyond it. The Bank gives a certain price for gold, 3
l.
s.
d.
504
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that some particular views had been taken in the course of this conversation, the justice and propriety of which he was
505
l.
506
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
507
l.
l.
508
The Earl of Darnley
expressed his conviction that great retrenchments might be effected in the public expenditure. With this impression on his mind, he should feel it his duty to call their lordships' attention to the subject during the present session.
The Duke of Wellington
stated, that if the whole of the ordnance department were abolished, the salaries and half-pay must remain, and the amount of the reduction would not exceed one-third of the present expenditure.
The Bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 4, 1821
DUTY ON EAST INDIA SUGARS.]
Lord Stanley presented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, against any additional Duty on East India Sugar, for the protection of the West India grower.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
vindicated the policy of laying a higher duty on East India sugars than on those made in the West Indies.
Mr. Ricardo
objected altogether to the principle of this tax, which recognised the policy of giving the produce of one country a preference to that of another.
Mr. Bennet
wished to know why the English consumer should be obliged to pay more for sugar from the West than from the East Indies. For his part he was not inclined to give such a preference to any class of men, much less to people who had vested their capital in dealing in human flesh. The interest of the consumer, as well as that of the trader, was a point which the House ought never to lose sight of. He would stand up for the people of this country, against the West India trader or grower, or whatever he
509
Mr. Gordon
said, that notwithstanding his hon. friend's lecture on political economy, it was impossible for the West Indian trade to go on, unless by the aid of such a protecting duty. He thought his hon. friend might have spared himself the use of such expressions as he had applied to the West Indian colonists, when he called them dealers in human flesh j such expressions being both uncalled for, and unjust.
Mr. Barham
said, the West India interest desired no advantage; but as burthens twenty times greater than had been imposed on any other body had fallen on them, they were justified in calling for some relief to enable them to exist. His hon. friend had thought it right to speak of all persons who had by any circumstance become possessed of property in the West Indies, as having vested their capital in human flesh. He thought his hon. friend, when he reflected on what he had said, would feel how unfair his conduct had been, and was confident that his own reproaches would be more severe than any which he could bring himself to pronounce.
Mr. Bernal
, with all the respect which he had for the humanity of his hon. friend, wondered that he should allow the heat of the moment to delude his understanding. If his hon. friend inquired into the system of slave management, he would find it to be one of humanity. He must know that the language he had used would go abroad, and operate to the prejudice of the West India traders; and therefore he trusted he would retract the asperity of the expression which he had applied to them.
Mr. Bennet
said, he was called on to give up his opinion, and to state, that, generally speaking, the slave-trade was one of humanity. He believed it to be no such thing. As an individual capable of forming an opinion upon the principle itself, he could see nothing so humane in it as to lessen the feeling which he had expressed towards it. He certainly did not mean to apply the expressions to any one about him. No doubt there were
510
Mr. Gordon
wished his hon. friend would abstain from speaking on a subject which he did not understand.
Sir R. Wilson
had no hesitation in declaring his belief, that the system, of slavery in the West Indies was of the most cruel and atrocious nature.
Dr. Lushington
observed, that where slavery was tolerated it was impossible that the principles of humanity should not be violated. Against individuals connected with the West India trade his hon. friend had thrown out no charge, but against the slave system, which must ever, be productive of human misery.
Ordered to lie on the table.
STATE OF THE NATION, AS CONNECTED WITH THE EVENTS NOW PASSING IN EUROPE.]
On the order of the day, for going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Hutchinson
rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice. He began by observing, that it was not his intention on the present occasion to interfere in any degree with the subject on which a noble lord (W. Bentinck) had given a notice. If he thought that his motion would anticipate, or at all interfere with that of the noble lord, he certainly would not press it. In entering upon so vast and important a subject, he was conscious of his own inadequacy to the task. He would, however, open his view of it to the House, confident that it would be ably enlarged upon by those honourable members who should support him. Looking at the present situation of Europe, he could not but feel considerable apprehension, as well at the nature of the events which were passing, as at the conduct of the British government with respect to them. When the situation of Italy was brought before parliament in February last his majesty's ministers declared that it was not their intention to interfere with respect to Naples. The document which was at that time laid before, and made the subject of discussion in, the other House, declared that the intentions of our government were those of strict neutrality; but nevertheless, they were not backward in showing what, their feelings were, and how far those feelings were against the cause of the
511
512
513
514
515
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he could not help objecting to the mode of proceeding adopted by the hon. member. Nothing, however, which had been urged in the course of the hon. member's speech rendered it necessary for him to enter at that moment into the details of the subject. When he came down to the House, he was under the impression that the House was to enter into a discussion on the navy estimates, and when such a question stood upon the paper, he thought it improper that they should be diverted from it, and dragged into an inquiry into the state of the nation with reference to foreign politics. When he heard of the hon. member's motion, he thought he intended to show that the existing state of Europe would enable us to dispense with a considerable portion of the navy estimates. But instead of hearing it recommended that a great portion of those estimates should be cut down, he could not help feeling some surprise at finding an accusation made against him which would form the ground of impeachment, for not having called upon the House, by a message from the Crown, to grant such additional sums as would place the country in a situation to resist the dangers with which she was threatened. He must, however, with all respect, decline the alternative which the hon. member had given him. The hon. member had also given him much advice, and no doubt with the best possible intention; he recommended entering into treaties offensive and defensive with France and Spain, blockading the greater part of the Northern ports, and many other measures of a very salutary nature no doubt, but which were, he must say, wholly thrown away upon him. He felt it necessary also to decline all political advice, when it came from an hon. member who did not appear to see the political state of Europe with sufficient clearness to enable him to make up his own mind upon it. He felt that ministers would act with great rashness if they followed any advice so tendered to them. He never knew it to be the parliamentary course to goad ministers into any act, or any explanation, by such an irregular proceeding as that adopted by the hon. member. If the hon. member would allow him to suggest to him and to
516
517
518
Sir R. Wilson
apprehended that ministers were so entangled with confederate tyrants, that it was impossible for them to follow the true policy of this country, even if it were their inclination. He must however believe, that they regarded with pleasure the overthrow of the Neapolitan constitution and the threatening of the constitution of Spain. If they did not, they would have taken measures to oppose the conduct of the enemies of European liberty. He thought that the people of Europe had still enough of spirit and of strength, to vindicate the past and to secure the future. There was no cause for despair: if despair existed, it was that despair which animates, and which persuades men that they can have no security but in action and in arms. The government of Piedmont, which the noble lord had called insurrectionary, but which he would call provisional, had most truly said that the cause of constitutional liberty had been morally successful. The possession of Naples was by no means the triumph of Austria. Austria had endeavoured to suppress a volcano, and every attempt to extinguish its fires increased, instead of diminishing them. Austria looked for aid to scaffolds and military executions; but such aids only offered additional impediments to her successful occupation. Austria then, had no cause of triumph, and the people of Europe no cause to despair.
Colonel Davies
was happy to hear that the Russian army had stopped its march. He wished to be informed by the noble marquis whether he had had any communication with the Russian government upon the subject. If the object of the Russian army was only to take possession of Italy, from the conduct of the dastardly wretches who had disgraced the name of liberty, he cared not what became of them.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the Russians had been put in motion at the request of the king of Sardinia, and the emperor of Austria, and therefore it was clear that their march had no reference to Spain. Further than this he had
519
The amendment was negatived.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The order of the day for going into a Committee of Supply was then read. On the motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Hume
said, that he had a few observations to make before the Speaker left the chair. No man in that House or in the country, felt more than he did the great importance of the navy—no man was more anxious than he was to preserve it unimpaired: to its naval power this country was indebted for its pre-eminent station, compared with the other nations of Europe; friendly, however, as he was to our naval establishment, he yet thought that it could be kept up in a state as perfect as it stood at present, and at much less expense. He did not at that moment mean to go into questions of detail, but would merely take the total expenditures of various departments and compare those expenditures with those of former periods. Here the hon. member went into several items of expenditure connected with various branches of the naval departments. He then went on to say, that considering the great reductions that had recently taken place in almost every article, the House ought to look narrowly at the different heads of expenditure, and endeavour to approximate the expenditure to the expenditure of 1792. He regretted to have heard a declaration made that night in another place by a noble earl (Liverpool), that no further reduction could be made in the present expenditure of the country. He hoped that before that day twelvemonths considerable reductions would be made. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment,
l.
l.;
520
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir G. Warrender
said, he would not follow the hon. gentleman through the details into which he had entered, though in the committee he should be happy to afford him an opportunity of correcting some of the errors into which he had fallen. It was very material to recollect, that in 1792 the actual expenditure and the sum voted were very different; and it was not until some years afterwards that the estimates represented the real expense. In referring to the Admiralty office, the hon. gentleman had omitted to notice the change in the system of fees by which the establishment was formerly maintained. The management and regulation of the dock-yards had undergone a complete change since 1792; a comparison therefore was altogether unfair. To the ordinary establishment of the navy, the
521
Mr. Hume
said, he would not press his amendment to a division.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Sir George Warrender
rose to bring forward the Navy Estimates. He observed, that it was impossible for parliament to judge of the amount of emoluments received by dock-yard officers, in the year 1792, from any documents submitted to its notice. At that time a dock-yard officer, with a salary of only 100
l.
l.
522
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Bernal
objected to granting so large a sum of money in a single grant, and trusted that the hon. baronet would not persist in pressing it in that form.
Sir G. Warrender
said, that it was the invariable practice to vote the estimates in the manner which he had proposed. He had no wish to create any obstacles to the investigation of these estimates; indeed, he was as desirous as the hon. gentlemen opposite could be to have them thoroughly sifted. He had therefore, from a presentiment that an objection would be taken against the old method of passing the estimates, prepared the votes in such a manner as would meet the object of the hon. gentlemen. He would therefore withdraw his motion, and move, "That 70,596
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Bernal
objected to this grant. If reduction was necessary in any branch of the public service, it certainly was in the Admiralty board. No sufficient reason could be given for the existence of six lords with salaries of 1,000
l.
523
l.
l.
l.
Sir George Cockburne
defended the original grant. With regard to the office of vice-admiral of Scotland, that office was enjoyed by a patent, and therefore could not be touched without an act of extreme injustice. As to the two lords of the Admiralty, whom it had been proposed to reduce, he was convinced that the public business of the board of Admiralty could not be efficiently transacted without them. The duties of that board were both civil and military, but belonged more to the former than they did to the latter description. The board had in consequence been divided into two distinct boards; and, strange as it might appear to the House, the number of clerks employed under the civil board, to say nothing of the law clerks, who were also numerous, greatly exceeded the number of clerks employed under the military board. But the cause which he had mentioned was not the only one; for the board of Admiralty containing a board within itself, it was evident that the duty of the commissioners would frequently render it necessary for them to go to the outports. Business would also be occurring in town at the same time, of such a nature as to render it necessary for some of them to remain there to attend it. The expediency, therefore, of having a distinct board for the transaction of the town business and the outport business could not be disputed. Gentlemen would say, that four lords of the Admiralty might constitute these two distinct boards as well as six; to which he would reply that no doubt they might. But then he maintained that one-half of the whole board ought to be naval officers; and if there were only two of them, they might differ in opinion, and thus bring the public business to a stand-still. This evil was completely obviated by having six lords of the Admiralty, of which three were naval and three civil lords. He might be told, that the evil which he contemplated would be equally well avoided by having only two
524
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that nothing would have induced him to have risen but the extraordinary language which he had just heard from his gallant friend. Considering, however, that the country was reduced to a state of extreme poverty, and that the great ships the Britannia, the Caledonia and the Hibernia, if they were not completely water-logged, had at least six feet water in their holds, it became the duty of the captain, the officers, and the crew, and he meant by that metaphor the king, the ministers, and the representatives of the people, to look, one and all, to the safety of each ship, and to do their best to prevent them from sinking. He had often heard it said, that retrenchment was the only means of salvation which remained to this great and independent nation. He did not mean to state that it was his opinion that such was
525
l.
l.
526
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Robinson
said it was quite new to him that the civil lords were, as it was termed, dumbies. He had the honour of a seat at the admiralty Board, I which he had accepted at the urgent request of his right hon. relative then at the head of the board, and he had found himself fully employed. Far from being sinecures, he in his conscience believed the places in question to be most efficient and useful offices.
Sir J. Yorke
admitted, that the office had been far from a useless one to his right hon. relative; for after his right hon. relative had been cradled in that nursery of sucking statesmen, as it had been called, he had got from thence, by a hop, step and jump, until he found himself seated on the treasury bench as a cabinet minister.
Mr. R. Ward
had had the honour of sitting at the board of admiralty for four years, and supported the assertion of the right hon. the treasurer of the navy.
Mr. Creevey
complained of the awkward dilemma to which he and the honourable friends who acted with him were reduced by the gentlemen on the other side. The gallant admiral, who had been eight years a member of the board of admiralty, said that two of the lords were utterly useless. The right hon. gentleman opposite said, upon his honour, that those two additional lords were most useful. After such a declaration so solemnly given, it was almost impossible for him to say that they were not useful. He should however draw his conclusions from contrasting the opinions of the two honourable gentlemen; and certainly, when he considered that at one time the lay lords were described as shipwrights, and at another time as students of Vattal, he was almost inclined to think them totally useless.
527
Sir Isaac Coffin
put it to his gallant friend, whether at any time during the eight years he had been a lord of the admiralty, he had made use of the observations which he had that night uttered regarding the dummies who had seats at the board.
Sir J. Yorke
replied, that his gallant friend must be well aware that the moment he had said a word of the kind at that board, his stern must have been turned to the admiralty
Mr. Hume
said, it was evident, that it was only the necessity of attending the House which made so many lords requisite. It was only a few years since the naval lords had their half-pay as well as their salaries. He wished to know whether there was any intention of bringing them back to their former condition? Though the vote for marines had passed, he felt it necessary to remark on some extravagant expense under that head. There were sundry officers in the navy in the higher ranks, who received various sums from 5
l.
l.
l.
528
l.
l.
Mr. Croker
said, that he never felt more pain in the course of his life, than during the speech of his gallant friend (Sir J. York), whose confidence and friendship he had long enjoyed. It was to him matter of extreme mortification, now to learn, that on former occasions, when they were favoured with his gallant friend's support, it was not the spontaneous exercise of his own candid opinion of which he had given them the benefit, but that which his love of office had dictated. With reference to the constitution of this board, having had thirteen years actual experience of its labours, he must state his deliberately formed conviction, that the constitution of that board was not only highly useful, but almost absolutely indispensable. As to the comparative value of the lay and naval lords, he would also add, that were he to draw a line of preference between the two classes, he would make it in favour of the civil lords; and that, so far from these being mere puppets moved at the will of another, or not moved at all, they were the most active, useful, and efficient class of persons in the public service. If, therefore, it should unfortunately be decided that' two lords should be struck from the board, he had no doubt that those who knew the public business would prefer that the re-
529
530
l.
531
l.
l.
l.
l.;
Sir J. Yorke
expressed great esteem for his hon. friend, but observed, that he did not think their friendship such a rope of sand as could be broken by his conscientious declaration, that the business of the, Board of Admiralty might be as well done by five as by seven lords.
After; some further conversation, the
532
List of the Minority.
Bastard, E. P.
Lushington, S.
Bankes,, H.
Lennard, T. B.
Buxton, T. F.
Milbank, R.
Beaumont, T. W.
Martin, John
Belgrave, viscount
Monck, J. B.
Bright, Henry
Moore, Peter
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Moore, Abraham
Birch, Josh.
Macdonald, J.
Bury, viscount
Maxwell, John
Barnard, viscount
Marjoribanks, S.
Concannon, Lucius.
Maberly, J.
Crompton, S.
Maberly, W. L.
Calcraft, J.
Nugent, lord
Creevy, Thos.
O'Callaghan, J.
Colburne, N. R.
Phillips, G. jun.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Palmer, C. F.
Corbet, Panton
Parnell, sir H.
Chaloner, Robert
Russell, lord W.
Dundas, hon. T.
Russell, lord J.
Denman, Thomas
Rickford, W.
Duncannon, visct.
Rice, T. S.
Davies, T. H.
Ricardo, D.
Evans, William
Smith, W.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Smith, John
Forbes, C.
Smith, Abel
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Sebright, sir J.
Griffiths, J. W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Graham, Sandford
Tremayne, J H.
Gordon, R.
Tulk, C. A.
Grattan, J.
Warre, J. A.
Hutchinson, hon. C
Wyvill, M.
Haldimand, W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Williams, W.
Hornby, Ed.
Wilson, Thomas
Heathcote, G. J.
Wilson, sir R.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Wharton, John
Hume, J.
Whitmore, W. W.
Hotham, lord
Wood, M.
Keck, G. A. L.
Yorke, sir J.
Langston, J. H.
TELLER.
Lemon, sir W.
Bernal, R.
A second division took place on a proposition for a reduction of 1,000
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
objected to this resolution, chiefly on the ground that the charges for this office were as great now that it disposed of but six millions of money, as when it had to distribute 22 millions. In 1792, the expense was but 12,000
l.;
l.
533
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Robinson
assured the hon. member, that no man could be more anxious than he was to reduce the expenses of this office, and that he never felt more mortified in his life than when he found that, in consequence of the operation of an order in council, the estimate for the present year was greater than for the last. That order required revision; but he wished to square the proposed reduction by some more general system, and that could not be done without consideration. As to the nature of the office of treasurer of the navy, the hon. member had quoted the opinion of the committee of finance on that point; but he (Mr. R.) could not conceive how the committee could have so described the duties of the office. Many of the duties of the treasurer of the navy were entirely different from those of a banker. The hon. member had observed, that the treasurer of the navy had nothing to do with the payment of money, farther than giving one order for another. This, however, was not the case. If a
534
535
s.
d.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that after the candid statement of the right hon. gentleman, he would not press his amendment to a division, though he did not think he had fully answered his objections.
The resolution was agreed to. The Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 7, 1821
STEAM ENGINES BILL.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
Mr. Lyttleton
recommended his hon. friend to postpone this measure for at least another year. If, the plan of consuming the smoke of Steam Engines was a good one, it would find its way without any legislative enactment; if a bad one it ought not to be forced upon the country. Were the measure confined to the metro-
536
Mr. J. Smith
was surprised at the objections which had been made by his hon. friend. He seemed to forget the injury which the poorer classes suffered from the existence of the steam engines in their present state. He could name a class of poor persons in London who so suffered: he meant the humble class who got their livelihood by washing. If a steam engine was established in the neighbourhood of the residence of these poor people, their occupation was destroyed altogether.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, he would support the bill. He himself had a large steam-engine, and he used the apparatus for consuming smoke, which had succeeded as well as any machinery could be expected to do. By the attention of one man, a large column of smoke could be consumed in a minute. In his way to the House a printed paper on the subject of the bill, had been put into his hands, which mentioned that the apparatus used by Messrs. Barclay and Perkins had completely failed. Now this was the reverse of the fact. He then read a letter from Mr. Perkins, which stated that the apparatus had entirely succeeded.
Mr. D. Gilbert,
although he thought the plan might be adopted with advantage in the metropolis, and in large towns, was averse to its compulsory extension to the manufacturing districts.
Mr. Buxton
regretted that he was under the necessity of opposing the bill. The plan had been tried in many instances and had completely failed. Nothing could be more fallacious than such experiments. It had succeeded in Messrs. Barclay's brewery, but with a very great additional consumption of fuel. But with an engine constituted as his (Mr. Buxton's) was, it was quite impossible to carry it into effect. He hoped his hon. friend would postpone the bill for a year or two. If not, he would move as an amendment, that the bill be committed upon this day six months.
537
Colonel Wood
said, that representing as he did a county where manufactures were carried on by steam-engines, he felt it his duty to oppose the proceeding any further with the bill in its present shape.
Mr. Maberly
trusted the hon. mover would postpone the consideration of the bill, as in its present shape it went to compel the trying of experiments. The courts of law would have to try the merit of every experiment suggested by every projector. He thought the hon. mover was bound to show that the bill could be carried into effect.
Mr. Curwen
supported the bill. He was convinced, from the experiments he had made, that the proposed alteration would cause an ultimate saving.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that if the House considered the present state of the law, no impartial man would hesitate in agreeing to the bill. Every steam-engine might now be prosecuted as a nuisance, if it affected the health, comfort or property of those in whose neighbourhood it was situated. In Cornwall and other places, steam engines were not prosecuted, because those who suffered from them had not chosen to prosecute, and because they were generally under the protection of the proprietors of the engines. But the engines had been introduced into villages to the great detriment of property, and the sufferers had not the ability to prosecute. All that the bill proposed was, to enable the court to reimburse the prosecutor, where the defendant was refractory, or to redress such nuisance as really existed where the prosecutor was unreasonable. It would put it in the power of the court to do what at present was done by a side wind. As to restricting it to the metropolis, he did not see why gentlemen in villages should not be relieved as well as the inhabitants of the metropolis. Why should a clergyman who kept a school in a village be smoked out. Why should Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, be annoyed by nuisances for the sake of Cornish miners. If hon. members would read the reports of the two committees who had considered the subject, they would be satisfied. He could produce the testimonials of persons who had found the plan successful at little expense. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Buxton) must have employed a very clumsy engineer.
General Gascoyne
read a letter from the proprietors of a large establishment at Liverpool, stating that the new plan in-
538
Mr. Philips
hoped the bill would be postponed until another year. The plan required more care than could be usually applied. This was thought a new invention; but Mr. Watt had obtained a patent in 1785 for the consumption of smoke. The public were much indebted to the hon. mover for his exertions, but he felt it his duty to support the amendment.
Mr. Marryat
said, that his attention had been called to the effect of the plan in the metropolis and other places, and he had found it successful. No man had a right to annoy or poison his neighbours.
Mr. Alderman Wood
was of opinion, that Mr. Parkes's plan of consuming smoke was highly beneficial, but he hoped that the clauses of the bill would not extend to Cornwall, as it would there produce the most injurious effects.
The House divided: For the original motion, 83. For the Amendment, 29. The House accordingly went into the committee.
CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS—MARCH OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that in rising to move the order of the day, for going into a committee of supply, he wished to advert to a question which had been put to him two days ago, and to which he had not at that time been able to give any other than an argumentative reply. The question to which he alluded was this—" Were the Russian troops continuing their march towards the south of Europe or not?" He had then stated, in answer to the question, that those troops had been put in march under special circumstances, and that, though he was not able to say that their march had been suspended, he felt himself entitled to observe, that the change of circumstances in Piedmont, where events had rendered it necessary to call in the assistance of an Austrian army, might produce a change in the movements of those troops. He could now state to the House from official information, that the Russian army would, not pass its own boundaries. In giving this information, he felt it to be due, not only to the House and to the country, but to the two great powers which had been most improperly, most illiberally, and most unjustly treated in that House—for it was sporting with them most unfairly
539
540
Lord Milton
observed, that the House and the country would feel satisfaction at the explanation which the noble lord had given upon a subject so important. He could not, however, think that hon. gentlemen were, in consequence of it, to be restrained from expressing their opinions upon the conduct of the continental powers. Allowing that both Russia and Austria were free from any spirit of territorial aggrandizement, still it was evident that they were actuated by a spirit of aggrandizement scarcely less injurious—he meant that of making the executive government too strong for the liberties of the people. He did not know whether the fact of one sovereign applying to another sovereign for a body of troops to keep down the discontents of his own people, was not a precedent as dangerous to the liberties of nations, as the fact of the Stuarts taking money from Louis 14th, to put down the rising spirit of England, would, if long continued, have been to the liberties of England. When he recollected the conduct of the allied sovereigns in general since the conclusion of the war, and especially when he recollected the conduct of the king of Prussia who had made more promises to give a constitution to his subjects than any other monarch, and who had nevertheless broken them all, he thought it rather too much for any member to say, that they ought not to look with an eye of jealousy at the designs entertained by these sovereigns.
Mr. Warre
thanked God that there was yet one corner of Europe in which the conduct of the allied sovereigns could be freely discussed. He implored the House not to look upon the stoppage of the Russian army in any other light than as an abstinence from crime and violence.
The Marquis of Londonderry
shortly stated the principles on which he had written the circular, with regard to the Neapolitan government, and distinguished
541
Mr. Denman
was surprised that the noble marquis should have charged hon. gentlemen with injustice and illiberality, when those gentlemen were absent who had taken part in the debate of Friday last. He himself thought that those charges were perfectly untenable. The House had seen the conduct of the allied powers towards Naples; they had seen the emperor of Russia denouncing the revolution in Spain as an insurrection, at the very moment that it was completed; and they had seen his forces moving in the direction of Spain at the very moment that the forces of the emperor of Austria were moving in the direction of Naples. Under such circumstances, suspicion would have been impossible, even if they had known nothing of the partition of Saxony, the transfer of Norway, and the abandonment of Genoa. If the noble marquis had committed this country by approving of such enormous atrocities, it became doubly incumbent upon members of that House to denounce the continuance of so abominable a system.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it was not his fault if the hon. members in question were not in their places: probably they had been kept away by the smoke of the bill of the hon. member opposite.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
On the motion, that the House should resolve itself into a committee of supply to consider further of the Navy Estimates,
Mr. Hume
rose to put a question to the hon. baronet, relative to the works in the dock-yards, particularly Sheerness. He confessed that he entertained considerable doubts both as to the necessity and the expediency of carrying them on. He
542
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir G. Warrender
said, that the sum now required was not for the same works as were provided for last year, although 30,000
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that before the House went into the committee of supply, he should propose a resolution. The House had before it three different estimates for completing and repairing naval works without any information regarding their necessity. In times like these it was fit to get at that information. The complaint against him and his hon. friends had hitherto been, that, excepting as to the army, they had only sought to save trifling sums; but now they were called upon to consider estimates of many millions: independently of the sums already voted by parliament, no less than 1,697,545
l.
543
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that if the works at Sheerness were not proceeded with, all that had been done would be lost by the encroachment of the sea. After the defence was completed, it was resolved not to continue the works until the whole had been proved. He was certainly adverse to delay.
Sir J. Yorke
would like to hear the names of some of the scientific and experienced persons who had informed the hon. member that the works at Sheerness were of no use since the introduction of steam boats. At Chatham the water was so shoal that ships of war sometimes grounded at their moorings; whereas at Sheerness there was a depth of 52 feet at low water. Since the project regarding Northfleet had been abandoned, government had wisely thought fit to restore and improve Sheerness.
Sir I. Coffin
was sure that if the hon. member inspected the works at Sheerness,
544
Mr. Bennet
observed, that his hon. friend did not ask the House to stop the supplies: he merely said, we have been so often deceived, that we ought not to vote more money without previous information. If the former plan had failed, it was by no means improbable that the plan now proposed would also fail. If the House went honestly to work, the truth would be extracted in a committee. Several sums were asked without any estimate at all. No proposition was more fair than that of his hon. friend. He merely asked them to look before they leaped.
Mr. Hume
re-stated that his object was inquiry, and not to obstruct any important public works. He was ready to vote 50,000
l.
The House divided: For going into a Committee, 82; For Mr. Hume's Amendment, 27.
List of the Minority.
Allan, J.
Jervoise, G.
Bernal, R.
Langston, J.
Benyon, B.
Monck, S.
Bury, lord
Milton, lord
Bright, H.
Maxwell, W.
Creevey, T.
Martin, J.
Crespigny, sir W.
Newport, sir J.
Crompton, J.
Ricardo, D.
Davies, col.
Warre, J.
Denman, T.
Wood, alderman
Grattan, H.
Wyvil, W.
Graham, sir C.
Williams, W.
Griffiths, R.
TELLERS.
Gordon, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Harbord, hon. C.
Hume, J.
Hurst, R.
The House then resolved itself into a committee of supply. On the resolution, "That 129,395
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said, that a large expenditure was of late years annually incurred for royal yachts. He was aware that they ought to be fitted up in a superior manner for the reception of royalty; but still he was at a loss to see what necessity there was for keeping up annually some of the officers; for instance, there was a sum of 1,300
l.
545
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that when the sovereign of Great Britain went to sea, it was not to be expected that he would abandon that state which was inseparable from his dignity. He could, however, assure the committee, that no unsuitable expense was occurred in fitting up the yachts. It was true that in the establishment of surgeons, the yachts were placed on the same footing as sea-going ships; and he thought there ought to be no cavil upon that, when it was considered that the appointment was reserved for old surgeons who deserved well of their country. The difference, too, between their half and full pay was so trifling, as to render the saving hardly worth consideration, when the objects of it were kept in view.
Mr. Hume
said, that he had already disclaimed any wish to limit the proper expenditure for fitting up the yachts in a suitable manner for the reception of his majesty, but he certainly objected to this annual full pay for a few weeks' service.
On the resolution, "That 970,400
l.
Mr. Bennet
called the attention of the committee to the situation of two unfortunate ladies, the wives of insane officers, who were plunged into deep distress, in consequence of the regulations adopted by the Board of Admiralty. They had for many years enjoyed the half-pay of their husbands, which had, however, been suddenly reduced, and they were thus placed in a situation of comparative penury. He could see no reason why the family of an individual, who had been deprived, of his senses while serving his country, should be considered less deserving of support than the relatives of the man who had lost a limb in her defence.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that persons suffering under the unhappy malady, were confined in a lunatic establishment supported by government at considerable expense. If lunatic officers had no family, government received their pay. If they had a family, then their friends might keep them altogether, and receive their full-pay, or receive half-pay, leaving them at the Lunatic Asylum. The two ladies
546
Mr. F. Buxton
said, he was acquainted with instances in which the regulation adverted to had produced the utmost misery. He did not think the hon. member had, exactly met the point which his hon. friend had pressed upon the consideration of the committee. The case his hon. friend put was this;—"If an officer receives a wound in. battle, no deduction is made from his half-pay; why then should a deduction be made in the case of a man who, in the course of service, is visited by insanity?" In fact, the wound received by the officers to whom allusion had been made—the mental wound—one of them having been on active service at the time he was seized by the malady with which he was afflicted—was the most severe of all human misfortunes. He had abstained from introducing the subject that night, because he meant to move for a committee in order to have it thoroughly investigated.
Mr. Croker
said, that the half-pay could only have been received by these ladies for so long a period, through some irregularity. There was this legal difficulty, which was entitled to consideration, namely, that if these officers were to recover, they might maintain an action at law against the treasurer of the navy, for the whole of the half-pay received without their authority, during the time of their insanity. The board of admiralty had, however, considered such insane officers to be dead in law, and had exercised a charitable, though not perhaps a strictly legal discretion, in granting a moiety of the half-pay to the unauthorized representatives of officers in that situation. The moral effect of conceding to the principle contended for by the hon. gentleman was also to be considered; for it would in fact be giving a premium to the relatives of persons in that unhappy situation to get rid of them.
Mr. Bennet
said, the question he had asked was, whether persons who, like the relatives of the unfortunate ladies who had written him a statement of their case, had lost their reason in the service of their country, ought not to be placed on the footing of officers who had lost their limbs. The hon. gentleman had answered him by a legal quibble, as to whether a success-
547
Mr. Croker
maintained, that he had only stated the general rule upon which the conduct of the board of admiralty was founded. If officers became insane in consequence of wounds received in battle, it was evident that they were as much entitled to pensions as if they had lost a limb in the service. It was but a few days ago, that, in consequence of an application made on behalf of an officer who had become insane and paralytic, he (Mr. C.) had examined the log-books for thirty years back, to see whether he could not find some wound which would justify the grant of a pension. He felt it necessary to state, in his own vindication, that it was mainly owing to the exertions of so humble an individual as himself, that an asylum for insane officers had been established. He had himself laid before the first lord the information which had been collected on this subject before a committee of that House seven or eight years ago, and it was in consequence of his personal exertions that this asylum was established. He stated this for the purpose of showing the looseness with which the hon. gentleman was in the habit of shooting off his arrows.
Mr. Hume
said, he had reason to know that these unfortunate ladies, who had been in the receipt of their pension for 18 years, had been plunged into the deepest distress in consequence of this small pittance of 60
l.
l.
548
Sir J. Yorke
thought this the most surprising proposition of any, considering that the wages of the artificers had been reduced one-fifth, and that the consumption of timber must necessarily be much diminished.
Sir T. B. Martin
observed, that as the Admiralty had contracted for a supply of timber up to the next year, no reduction could be made in the estimate until that period had expired.
Mr. Hume
referred to the report of a committee, to show that the manufacture of ships had been carried much further than the circumstances required, and maintained that we were now building more ships than we should be able to man, if we were to go to war to-morrow. Under these circumstances, he would move that the estimate be reduced to 794,580
l.
Sir G. Cockburn
admitted, that if all our ships were now in good order we should want no more; but that was not the case; the ships now building would last almost for ever; for by lying a long while in ordinary, they would acquire a firmness which nothing else would give them.
Sir J. Yorke
thought that half a million might be saved, avid doubted much the policy of continuing to build ships at Bombay.
Mr. Warre
thought that though great sacrifices ought to be made to preserve the ascendancy of the British navy, its security would not be impaired by attending to the diminished scale of expense which was now proposed.
Mr. Hume
withdrew his amendment, on the ground that if carried it would cause the violation of certain contracts, which government had entered into; but he did so only with the understanding, that the reduction proposed should take place after the fulfilment of the contracts.
On the resolution, "That 424,648
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to so large a grant for this purpose, without inquiry, and stated that this was only to be part payment of a sum of two millions, 1,600,000
l.
l.
549
Lord Milton
said, he was disposed to vote against the whole sum, if government refused inquiry.
Mr. Warre
objected to the expense of the new tunnel at Chatham as unnecessary and excessively expensive.
Sir G. Warrender
explained, that the tunnel was intended to drain the whole dock-yard; but the hon. gentleman seemed to confound it with the saw-mills, which was a work already finished.
After a short conversation, the committee divided: For the original vote, 107; For the Amendment, 30.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, R.
Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. G.
Milbank, R.
Benyon, B.
Robarts, W. A.
Bury, lord
Roberts, col.
Brougham, H.
Rice, S.
Calvert, C.
Ricardo, D.
Carter, T.
Rickford, W.
Crompton, S,
Russell, lord J.
Denman, T.
Smith, J.
Denison, J.
Smith, hon. J.
Gordon, R.
Whitbread, S.
Hume, J.
Wyvil, M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, Thos.
Harbord, hon. H.
TELLER.
Monk, J. B.
Milton, lord
Maxwell, J.
The chairman reported progress, asked leave to sit again.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 8, 1821
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
Mr. Bennet
said, that during the number of years he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he never rose to offer any animadversion, or to support any censure, upon the public press but with extreme pain and reluctance. But, he should think that he violated his duty to himself, and his duty as a member of parliament, if he did not bring under the consideration of the House a statement in which the honour of the House itself was too deeply implicated, and its privileges too openly compromised, to allow him to hesitate in the discharge of such a task. This statement had appeared in a Sunday paper, called the "John Bull," and trespassed upon one of those privileges which every member had an undoubted title to exercise. The House would probably recollect, that on Friday evening last, in consequence of a question having been put to him by the member for Ross-shire (Mr.
550
551
552
Mr. Mackenzie
said, that having been personally alluded to by the hon. member, he felt it due to his own feelings, and but justice to the character of the hon. member to declare, that the comments in the paper which he had read, upon the article in the
Courier
553
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, there could be no doubt that the article containing such an insinuation was a libel, and a breach of the privilege of the House. He would therefore support the motion.
The motion was agreed to; and, on the motion of Mr. Bennet, R. T. Weaver, the printer of the newspaper intituled "John Bull," was ordered to attend the House to-morrow.
MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE
Mr. Lennard
rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the consideration of two acts of the last parliament—the one intituled, "An Act for more effectually preventing Seditious Meetings and Assemblies;" the other "An Act for the more effectual Prevention and Punishment of blasphemous and seditious Libels;"—two acts, perhaps, the most important in their consequences and the most fatal in their effects on the vital principles of the constitution, of any that had been passed since the just expulsion of the house of Stuart from the government of these realms;—acts, between which an odious rivalry in the power of mischief might be said to exist. In performing the task which he had allotted to himself, he trusted, when his inexperience in the House was considered, that he should meet with the indulgence which was so often shown to persons placed in similar situations. If he could show that the constitution had been infringed by these measures, that important rights of the people had been taken away, and that restraints as unjust as unnecessary had been imposed, his pur-
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, it did not appear to him that any grounds had been stated in support of the motion sufficient to induce the House to agree to it. It was said, that the bills proposed to be repealed, had been carried through by two classes in that House; that one had been influenced by hostility to the people, and the other by panic. He did not know in which class the hon. gentleman placed him, but he would leave it to those who knew him best, to judge, whether, upon any occasion, he had manifested hostility to the liberties of the people. If fear had any influence on his decision when those bills were before the House, he had not yet sufficiently recovered from it to vote for their repeal. Certain he was, that the state of the country called for them when they were passed. The hon. gentleman said, that they who opposed his motion were bound to shew that no inconvenience arose from these laws. Now, this principle he could not admit. Inconvenience was no ground for legislation. To establish sufficient cause for a repeal, it should have been proved that the evil produced was greater than the good. He could not allow what the hon. gentleman had said, in reference to the conduct of one of the judges of the King's-bench, to pass without notice. It appeared to him a most improper way of bringing such a subject before the House. If there was good ground for a charge, why not proceed against the learned judge in a constitutional mode? He would willingly submit his conduct to the most jealous investigation. He had known the hon. judge alluded to from early life, and he never knew a man of more tender and
563
564
Mr. Denman
said, that having through the whole progress of these bills done all in his power to oppose them, though without effect, he felt obliged to his hon. friend for bringing forward this motion, as it gave him an opportunity of stating that his opinions upon the subject remained unchanged. He maintained that these bills were an innovation on the constitution, and it was for those members who wished them to be continued, to point out the necessity for their further existence. He denied that there had ever existed any necessity for the enactment of such measures. Whatever might have been the excesses committed, the ancient law of the land was sufficient to repress or punish them. If this was not the case, then our ancestors had gone on in the dark, and their errors had only been discovered by the new lights thrown upon the country by the bills of 1819. Where was it found that the ancient law was insufficient to preserve public tranquillity? Was it to be argued, that the proceedings which took place at the memorable Manchester meeting required the enactment of a new law? What greater power could any magistrate require, than that exercised by the Manchester magistrates on that occasion? The House had there the example of a peaceable meeting, assembled for a constitutional purpose, dispersed and routed by a military force—and that, too, without any warning or notice, and while they were receiving from their leader the strictest injunctions to demean themselves quietly. Was that act of the Manchester magistrates legal, or was it not? IP it was not legal, then both the House and the country had been grossly deceived; but if it was legal, where, he would ask, was the necessity of enacting any new law to preserve the country from the dangers arising from public meetings? Not only had that meeting been dispersed, but the persons who called it had been
565
566
567
ex-parte
568
Mr. Hutchinson
thanked the hon. mover for bringing forward this question, and giving him an opportunity Of saying a few words respecting the operation of these laws in that county of which he was a representative. He did not know what the learned gentleman meant, when he stated that a necessity existed for the continuance of these laws. He could not see that necessity; and he was therefore at a loss to see upon what ground the learned gentleman could vote for bills, which were disgraceful and insulting to the majority of the nation. He would not say that he would not, upon a case of extraordinary necessity being made out, vote for such bills; but he never did think that such a case had been made out by ministers. Would the learned gentleman say, that Scotland was in the year 1819 and in the year 1821, in the same state of tranquillity? The learned gentleman could not forget that the noble marquis and his supporters, in bringing forward these laws, had stated that there were regularly organised bodies opposed to the government; that they were trained to arms—that they marched with flags and banners—and that there were several thousands, both in England and Scotland, so openly opposed to the government, that it was necessary to have an additional number of troops—and that numbers of families in the country had been obliged to leave their homes, and seek protection in large towns. When the noble marquis had made these statements, in which he was confirmed by many hon. members, it was not wonderful that many gentlemen should think that a strong case had been made out, and that the measures had been called for; but the learned member could not have contended, that the same danger existed at the present moment, if he had not spoken under panic, and argued from generals to particulars. He could not conceive any two things more dissimilar than the state of the country in 1819 and in 1821; and when he could not be led to believe that a necessity which justified such an infraction of the rights and liberties of the subject existed in 1819, he could not be expected to alter that opinion in 1821, when the noble marquis who had then stated the necessity of these measures did not pretend to say, that it now existed. He re-
569
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, he believed the disposition to excite the people to tumultuous meetings still existed in full force, and that nothing but the laws in question kept them down.
Mr. Maxwell
said, he support 1819, because several meetings had occurred in that part of Scotland in which he resided, little calculated to promote the right of petition. He had also done so, because he knew that nine-tenths of his constituents approved of the measure, and because he wished to guard the people from such mischances as had occurred at Manchester. He certainly could not have given his consent to the measure, had the noble marquis persisted in proposing it as a permanent measure; but the noble marquis, on going to the vote, had met the wishes of himself and others, by making it only temporary. After such a compromise had taken place between them, he should consider himself guilty of a breach of faith to the noble marquis if he voted for the repeal of the Seditious Meeting bill, even though convinced that there was no longer any necessity for its existence. With regard to the Seditious and Blasphemous Libel law, he laboured under no such difficulty, and should vote for its repeal.
570
Mr. Abercromby
said, he was one of the few on his side of the House who voted that the bill should pass into a law. The reasons on which he had done so were perfectly satisfactory to his own mind; and their correctness had been proved by every thing that had since occurred. He had thought the conduct of the people at the time more injurious to the right of petitioning than any thing that had ever been known before, and therefore he had voted for the bill. He, for one, had never doubted that the Manchester meeting was illegal; but many respectable gentlemen had been of a contrary opinion. The question had, however, been set at rest at York; and he apprehended it could no longer be doubted that such meetings were illegal. But when he voted for the passing of that bill, thinking it necessary at the time, he did not bind himself to vote that it should continue in. force when its operation was no longer necessary. Circumstances that had occurred since it passed, had led him to the conclusion that it ought to be repealed. The conduct of the sheriffs under this law, though in some instances very creditable, had in others not been what it ought to have been; and meetings like that which had formerly taken place at Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other places, having been declared illegal by the decisions of courts of justice, he thought, in the present tranquil state of the country, there was no pretence for keeping this law in force. He should therefore give his vote in favour of the motion; but, at the same time, he regretted that it had been brought forward; for in the same way in which the people had endangered the right of petitioning by the mode in which they had formerly assembled to petition, he was of opinion that his hon. friend had injured the cause, of which he was the able advocate, by bringing forward the motion at the present moment. He wished him to consider in what situation, if the motion were not carried, they must stand, when this bill should expire. Could his hon. friend persuade himself that its failure would not furnish ministers with arguments in favour renewal? "Look," they would say, "at the proceedings of 1821. Where were the meetings—where were the disturbances to be complained of then? Yet the House, though the subject was brought before them, refused to repeal this law in that year, and thus it
571
Mr. Lennard
rose to reply. He said he did not entertain any sanguine hopes of the success of his motion, for he had seen nothing in the conduct of ministers which could lead him to expect that they would display the slightest leniency to the people. He had, however, made it in order to show the inhabitants of England that there were still some men in the House who regarded their interests, and who wished to restore them to such portions of their birthrights as they had been unjustly deprived of. He had expected to hear something new from the defenders of these bills; but in this he had been disappointed. Not a single hint had been made as to the existence of any secret conspiracy, nor had any letter been read from any of the anonymous correspondents of the secretary of state, who, on a former occasion, had spread terror and dismay throughout the whole of his department. He thought that the very omission gave him an additional reason for asserting that the bill ought to be repealed.
Sir J. Newport
said, that as no case had been made out by ministers in favour of the laws sought to be repealed, he should feel it his duty to vote for the motion.
The House divided: Ayes, 58. Noes, 89. Majority against the motion 31. Mr. Lennard then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the statute 60 Geo. 3, c. 8, intituled 'An 'Act for the more effectual prevention and punishment of Blasphemous and Seditious libels.'"
Mr. Denman
said, he could not agree to allow a law to remain in force, by which an individual might be exiled for that which a jury, under particular circumstances, might regard as a libel tending to overthrow the government of the country. He had heard that bill introduced with horror, but the circumstances under which it was proposed were no longer in existence. The blasphemous and seditious press, as it had been called, had been completely put down, not under these bills, but under the old law, as it ought to have been in the first instance. The worst of those libels which had been suffered to inundate the country for so long a period, had been proved to have been sent forth by spies and agents, as it should
572
The House divided: Ayes, 66. Noes, 88. Majority against the motion 22.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Moore, A.
Barham, J.
Monck, J. B.
Baring, H.
Macdonald, J.
Bernal, R.
Maberly, J.
Benyon, B.
Milton, visc.
Birch, J.
Newport, sir J.
Bright, H.
Newman, R. W.
Boughey, sir J.
Nugent, lord
Byng, G.
O'Grady, S.
Burden, sir F.
Palmer, C. F.
Bury, lord
Philips, J.
Buxton, F.
Phillips, G. R.
Concannon, L.
Rickford, W.
Crompton, S.
Russell, Greenhill
Chaloner, R.
Rice, Spring
Calvert, C.
Robarts, A. W.
Coke, T, W.
Robarts, col.
Calcraft, J.
Ramsden, J.
Denison, W. J.
Ricardo, D.
Davies, col.
Smyth, J. H.
Dundas, T.
Scarlett, Jas.
Ebrington, lord
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Folkestone, visc.
Tavistock, lord.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Whitbread, S. C.
Fergusson, sir R.
Western, C. C.
Gordon, R.
Webb, E.
Griffiths, J. W.
Wyvill, M.
Guise, sir W.
Warre, J. W.
Graham, S.
Williams, W.
Harbord, hon. E.
Wilson, Sir R.
Hurst, Robt.
TELLERS.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Lennard, B. T.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Denman, T.
Haldimand, W.
PAIRED OFF.
James, W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Lushington, Dr.
Townshend, lord C.
Langston, J. H.
Wharton, J.
Martin, John
POOR RELIEF BILL.]
When the Gallery was again opened, Mr. Western was on his legs, addressing the House on the importance of affording the fullest opportunity for discussing the motion of his hon. and learned friend on the subject of the Poor Laws.
The Marquis of Londonderry
expressed his readiness to concur in any arrangement that appeared desirable to accomplish the object which the hon. member had in view. His personal acknowledg-
573
Mr. Scarlett
said, that as a short delay would be of no material importance, he would consult the pleasure of the House, and open the subject now, or postpone it until a future evening. [Cries of "Go on, go on."] As such seemed to be the will of the House, he would proceed, as shortly as the nature of the subject would admit, to state the grounds of the amendments which he wished to make in the laws relating to the poor. Aware of the vast importance of the subject—aware that one of greater importance could not be brought under the consideration of the House, he perhaps ought to apologize that so humble an individual as himself should intrude it upon their attention. It was with some difficulty that he could persuade himself to offer a proposition for altering the poor laws that had not previously received the sanction of the government of the day. Had he thought that such a measure, or any thing like such a measure as he had to propose, would have been originated by ministers, lie would have been the last person in the House to anticipate their intentions by bringing this measure forward. He would go further and say, that if he had had any reason to believe, that the body of gentlemen who formed the committee appointed some years ago, to inquire into that subject, had entertained any design of bringing forward, the measures of which they then suggested the outline in their valuable report, he should have felt it his duty to leave the business in their hands. But, understanding from some who were Members of that committee, that they had no such intention, he ventured to take it upon himself, from a deep and solid con-
574
à priori
575
à priori
l.
l.
576
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
577
maximum
maximum.
578
s.
s.
d.
579
580
s.
d.
s.
581
582
The Marquis of Londonderry
begged leave to express his sincere thanks to the hon. and learned gentleman, for the pains he had evidently taken with this most important subject. In refraining at present from making any observations upon the details which had been so forcibly submitted by the hon. and learned gentleman, he trusted that he would not infer from his silence any want of zeal, or any disinclination to lend his assistance in considering the whole subject. As the hon. and learned gentleman at present merely moved for leave to bring in his bill, sufficient time would no doubt be hereafter allowed to consider the whole question.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that though he acknowledged the good intentions of his hon. and learned friend, he must deprecate any proposition to take from the unemployed industrious poor a subsistence to which they had just the same right as every gentleman had to his estate. If the Poor-rates were oppressive, let a reduction of taxation be first tried, before they attempted to alter the law of the land.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that although he could not entirely agree in the propriety of the measure recommended by his hon. and learned friend, yet he begged leave to tender him his most sincere thanks for having undertaken the investigation of so important and pressing a subject. It appeared to him, that in the Report, which reflected so much credit upon those concerned in drawing it up, one main reason of the increase of Poor-rates had been entirely overlooked. Whoever would trace the rise and progress of taxation, or the national debt, would find that it was regularly accompanied by a diminution of the prices of labour; and thus they would find the increase of Poor-rates accounted for. It was not his intention to enter int6M' the question at length upon: the present occasion but, when the fit opportunity
583
584
Mr. Sturges Bourne
said, he considered it as a matter of congratulation to himself and to the House, that this subject had been taken up by so able and competent a mind as that of the hon. and learned gentleman by whom it had now been brought forward. The propositions which the hon. and learned gentleman had submitted to the House were not new to it. With respect to the first point proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, namely, that of a maximum, it had been brought under the notice of a committee by a gentleman to whose opinion great deference was paid. He, in common with many others, was, in the first instance, startled at such a proposition; and, in drawing up the report, pains were taken to place it in the clearest point of view. Reference was made to its having already been acted on as a local provision. The Isle of Wight, the place where the experiment was tried, was eminently calculated to give it every fair chance of success.
585
586
Mr. Monck
said, that though, in their debates, they reprobated the principle of an agrarian law or of Spencean justice, yet, in acts of parliament, they had absolutely adopted that principle; for gentlemen of landed property were the nominal owners of the land, while the rents and profits silently found their way into the hands of the parish officers, to be distributed to the poor. The system of our Poor-rates were extremely objectionable. They degraded the poor man, because he received that in the shape of alms, which ought to be given to him in the more creditable shape of wages. But, though the system was objectionable, he was not prepared to abridge the poor of that assistance which they had hitherto received. He traced the great amount of the Poor-rates to excessive taxation; and before he abridged the rights of the poor, he must see a repeal of the malt-tax, and of the salt-tax, and, above all, he demanded in their name a repeal of the obnoxious Corn bill.
Mr. Mansfield
felt it his duty to make a remark upon the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman, not to allow parish relief except to the sick and infirm. In the large town which he represented, one-half of the manufacturers had at one time been thrown out of employ; and that not from a combination of the masters, but from the uncertainty of trade. They had, in consequence, suffered severe distress; and what would have been their situation, had such a bill as the one now proposed then been in operation?
Mr. Philips
observed, that although there were some parts of his hon. and learned friend's bill to which he should object if taken separately, yet to the whole united he had no objection whatever. On the contrary, he augured great good from its adoption, and thought it right to take an early occasion of bearing his testimony to the salutary effects of the act passed upon the proposition of the right hon. the member for Christchurch some years ago, especially in those dis-
587
Mr. Ricardo
expressed his surprise that any apprehension should be entertained of the tendency of his hon. and learned friend's bill to create embarrassment in the law of settlement, as the great object of that bill was, to remove all difficulty and litigation with respect to that law. It had been observed that labour, instead of being paid in wages by employers, had been paid out of the Poor-rates. If so, why then should not the amount of such payment be deducted in fairness from those rates? This was one of the objects of his Hon. and learned friend's bill; because that bill, proposed to have the labourer paid in just wages by his employer, instead of having him transferred to the Poor-rates. The effect, indeed, of his hon. and learned friend's measure would be, to regulate the price, of labour by the demand, and that was the end peculiarly desired. With respect to the pressure of the taxes and the national debt upon the, poor, that pressure could not be disputed, especially as it took away from the rich the means of employing the poor: but he had no doubt, if the supply of labour were reduced below the demand, which was the purpose of his hon. and learned friend's measure, that the public debt and taxes would bear exclusively upon the rich, and the poor would be most materially benefitted.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
highly eulogised the principle and tendency of his hon. and learned friend's proposition, which he had no doubt would be productive of great good. He considered that the real evil of the Poor-laws arose out of the question of settlements. The litigation and expense occasioned by the disputes upon this question were beyond the conception of those who had not been concerned in them.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
Mr. Scarlett
then brought in the bill. In moving the first reading, he said he wished to make a few observations upon the, remarks of his gallant friend. When his gallant friend stated, that the object of the bill was to abridge the rights, of the poor,' he stated that which was not the fact, and that which must have been founded in an entire misunderstanding of what had fallen from him. The object of the bill was, to increase the independence and to improve the condition of the poor of this country; and if it had, as his gallant
588
The bill was then read a first time.
BANKRUPTCY LAWS AMENDMENT
Mr. John Smith
observed, that in calling the attention of the House to the present state of the Bankruptcy Laws, he had to remind those gentlemen who sat in the last parliament, that the measure which he had now to propose, was not altogether new. A bill containing nearly the same provisions as that which he should have the honour to move for leave to introduce, he had before submitted to the? House, and it had met with its approbation. It had, however, failed of success in the other House. In bringing it once more under consideration, he should not deem it necessary, at this stage of the proceeding, to go into a minute exposition of all its parts. He would refer shortly to one or two of its principal objects, and state the more important evils which
589
Leave was given; and the bill was brought in and read a first time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 9, 1821
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
On the motion of Mr. Bennet, the order of the day for the attendance of R. T. Weaver was read; whereupon he was called in and examined as follows:
By Mr. Speaker.
—What is your name?—Robert Thomas Weaver.
590
By Mr. Bennet.
—Who was the person who gave you that paragraph?—that paragraph was not given to me.
591
592
By Mr. M. A. Taylor.
—In whose name is the house hired which serves as the office of the paper?—The principal office is that of Messrs. Shackle and Arrowsmith, but since the commencement of the paper an adjoining house has been taken.
By Mr. Bennet
—You have stated that you receive the profits to account hereafter to Mr. Arrowsmith, what is the na-
593
By Mr. Wynn.
—Did you ever inquire of any of the compositors from whom he received the paragraph in question?—I did not.
594
By Mr. Scarlett.
—Was any money received for the printing of that paragraph?—As far as I am concerned, I can say not.
By Lord Nugent.
—You have spoken, of an agreement between Mr. Arrowsmith and yourself. Do you recollect at what time and where that agreement was concluded?—About seven weeks, ago a£ the office. I cannot exactly say.
595
By Sir R. Wilson.
—Do you keep any clerk?—I do not.
By Mr. M. A. Taylor.
—Who examines the proof sheets?—Sometimes I do: sometimes the reader.
By Lord Nugent.
—Is there any person in the office authorised to give insertion to such paragraphs as may arrive after you and the editor have left it?—There is no person so authorized, but it is done sometimes when we are out of the way.
596
By Dr. Phillimore.
—Did the extra hands whom you have mentioned ever insert a paragraph without your permission or that of the editor?—It is possible they may have done so.
By Mr. Scarlett.
—You have said that Mr. Cooper is the editor—doyou mean to say that he is the exclusive editor, or that he divides the duty with you?—I take no part as editor.
By Mr. Bernal.
—Is the gentleman who was with Mr. Cooper to-day, and who prevented your communicating to Mr.
597
By a Member.
—Is it part of the reader's duty to examine the proof sheet; and if so did he not read the paragraph in question?—The reading boy reads the manuscript, and the reader examines the proof.
By Mr. W. Smith.
—By whom is the manuscript put into the hands of the reading boy?—By the compositor.
By Lord Nugent.
—Do you mean to say that you never communicated with the editor by letter or note?—All my communications with the editor have been verbal.
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bennet
said, that as no evidence bad been obtained from this man as to the author of the paragraph, and as that was the object of his inquiry, he must move that other evidence be brought to the bar. He did not think the witness entitled to much lenience from the evidence he had given, but he wished to do no more than detain him until those persons had been called from whom more satisfactory information might be derived. He would therefore move, "That Thomas Arrow-smith, William Shackle, and Henry Cooper do attend this House forthwith."
The motion was agreed to.
598
INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF ENGLISH COURTS OF JUSTICE.]
Sir J. Newport
rose to bring forward his motion upon this subject. He proceeded to explain the circumstances which induced him to bring this question before the House, and pointed out in strong terms the great delay which had taken place since the appointment of the commissioners in 1815. Those commissioners, five in number (two of whom were masters in chancery) had since their appointment received a salary of 1,200
l.
l.
l.
l.
1. "That it appears, from returns laid before this House, that the commission to inquire into the state of the English courts of justice, appointed by his majesty on the 9th February 1815, in compliance with their address of the 28th of June 1814, was composed of five commissioners, two of whom were masters in chancery; and that they have been compensated for their services by an annual payment pf 1,200
l.
599
l.
l.
2."That the commissioners have delivered in four reports; the first, on the court of Chancery, 9th April 1816; the second, a very small supplementary report on the same court, 20th Dec. 1817; the third, on the King's-bench, 5th Jan. 1818; and the fourth, on the court of Common-pleas, 3rd July 1819.
3. "That it appears, by the statement of the lord chancellor to the secretary of state for the home department, on the 17th March last, that his lordship has adopted some measures, as detailed in that statement, for carrying into effect some of the recommendations contained in the report of the commissioners upon the court of Chancery; and that, in other instances, those recommendations appear to his lordship to require much further consideration, to which consideration (with the advice and assistance of the master of the rolls, and eventually of others of the judges) his lordship now- proposes, at the expiration of five years from the period of its delivery, to submit the whole of, the report.
4."That the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common-pleas, in their several statements of the 5th and 6th of March last, acquaint the secretary of state, that their lordships attention had not been in any manner called to the recommendations contained in the reports on their courts, nor had those reports been officially made known to them; which reports had been delivered in by the commissioners, on the 5th Jan. 1818 and the 3rd July 1819, to the office under the control of the secretary of state for the home department.
5. "That this House views with extreme regret the slowness in its progress of a commission instituted for such important objects, and prosecuted at considerable public expense; the obstructions which the commissioners appear to experience in their inquiries, from the reluctance manifested by some of the officers of the court of Exchequer to deliver the returns called for, and to facilitate the execution of the commission, as detailed by the commissioners; the very protracted period of time to which the consideration of some of the measures recommended for regulation of
600
On the first resolution being put,
The Attorney General
rose to defend the conduct of the commissioners, who, he said, had been unremitting in their exertions, and deserved the applause and gratitude of their country. One reason which the right hon. baronet had for finding fault with them was that they had only laid four reports upon the table. It was true, that a greater number of reports had been made by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in Ireland; but though eight reports had been made by them, and only four by the English commissioners, the English commissioners had, independently of the greater research which they had displayed, done more in point of fact than the Irish, their four reports containing 586 pages, and the reports of the Irish containing only 400 pages of printed matter. The commissioners had not had power to enforce the making of certain returns from the offices of the Exchequer; but surely no reasonable man would impute that circumstance as a matter of blame to them. He defended the lord chancellor from the charges which had been made against him, and asked, whether it was to be expected that that learned and illustrious person was to postpone all his other engagements to examine into the matters referred to him by this commission? With regard to certain of the reports not having been sent to the judges of the King's-bench and the Common-pleas, he begged leave to inform the House, that according to the words of the commission itself, the reports were to be returned to the petty bag office, and that it was not therefore the duty of the commissioners to transmit them to the judges. The secretary of state was the person who ought to have forwarded the reports to those learned persons; but? he had failed to do so, from an idea that they had been sent to them from some other quarter. He could assure the right hon. baronet, that there was no reluctance any of the courts to correct abuse, where abuse was proved to exist. It was unfair
601
Mr. Abercromby
said, the
gravamen
Mr. B. Bathurst
defended the lord chancellor from any imputation of neglect. That distinguished personage was not responsible for the delay which had occurred. The right hon. baronet complained of the expense of the commission; but was there any novelty in that? There was good ground, perhaps, for the commission into the Irish courts; but certainly nothing had resulted from the extension of the inquiry to the English courts which justified the expense of the undertaking.
Mr. Baring
expressed his surprise at the right hon. gentleman's view of the duties of government; for, according to that notion, there was nobody to take cognizance of a report framed by a commission under the orders of that House. As to the manner in which the inquiries had been conducted, he should only say, that nothing very sanguine could be hoped from an investigation carried on through
602
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
saw no reason for the strictures which had been passed upon the commissioners, nor could he understand how the inquiry could have been conducted, except by the examination of the officers in the respective courts.
Sir. Warre
denied that it was necessary to have masters in chancery on the commission. Four gentlemen inquired into the abuses of the court of Chancery of Ireland, none of whom were masters, yet the result of their labours had been most satisfactory and advantageous.
Sir J. Newport
, in reply, said, that when he had moved the address he had done all that was necessary on his part. It then became the duty of government to carry the object of the address into effect. The right hon. gentleman had argued that government had no right to interfere. But what said the commissioners? They stated that they had performed the duty allotted to them, and they recommended certain measures to his majesty for adoption. Now, who was to carry those recommendations into effect except his majesty's government? The address which he had moved was a general one, referring to all the courts of justice in the united kingdom. And why was it general? Because he was unwilling to appear invidious by selecting any particular court. He was determined to place his resolutions on the journals, because, in other cases, when resolutions proposed by him had been negatived, he had found that their principle was recognized several years afterwards, in consequence of their being placed on the journals.
The previous question was then put upon the four first Resolutions, and negatived. Upon the fifth, the House divided; Ayes, 56. Noes, 72.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, J.
Barrett, T.
Althorp, lord
Carter, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Bernal, R.
Curwen, J. C.
Birch, Josh.
Calcraft, J.
Blake, sir F.
Concannon, L.
Barbara, J. H.
Colbgrn, R. N.
603
Davies, col.
Russell, lord W.
Ebrington, lord
Russell, lord J.
Folkestone, lord
Rumbold, C.
Gaskell, B.
Rice, S.
Gordon, R.
Smith, W.
Grenfell P.
Smith, J.
Guise, sir W.
Smyth, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Stewart, lord J.
Hume, J.
Stewart, J.
Hutchinson, C. H.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
James, W.
Tavistock, marq.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Wood, M.
Maberly, J.
Wyvill, M.
Martin, Jas.
Wilson, sir R.
Monck J. B.
Warre, J. A.
Milton, lord
Wynn, C. W.
Milbank, Mark
Whitbread, W. H.
Newport, sir J.
Williams, W.
Orde, W.
Newman, W.
O'Callaghan, J.
TELLERS.
Palmer, C. F.
Baring, A.
Phillips, G.
Macdonald, J.
Pares, Thos.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—PETITION
Mr. James
presented a Petition from the bankers, merchants, and other inhabitants of Carlisle, praying for Retrenchment and Reform. He expressed his, regret that that House had pertinaciously resisted every attempt to introduce a system of economy arid retrenchment. Instead pf being the friends arid supporters of the people, they seemed to be of no other use but to assist the executive government in imposing restraints and burthens on the country. Whether gentlemen would look to the preservation of their own property, and, while assisting themselves, save the public money, he could not tell; but he felt that until the people obtained a reform in parliament—and that they would eventually obtain it he had no doubt—the country could not hope for permanent prosperity. While he had a seat in that House, he would endeavour to procure a restoration of those rights which had been bartered away for power and emolument. If retrenchment and reform were not conceded, the government, he was convinced, would, be changed by violence. How much wiser would it be to do something for the people, to prove up them that their complaints had hot been made in vain. Those who sat on his side of the House, were told that they agreed on no precise plan of reform. That perhaps was true; but it was likewise true that they all agreed that some reform was necessary. Every man who did not live on the takes was assured of that. Any
604
Mr. Curwen
said, that the inhabitants of the county which he represented, if ho excepted those who held places or received pensions, were unanimously of opinion that reform was necessary.
Ordered to lie on the table.
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.]
Lord John Russell
rose to make his promised motion. He said that although some circumstances had occurred in that House a short time ago, which were discouraging to any person who meant to bring forward propositions respecting reform, yet he was bold enough to say that he felt a considerable degree of confidence in proposing the measure which he would that night submit to the House. At the same time, he was by no means blind to the difficulties and the importance of the task he had undertaken. If it was true, as it undoubtedly was, that all governments depended ultimately upon opinion, it was no less true, that the government of England depended upon an opinion vigilant and enlightened, to a degree of which history, gave no example. Above all, the eyes of the country were directed, in a peculiar manner, to that House. The people looked, as it were, with a microscope at all their acts, and seemed to consider a vote of even a thousand pounds in the course of the public expenditure as a test by which the honesty of their intentions might be tried and appreciated. Instead of viewing them with any of that superstitious reverence which authority formerly created—that sort of reverence which veiled in mystery all the acts of government—a disposition existed which went rather to deny them even those advantages which must inevitably be acquired by habits of business, and to refuse them credit for that superiority, which experience and the custom of deciding on great questions of state tend so manifestly to produce. But of all the subjects which could be brought forward in parliament, the most, serious were those which related to the constitution of that House, because they operated in a particular manner, and were considered, in a peculiar degree, as tests of the disposition of the House to conduct the affairs of the country with integrity, and with a proper affection
605
606
607
l.
l.
l.
608
609
l.
610
611
612
l.
l.
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
l.
620
621
1. "That grievous complaints are made in the kingdom, and manifestly appear to be true, of undue elections of members to serve as burgesses in parliament, by gross bribery and corruption, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the election of representatives for the Commons of England in parliament, to the great scandal of the kingdom, dishonourable, and may be destructive, to the constitution of parliaments.
622
2 "That, in order to strengthen and maintain the necessary connexion between the Commons of this kingdom and their representatives in parliament, it is expedient to give to such places as are greatly increased in wealth and population, and are not at present adequately represented, the right of returning members to serve in parliament.
3. "That a select committee be appointed to consider to what places, according to the principle of the foregoing resolution, it may be advisable to extend the right of returning members to serve in parliament, and of the best method of effecting that measure, without an inconvenient addition to the members of this House.
4. "That it be referred to the same committee, to consider further of a mode of proceeding with respect to any boroughs which may hereafter be charged with notorious bribery and corruption, in order that such charges may be regularly and effectually inquired into, and, if proved, that such boroughs may be disabled from sending burgesses to serve in parliament for the future."
The first resolution being put,
Mr. Whitmore
, in rising to second the motion of the noble lord, assured the House that he was an enemy to radical reform, whether in the shape of annual parliaments and universal suffrage, or in that milder form of it which proposed to give the right of voting to inhabitant, householders; because it appeared to; him to aim at the total overthrow of that constitution, which had raised this country to a pitch of glory, unexampled in ancient and modern history. The elements of insecurity were so mixed up with the fabric of radical reform, that instead of amending any part of the superstructure of the constitution, it was calculated to throw the whole superstructure down. But, while he objected to radical reform, because it would tend to make that House purely and entirely democratical, he was a friend to a mode? rate and rational reform, and he supported the resolutions of the noble lord, because he thought they were calculated to attain that object; and that the noble lard's plan would be found capable of a safe and easy execution. Great changes had taken place among the people since the House had been constituted as it then was; and a change was therefore necessary in order to make the House suited
623
The Speaker
having read the first resolution, there was a loud cry of "Strangers, withdraw;" and the gallery was nearly cleared for a division.
Mr. Bathurst
rose; but the noise was be excessive, that for several minutes it was impossible to hear him. He said, he thought the remedy should be considered distinctly from the grievance. He had no objection to the principle of disfranchisement, in cases similar to that of Grampound. He understood the noble lord to propose, in some cases, the disfranchisement of boroughs, although no corruption might be proved. In order to justify this measure, it was necessary for the noble lord to show that the House, in its present state, was inadequate to its purposes. Now, there was no ground for supposing, that by an alteration of the constitution, we should see any increase in the number of popular members. The House, with all its alleged abuses, was perfectly competent to discharge all its functions. The noble lord had stated, that parliament, as it was constituted, could not go on for any length of time. It was however obvious, that parliament in the state it then was, had carried the country through difficulties and dangers never exceeded in the annals of any country in the world. Supposing the elective franchise extended to persons holding property of the value of 10
l.
l.
624
Mr. Barham
hoped, as the borough of Stockbridge, Which he represented, had been alluded to by the noble lord as an instance of gross corruption, he might be permitted to say a few words. He knew that 130 years since, complaints of that; nature bad been made; but, from, some cause or other, it had not been disfranchised. That borough was now pure, and there was not a greater share of independence in any city or county than at present existed in the borough of Stock-bridge. He came down to the House to support the resolution, and the noble lord would not find any one more zealous in doing it than himself. Should the plan of the noble lord be agreed to, the state of all the boroughs would be brought under the notice of the committee; and, in that case, he had no objection that Stockbridge should be placed first on the list.
The previous question being put, the House divided; Ayes, 124; Noes, 155: Majority against the Resolution, 31. The previous question was then put on the other resolutions, and negatived.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Ancram, lord
Cheere, J. M.
Alexander, J.
Chaplin, C.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Collett, E. J.
Binning, lord
Cooper, S.
Bourne, rt. hon. S.
Cooper, B.
Bastard, E. P
Chetwynd, G.
Bankes, H.
Cripps, Jos.
Brecknock, lord
Courtenay, T. P.
Baillie, J.
Courtenay, W.
Buchanan, J.
Cocks, hon. J.G.
Browne, P.
Cockburn, sir G.
Burgh, sir U.
Copley, sir J.
Bathurst, hon. S.
Cranborne, lord
Bathurst, rt. hn. B.
Child, W. L.
Broadhead, T.
Cartwright K.
Bankes, G.
Calvert, J.
Bruce, R.
Clerk, sir G.
Barry, rt. hon. M.
Clive, H.
Blair, J.
Cole, sir L.
Blake, Rob.
Dodson, Dr.
Beckett, rt. hon. J.
Drummond, S.
625
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Munday, capt.
Dunally, Lord
Mansfield, John
Doveton, G.
Martin, sir T. B.
Downie, Rob.
Nightingale, sir M.
Duncombe, W.
Nolan, M.
Eliot, hon. W.
Neale, sir H.
Ellison, C.
Ommaney, sir F.
Egerton, W.
Osborne, sir J.
Fynes, H.
Pitt, Jos.
Fellowes, W. H.
Penruddocke, J.
Freemantle, W.
Pearse, J.
Fane, John
Pitt, W. M.
Fane, John Thos.
Paxton, J. G.
Fane, V.
Palmerston, lord
Forbes, lord
Phillimore, Jos.
Finch, G.
Phipps, gen.
Goulburn, H.
Roberts, W. A.
Greville, sir C.
Rogers, E.
Gooch, T. S.
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Russell, J. W.
Grant, A. C.
Robertson, Alex.
Grosett, W.
Somerset, lord. G.
Gifford, sir R.
Scourfield, W. H.
Gilbert, D. G.
Sotheron, F.
Grant, Geo. M.
Strutt, T. H.
Gordon, hon. W.
Sneyd, N.
Holmes, W.
St. Paul, sir H.
Hotham, lord
Sumner, T. H.
Holford, G. P.
Somerset, lord E.
Handley, H.
Smith, Chr.
Hardinge, sir H.
Stopford, lord
Hare, hon. R.
Tremayne, J. H.
Hope, sir W.
Trench, F.
Halse, sir C.
Thompson, H.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Townshend, hon. H.
Hill, sir G.
Taylor, sir H.
Irvine, J.
Twiss, H.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Ure, M.
Keck, S. A. L.
Vansittart, hon. N.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Vernon, Geo.
Kinnersley, W. S.
Vaughan, sir R.
Lascelles, W.
Wynn, C. W.
Luttrell, H.
Ward, J. W.
Luttrell, J. F.
Wemyss, J.
Lowther, John
Wodehouse, Ed.
Lowther, J. H.
Wells, John
Lowther, hon. C.
Ward, R.
Londonderry, lord
Wrottesley, H.
Lenox, lord G.
Wilmot, R.
Long, rt. hon. C.
Wilson, Thos.
Lushington, S. R.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Lewis, F.
Warrender, sir G.
Morland, sir S. B.
Walpole, lord
Martin, R.
Wellesley, R.
Manners, lord R.
Wilbraham, E. B.
Miles, J.
MINORITY.
Althorp, visc.
Langston, J. H.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Lawley, hon. F.
Allen, J. H.
Leigh, J. H.
Buxton, T. F.
Maberly, John
Bentinck, lord W.
Maberly, W. L.
Barnard, visct.
Macdonald, J.
Bright, Henry
Mackintosh, sir J.
Baring, Alex.
Martin, John
Belgrave, visc.
Maxwell, J.
626
Beaumont, T. P.
Milton, Visct.
Barham, J.
Monck, J. B.
Barham, Jos. F.
Moore, Peter
Baring, H.
Moore, Abraham
Boughey, sir J. F.
Newman, R. W.
Burrell, sir C.
Newport, rt. Hon. sir J.
Barrett, S. M.
Becher, W. W.
Nugent, lord
Bennet, hon. H. G.
O'Callaghan, J.
Benyon, B.
Ord, Wm.
Bernal, Ralph
Ossulston, lord
Birch, Joseph
Palmer, C. F.
Brougham, Henry
Pares, Tho.
Burdett, sir F.
Pierce, Henry.
Blake, sir F.
Phillips, George
Chaloner, Rob.
Phillips, G. jun.
Calcraft, John
Price, Robert
Calvert, Charles
Pryse, Pryse
Calvert, Nic.
Pym, Francis
Campbell, hon. J.
Ramsden, J. C
Carter, John
Ricardo, David
Cavendish, Charles
Robarts, Ab.
Clifton, visc.
Robarts, G.
Coke, T. W.
Rumbold, Mr.
Colburne, N. R.
Robinson, sir Geo.
Concannon, Lucius
Rowley, sir W.
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Russell, lord Wm.
Crompton, Saml.
Russell, lord John
Denison, W. J.
Rice, T. S.
Denman, Thos.
Smith, John
Duncannon, vise
Smith, hon. Robt.
Dundas, hon. T.
Smith, Wm.
Ebrington, vise.
Smythe, J. H.
Ellice, Edw.
Scarlett, James.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Sefton, earl of
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Stanley, lord
Fitzroy, lord C.
Stuart, lord J.
Folkestone, visc.
Sebright, sir John
Frankland, R.
Swann, H.
Guise, sir W.
Tavistock, marq. of
Gordon, Robt.
Taylor, M. A.
Grattan, J.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Gaskell, Ben.
Townshend, lord C.
Haldimand, W.
Tennyson, C.
Harbord, hon. E.
Warre, J. A.
Heathcote, G. J.
Webbe, Ed.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wharton, John
Honywood, W. P.
Whitbread, Sam. C.
Hornby, Edmund
Whitbread, W. H.
Hume, Joseph
Williams, Wm.
Hurst, Robt.
Wilson, sir Robt.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Wood, Matthew
Heygate, ald.
Wyvill, M.
James, W.
Whitmore, W. W.
Johnson, col.
Lambton, John. G.
PAIRED OFF
Lennard, T. B.
Davies, col.
Lemon, sir W.
Plumer, W.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 10, 1821
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT
The Earl of Carnarvon
rose to move the second reading of this bill. He was aware, he said, that many noble lords
627
628
l.
629
The Lord Chancellor
said he would not have risen to offer a word on the present occasion, had it not appeared that the noble earl considered the House pledged to entertain this bill. He therefore felt himself bound to state, that he reserved to himself the right of discussing the principle of the measure, and that he conceived that their lordships were not pledged to any thing by the examination of witnesses, or by any step which had yet been taken.
The Earl of Westmorland
objected to the bill, both on account of the injustice of its principle, and because it tended to secure indemnity for future offences of the kind of that which it was intended to punish. For when persons who had acted honestly at an election, should find that for giving assistance in bringing the guilty to punishment, they were to be deprived of their own rights, they would no longer be disposed to yield that assistance, without which guilt could not be proved, and corruption might be carried on to any extent without a check. The principle of the measure was inconsistent with the British constitution, and in direct violation of Magna Charta. He contended that no corruption had been charged against thirty-two of the Grampound electors: that the innocent ought not to be punished for the guilty; and that the part of the bill which related to the disfranchisement of Grampound ought not to pass into a law.
The Earl of Liverpool
wished briefly to
630
631
632
The Earl of Lauderdale
maintained that no case of general corruption had been established against the Grampound electors, for that out of fifty electors who had been accused, there were thirty-two against whom there had been no charge whatever. To punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty would be a most unjust and mischievous system of legislation.
The Marquis of Lansdown
regarded the bill as calculated to command their lordships assent, from the importance of the principle of moderate reform which it involved, and which would tend to perpetuate the constitution, by investing it with the respect and confidence of the people. He was fully convinced, that if the law and constitution of the country recognised the representation of the people in parliament, through the means of corporate bodies, every individual belonging to those corporate bodies must be content to share their fate, and submit to the consequences of their general delinquency. With respect to what had fallen from the noble earl opposite, as to the expediency of leaving the Crown to select the place for which the members should be returned, he begged to protest most distinctly against being involved in any assent to such a proposition. Whether such a course would be conformable or not with ancient usage, he had no hesitation in saying, that since the Union with Scotland and Ireland, it would be a complete innovation upon all that made up the modern practice of the constitution. Though he should prefer granting the right of election to Leeds; yet, should he find the sense of the House against that provision, he would not oppose the transfer proposed by the noble earl opposite, to the county of York.
The Earl of Liverpool
never meant that the Crown should have the right of
633
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 10, 1821
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
On the motion of Mr. Bennet, the order of the day was read for the attendance of Thomas Arrowsmith, William Shackle, Henry Fox Cooper, and R. T. Weaver. Mr. Arrowsmith accordingly appeared at the bar, and was examined as follows:
By Mr. Bennet.
—Are you the proprietor of the newspaper called the "John Bull?"—I am not.
634
By Mr. Robert Smith.
—Was there no agreement between you and Weaver as to the sum of money on the first commounication?—None.
635
By Lord Nugent.
—Did any written or oral agreement take place at the time Weaver got the paper, as the compensation he was to pay you?—There was an agreement made.
By Mr. Smith.
—How came it that you made so strange an agreement as you stated?—We started the paper, and risked the consequences.
By Mr. Wynn.
—Have you ever paid any thing on account of the profits to Weaver?—Never.
By Mr. Bennet.
—Did you ever, after your having given it to Weaver, exercise any control over the articles inserted in the paper?—No; every thing was left to Mr. Cooper.
636
By Lord Nugent.
—Had you any conversation with Weaver yesterday as to the order which he had received to attend?— Nothing more than that he told me he bad received the order.
By Sir R. Fergusson.
—When did you first hear that Weaver was ordered to attend this House?—About ten yesterday.
By Mr. Bennet.
—Are you the proprietor of the paper called the "John Bull?" —Not now.
637
638
By Mr. Robert Smith.
—If a loss should accrue on the paper, on whom would it fall?—On Mr. Weaver.
Are you quite sure of this?— Yes.
Was that the agreement?—It was.
Did Mr. Arrowsmith know of that making the agreement?—Yes.
Then you say that if the income were to exceed the expenditure, Weaver was to have it?—Yes.
And if the expenses were to exceed that income?—I dare say the paper would not go on.
By Sir J. Boughey.
—When you made the proprietorship over to Mr. Weaver, did you conceive he had a right to drop tile paper or continue it as he might think fit?— I conceived that he might do as he pleased in that respect. I had nothing more to do with the paper; although I started it, and may be considered as the father of it.
639
By Lord Nugent.
—I think I understood you to say, that some part of the outgoings of the paper were borne by you up to this time?— Out of Mr. Weaver's money.
By Sir R. Fergusson.
—Has Mr. Weaver been employed by you for any other purpose than in printing "John Bull?" — I do not employ Mr. Weaver in printing "John Bull."
By Lord Nugent.
—The question asked you is, whether, when you lend any extra men to Mr. Weaver, he pays you for the loan?—The money is not paid; but it is among the disbursements in the books.
By Sir W. De Crespigny.
—In what capacity do you consider yourself as standing to Weaver, agent or trustee?—As his friend. I presume it is common for one man to take care of another man's money.
640
The Speaker
said, the witness would do well with regard to the House, and would make a better impression with respect to himself, if he would deliberately attend to the questions put to him, and then give direct answers to those questions.
By Mr. Bennet.
—, Are you the editor of the Sunday paper called "John Bull?" —I am.
641
By Sir R. Fergusson.
—Was the paragraph in question written in your own handwriting?—The greater part of it was.
642
By Lord Nugent.
—You have said that the latter part of the paragraph was in your hand-writing. In whose hand-writing was the former part?—It was an extract from the "Courier."
By Mr. Macdonald.
—Was any body present at the time you told Mr. Shackle and Mr. Arrowsmith that you intended to avow yourself the author of the paragraph?—Nobody.
643
By Lord Nugent.
—Did you ever see Mr. Weaver at your own house?—No.
By Dr. Phillimore.
—Did Mr. Weaver know before his examination yesterday, that you wrote the paragraph in question? —I do not think he did.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Bennet
said, they had now arrived at the close of the examination into a subject, the necessity for bringing which forward no one regretted more than himself; although he had felt that he could not, in the discharge of that duty which every man owed to his own character and to the House, abstain from doing so. The House had now had before it, the printer, proprietor, publisher, and editor of the paper; the latter of whom had avowed himself the author of the paragraph in question. He would say nothing of the falsehood displayed, of the perjury exhibited, of the shameful evidence given by these mere creatures of straw, in the disgraceful exhibition which the House had witnessed. Nor would he say any thing of the character of the paper with which they were connected. Its merits (if he might use the expression) were well known to the whole country; and there was but one opinion among honourable minds, namely, that it could receive its support only from persons of the basest, vilest, and most infamous nature. He repeated it, that let those persons be whom they might, they could be none but the basest and lowest of their species. It was those by whom such a publication
644
The Marquis of Londonderry
assured the hon. member, that no one regretted more than he did the breach of privilege
645
Mr. Wynn
said, that unquestionably if it required time for further consideration to dispose of the motion, he would not dispute that the discussion ought to be adjourned. But he thought it due to the House to state, that he was prepared to meet the question for directing the attorney-general to prosecute with an imme-
646
instanter
Mr. Bennet
said, he might hold particular opinions, and differ from most of his friends upon this occasion; but he should be sorry to employ against these individuals those powers which he had denounced as improper when exercised against others. He had made his proposition under the idea that it was the most lenient measure which could be adopted towards the offending parties.
Mr. Brougham
observed, that as he considered the present question to be one of more than ordinary importance, he should make no apology for addressing a few short remarks to the attention of the House. With regard to the idea of leniency towards these parties, he laid it on-tirely aside, and left it to the House to
647
648
Sir Francis Burdett
said, that in the exercise of the power of commitment, which the House claimed as its undoubted right and privilege, he had on former occasions differed most widely in opinion from a large majority of it; and the more he considered the matter, the more was he convinced, that the House seldom interfered in questions of privilege without reducing itself to some awkward dilemma or another. He fully coincided in opinion with the noble marquis, that it was impossible for the House to agree to the institution of a prosecution by the attorney-general against these individuals, after having sifted and examined them in the most inquisitorial manner, by a process which, at the very best, was equivocal, and which would be most unjust and intolerable, if it were to send them for trial to a jury with a decision of that House against them, and with sufficient evidence taken from their own mouths to substantiate their guilt. This appeared to him to be an insuperable objection to the mode of proceeding proposed by the hon. member for Shrewsbury; but, in addition to this, he had another, which he would shortly submit to their consideration. The advocates of that mode of proceeding were not consistent with themselves in proposing to order the attorney-general to prosecute. The attorney-general, he begged leave to remind them, was not an officer under the orders of the House: he was an officer of the Crown; and, being such, should they wish him to prosecute, they ought to commence by proposing an address to his majesty—which he was of opinion they would think highly objectionable—that he would give directions to that officer to institute a certain prosecution in defence of the privileges of the* Commons of England. Besides, the distinction between privilege and power was this—that privilege was a shield of defence against power, and that power was a. weapon of attack upon the rights of others.
649
650
Mr. M. A. Taylor
thought that the evidence which had been given that day and the day before ought to be printed for such gross prevarication, and such wicked contempt of every thing like truth, ought not to be allowed to pass over with impunity. He should therefore move that the minutes of evidence should be printed.
Mr. Baring
suggested, that if the case were to go before a jury, it would be highly improper to print the minutes of evidence. If the House should be of opinion that no adjournment was necessary —and that was his own opinion—he did not think that any doubt could exist as to what it was requisite to do with the editor of the paper. After they had disposed of him, the House could adjourn the debate regarding the proceedings against the others. If the noble lord would withdraw his amendment, he should have no objection to propose that Henry Cooper be committed to Newgate.
Mr. Wodehouse
submitted to the House and to the hon. mover, whether the real character of the House was not likely to suffer by seeking to support its privileges against such mere men of straw as had just appeared at their bar. Malevolence and misrepresentation was the price which every member was obliged to pay for his seat in that House. He therefore entreated the House to consider whether the exercise of its privileges by commitment would not appear extremely questionable to the great majority of the people, when put in force against such creatures. For himself, he believed there was not a single provision in any of the six acts against which certain gentlemen opposite had declaimed so much, so odious to the nation as was the questionable power of committal for breaches of privilege.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that his hon friend was making an attempt to drag to light the miscreant, the base and dastardly assassin, who, under the protection of the press, had been waging a savage and unrelenting war against the weak, the defenceless, and the oppressed. Whatever might be the issue of the attempt, the gratitude of the House was due to him for having made it. As many members had withdrawn under the idea that an adjournment was to take place, he thought they had better not decide upon the important point of placing one of their fellow subjects in confinement, until they should be able to take the sense of a larger House.
651
Sir T. Lethbridge
conceived the paragraph complained of to be a gross breach of the privileges both of the House and of the people, and returned his sincere thanks to the hon. member for having brought it before the notice of the House. The paper which contained it had, for some time past, been dealing forth its malignity, in a manner which was disgraceful to the press, injurious to morality, and inconsistent with the existence of society. He had himself felt disagreeably situated from the misrepresentations of other prints, and had frequently been, on the point of bringing them under the notice of parliament. If he had abstained from so doing, it was from the sovereign contempt in which he held every thing that could fall from the editors of them. If an inquiry were to be proposed into the general state of the press, which had grown up into a fearful engine of mighty mischief, he should have no objection to support it. In saying this, he did not mean to deny that the press had also been productive of great practical benefit; and yet, unwilling as he was to trench upon its general liberty, he could not shut his eyes against the dangers which its licentiousness was calculated to create. With regard to the point, whether the debate should be adjourned till to-morrow, or finished that evening, he felt perfectly indifferent. If, however, the dignity of the House was to be considered, he thought it would be better to meet the question at once. Having had the parties before them, and heard their repeated prevarications, he thought the sooner they proceeded against the person who had avowed himself the author, the more they would consult their honour and true dignity.
The question of adjournment was then agreed to; and Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackle, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Robert Thomas Weaver were ordered to attend to-morrow.
SCOTS COUNTY REPRESENTATION.]
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that when he had given notice of this motion, he had flattered himself that it would attract the attention of members; but he thought he should act unhandsomely in the present state of the House, by giving the appearance of solemn discussion where solemn discussion there was not; and he should do violence to his own feelings and to the interests of the, persons concerned, and act in a way
652
1. "That it appears, by a certified copy of the roll of freeholders of every county in Scotland, as last made up, laid before this House in July 1820, that the total number of persons having a right to vote in all those counties together, did not exceed 2,889.
2. "That, by the same return, it appears that the greatest number of persons having a right to vote in any one county did not exceed 240,
viz.
viz.
3. "That it further appears from the same return, that the same persons have a right to vote in several counties, and consequently that the total number, of voters for all the counties in Scotland is considerably less than 2,889.
653
4, "That it further appears to this House, that the right of voting for a Scotch county depends, not on the possession of the
dominium utile
5 "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration, the state of representation of counties in Scotland, with a view to effect some extension of the number of votes, and to establish some connection between the right of voting and the landed property of that country."
The first resolution being put,
Mr. Mackenzie
said, that he could not consent to vote for any abstract proposition, or even for the matter of fact stated in the resolution just put from the Chair, knowing that it was to be followed by others intended to form the basis of practical measures. He complained that the noble lord had not at all stated his motives, and had given the House no arguments to enable it to arrive at any conclusions. He contended, that the alteration of system contemplated by the noble lord would hot materially augment the number of freeholders, and that it would be a direct violation of the Union, by one of the articles of which Scotland had stipulated, that she should have the unrestrained choice of her own representatives. A strong case, indeed, ought to be made out to warrant so flagrant a breach of public faith. He was certain that the noble lord was no friend of universal suffrage—that he had no sympathy or communion with its supporters; but the reform he contemplated was most important; and the least that might have been required was, that some opinion should have been expressed by those whom the change was intended to benefit. Hitherto, however, not a single meeting had been held; from which that opinion could be ascertained. He thought that the noble lord had treated the House somewhat contemptuously by the mode of proceeding he had adopted, and should
654
The previous question was then put on the first four resolutions and negatived. On the last resolution, the House divided. Ayes 41; Noes, 57: Majority against the Resolution, 16.
List of the Minority.
Blake, sir Francis
Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Milton, lord
Boughton, R.
Newman, R.
Barham, J. F.
O'Grady, S.
Bury, lord
Orde, W.
Calcraft, J.
Palmer, F.
Crompton, S.
Parnell, Sir, H.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Phillips, G.
Dalrymple, sir H.
Pryse, Pryse
Ebrington, lord
Price, Rob.
Fergusson, sir R.
Ricardo, D.
Gordon, R.
Rumbold, E.
Grattan, Jas.
Rickford, W.
Guise, sir W.
Smyth, J.
Gaskel, B.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Griffith, J.
Tennyson, C.
Hume, Joseph
Taylor, M. A.
Langston, G.
Webb, col.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Whitbread, S.
Maberly, John
TELLERS.
Monck, J. B.
Hamilton, lord A.
Maxwell, J.
Abercromby, hon. J.
STEAM ENGINES BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that if the House would but consider the bill worthy of their consideration, they would afterwards find that it was calculated to do much good, without producing any mischief. He hoped that in the next session, he should be able to submit to a committee a plan for the reduction of smoke in every town in England. Mr. Parks, a gentleman of distinguished talents, had proposed an apparatus, which would be found of the utmost utility. He was sorry he did not see in his place the hon. member for Liverpool, that he might state to him a circumstance which had recently occurred in that town. An indictment was actually brought, in order to abate a nuisance occasioned by great bodies of smoke which were suffered to escape in a particular neighbourhood; the case was referred to the consideration of an eminent barrister, and that gentleman bad-recommended to the complaining-parties the use of Mr. Parks's apparatus. The apparatus was accordingly tried, and, after that trial, the parties who had so loudly complained, had come forward
655
The bill was read a third time, and passed.
BANK OF IRELAND BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Maberly
said, it he understood the bill correctly, if was to enable the company of the Bank of Ireland to increase their capital to a certain extent, and to allow a greater number of individuals to embark in any One private banking concern than; was now permitted in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman, as an equivalents for suffering the Bank to extend its capital was to borrow 500,000
l.
bonus.
l.
bonus
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the present, as a mere pecuniary transaction, required no defence. It was borrowing 500,000
l.
656
Mr. Hume
said, that if the interest of money increased to 5 or 6 percent, the bargain would be advantageous; but, if it remained stationary, the country would be burdened with an unnecessary expense of one per cent.
Mr. S. Rice
said, the subject ought not to be viewed as a matter simply of a pecuniary nature. It ought to be considered as an effort to call into action the natural advantages of Ireland. The measure, as far as it went, would, he was convinced, be one of unmixed benefit to that country.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 11, 1821
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT
On the motion of Mr. Bennet, the adjourned debate on the motion "The Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Henry Fox Cooper, William Shackle, Thomas Arrowsmith, and Robert Thomas Weaver, for a false and scandalous libel on the hon. Grey Bennet, a member of this House, contained in a paper intituled, 'John Bull,' dated Sunday, May 6, 1821,' being resumed,
Mr. Scarlett
rose. He began by assuring his hon. friend that, in dissenting from the motion which he had submitted to the House, it was not because he lightly estimated the attack which had been made upon his character. That character he well knew, and no man could estimate the character of another more highly than he did that of his hon. friend; but there were various objections which he had to the mode of proceeding pointed out by his hon. friend. His first was, that it would not be in accordance with strict justice, first to extract evidence from parties which might afterwards be urged against them in a court of justice; and he also objected to it, because he did not think that the House ought to order prosecution in that way, in a case which ought not so much to be considered an attack on an-individual member, as a violation of the privileges of the House itself. Now, he would not be understood as undervaluing the privileges of the House, if he did not use them on light occasions. It appeared to him, that the true ground on which this question ought to rest, was that of breach of the privileges of the House, by the publication of what passed there, or
657
658
Mr. Bennet
said, that he had felt it his duty to bring the subject before the House,
659
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he was glad that his hon. friend had withdrawn his motion. For his own part, he would not wish to punish any of the individuals who had appeared at their bar; and if any hon. member should make a motion to that effect, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. At the same time, he was satisfied that his hon. friend was perfectly right, in having brought the matter before the House. He had done so to justify his character; and, though that was unnecessary to all who knew him, yet no one would deny that a man must feel extremely hurt at having his honour and his courage called in question. As to the persons who had been summoned to the bar of the House, and whose prevarications the House had heard, no one could believe a word of the account they gave. Their characters were exposed, and sent forth to the public; and it was his opinion, that that would prove their punishment, for the good and thinking part of the community would believe what they should write, in future, to be as false as what they had stated in that House. His only wish was, that the real author of the article in question could be discovered. It was, indeed, a new era in the history of this country to see a paper flourish which had been started to blast the character of virtuous and innocent women, and it was an era still more
660
Mr. Baring
said, that the hon. member for Shrewsbury had left the House in an awkward situation, not by withdrawing his motion, but by not submitting some other in its stead. He was most ready to do justice to the feelings which actuated the hon. member, but he considered that unless the House were put in a condition to assert its own privileges by punishing its violation, the complaint should not have been made. It should not be supposed that the House would not vindicate itself, nor be suffered to go abroad to the public that any unworthy man might attack it with impunity. He fully agreed with his learned friend that the sending the matter to be tried by a court of law would not be a4 fit proceeding; for, when it got there, it might become a question, whether the case could be punished. The House might, in that case, be open to many attacks; and after they had declared any matter to be a libel and a breach of privilege, it would be awkward to have a court and jury declaring that the House knew nothing at all about it, and that the matter charged was no libel. But, though he could not consent to leave this question sent to a court of law, still he did not think it could rest where it now stood; and therefore, however painful it was to him, he felt it his duty to interfere; and, seeing that no other member was disposed to do so, he would suggest what ought to be done. He was one of those who thought, that not only the debates of that House ought to be sufficient to go forth to the public, but that great freedom should be allowed in discussing the public characters of members of that House; for he considered that such, indulgence was attended with the greatest
661
Sir W. De Crespigny
, in seconding the motion, maintained that his hon. friend bad not left the House in an awkward situation by the manner in which he had acted. His hon. friend had done that which was necessary to protect the House and the character of members from being attacked by a set of base assassins; and if the House could not come at the base beings who lurked behind the screen, they ought to punish those unworthy men who allowed themselves to be made their in-
662
Lord Nugent
was sure the House were greatly indebted to the noble marquis for the motion of yesterday evening, which gave them all an opportunity of coming to a decision upon this question, in a more calm and deliberate manner. He could not agree to the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Taunton, and would therefore propose an amendment. He could not agree with his hon. friend, that the House was in a dilemma, from which it could extricate itself only by committing Mr. Cooper to Newgate. He begged to bring to the recollection of his hon. friend, and of the House, the circumstances attendant, in the early part of the session, on a breach of their privileges of a much more important and dangerous character than the present. The House could not have forgotten the complaint made by his right hon. friend the member for Waterford, of the address from the Presbytery of Langholm, which had been, published in The Gazette. That address contained a direct invitation to his majesty to interfere with freedom of speech in that House, and to notice certain speeches which had been delivered in it—an invitation which, if his majesty had complied with it, would have placed him in a situation, with relation to that House, in which no sovereign of the country had been placed since Charles the First. A grosser or more flagrant breach of the privileges of that House could not be conceived than the address to which he alluded, in comparison with which any attack on the character of an individual member sunk into utter insignificance. What was the course adopted by the House on that occasion? A motion was made for the attendance of the printer of The Gazette, but it was withdrawn on the noble marquis's making an apology and explanation on the part of the secretary of state. He might feel that the House, in the course which they adopted on that occasion, most dangerously compromised their own character; but he could not help thinking that as they had passed over, and winked at an attempt to induce his majesty to attack the dearest privileges of the House, it would be most ungracious and severe to visit with punishment the poor, wretched, prevaricating printers and publishers who were guilty of nothing out of having allowed themselves to be made
663
The Marquis of Londonderry
hoped that he had explained himself sufficiently yesterday, to mark that, while he was anxious to avoid any breach of the general principles of justice and the sound administration of the law, especially in abstaining from extracting from the accused evidence to be subsequently used against him, he was not insensible to what the privileges of the House required, and that the person who violated them ought to be visited with the indignation of the House, and with a punishment, in which, however, justice ought to be tempered with mercy. He had no wish for the adoption of any course but one, in a spirit which should show that the House maintained even-handed justice towards all parties, and that no consideration of a private or particular nature should turn the House aside from the vindication of their privileges in one case, and not be allowed to operate in another; and here, he must observe, that he lamented extremely, that an individual so distinguished in his profession as the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, an individual who must be supposed to bring into that House the innate principles of justice that belonged to the profession, of which he was so brilliant an ornament, should permit himself to insinuate that the libellous attack in question proceeded from some unnamed and unknown quarter, as if wishing to inflict a wound on some person or other, whom the speculation of the world might have pointed out as implicated in the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman would forgive him for saying, that in his opinion it would have been better, on the present occasion, to have abstained from the introduction of any such remarks. He lamented also what had fallen from a gallant general of a similar import. He could assure that gallant general, that no man could feel greater indignation than himself at any unjust attack on virtue in women, or honour in men, let it proceed from what quarter it might; and that no man would be more tenacious of those
664
665
Mr. Scarlett
, in explanation, observed, that be; would not have troubled the House were it not for the allusions made to him by the noble marquis; but as those allusions had been made in so direct and pointed a manner he trusted the House would allow him to make a few remarks upon them. And first, he would observe, that if any thing could give rise to a charge of party feeling on this occasion, it was the tone and manner of the noble marquis. He most solemnly protested that no spirit of party feeling had actuated him upon this question; on the contrary, nothing was farther from his mind during the whole discussion. He had made the observations objected to by the noble marquis, from having heard it rumoured out of doors, that the paragraph in question had been written by a member of that House. He had heard no name mentioned; nor did he believe the statement; on the contrary, he had distinctly said, that the motion of his hon. friend had vindicated that House from such an aspersion. If this was an imputation upon any hon. member, then he did not understand the purport of his own language. He assured the noble marquis that he never had the slightest intention of casting such aspersion on any honourable member, or of treating the subject as a party question. If any thing was calculated to demonstrate a party-feeling, it was what had occurred after he had concluded his speech. For himself he would say that he was the last roan that could think it endurable to express political and party-feelings by libels an individuals. He thought that one who wrote for a party, be it what party it might, was not on that account to be condemned. But attacks on private character for party purposes, ought to be visited with the common detestation of both parties. If there were a design to write down the liberty of the press, the author of the
666
The Marquis of Londonderry
expressed his regret, that any expressions of a warm character should have escaped him in the course of the debate, but he felt the less upon it, as it had drawn forth the very satisfactory explanation of the hon. and learned member. From the nature
667
Sir R. Fergusson
rose to explain. The noble lord had in his first speech imputed political motives to him upon this occasion. This he positively denied. Where the noble lord got his omniscience as to the motives and feelings of other men he could not guess; but he thought the noble lord had better look to his own feelings and motives upon this question. He had spoken upon this subject from honest feelings of indignation at seeing the foulest calumnies published against the Women of this country. He trusted the noble lord and the House would coincide with him in reprobating this new system of attack upon the women of the country.
The Marquis of Londonderry
wished the gallant general would express the same indignation when other hon. members were attacked.
Mr. Wynn
observed, that the noble marquis had selected the very weakest case of precedent on the Journals. In all cases of privilege, the honour and character of the House were alone to be looked to. It was said, that libels were become more frequent; but this, in his opinion, was the very reason why the punishment should be made more severe. He had seen in papers belonging to both parties, libels which were disgraceful to the country, and, to those who administered public justice, for allowing them to pass Unpunished. The noble marquis had relied on a case which occurred two years ago. He could not say any thing in mitigation of that case; be thought it a most flagitious libel, and one which called for a much severer punishment than that with which it had been visited. Here the hon. member entered into a descrip-
668
The Hon. J. W. Ward
could not conceive that any thing could be more dangerous than that an impression should go abroad that it was safer to attack gentlemen on one side of the House than upon the other. He entertained a high respect for the character of the hon. member for Shrewsbury; but he entertained quite as high a respect for the character of his
669
nemine contradicente.
670
Lord John Russell
said, that with respect to the punishment which it was, fitting to inflict upon the authors of libels upon that House, he should not venture to hazard any opinion, except it were, that in all such cases the least punishment that was inflicted was the best. With regard to the libel which had been just read to the House, it ought to be recollected, that the right hon. member for Liverpool had used the expression, "the revered and ruptured Ogden;" and that there was considerable laughter in consequence. Owing to that circumstance many gentlemen accused him of being in the habit of turning into ridicule the sufferings of his fellow-creatures. He did not mean to say that such an accusation was just; he meant only to say, that it was an accusation frequently made against the right hon. member. He recollected that when the House inquired into that libellous paragraph, the person who wrote it came forward to acknowledge himself the author of it, and stated that it had been written by him in mistake, and that the House credited his statement, conceiving him to have put down that which he had not accurately heard. He did not, however, rise for the purpose of repeating those facts to the House, but for the purpose of entering his protest against the doctrine of the noble marquis, that he and the friends with whom he had the honour of acting were in the habit of giving their countenance to libels, similar to that which was contained in the paper called "John Bull." He would allow that severe political reflections had recently appeared in many of the newspapers; but he could only pity the noble marquis's want of discrimination of moral feeling, if he confounded attacks upon private character with fair political hostility and animadversion. The one could be answered; the other could not. A person might, for instance, charge the noble marquis with having ordered persons to be flogged to death, or tortured during his administration in Ireland. The noble marquis could disprove this; he might appeal to the whole of his public life as a contradiction to such a statement; but, suppose the character of any female belonging to the noble marquises family were to be publicly attacked, would he, though the insinuation was as false as hell, feel it sufficient that her innocence could be proved, by unveiling and laying before the public the whole of her private life? However pure the character of a woman might
671
The Marquis of Londonderry
interrupted the noble lord by stating, that, if we heard him correctly, the noble lord's information about our ambassadors at foreign courts seemed to be as correct as his information respecting Irish politics. Where the noble lord got his information he did not know, but he could inform him, that it was a rank and egregious calunmny. If the noble lord would point out to him a single individual in his office, who had sanctioned the circulation of this paper by sending it to foreign courts, he pledged his honour that he would dismiss that individual immediately. With regard to the defence of the female sex which the noble lord had volunteered, he hoped the noble lord would have no objection to admit him as his rival in it; for he did not feel inclined to devolve upon that noble lord, or upon any other person, that duty which he owed to the sex, in common with every other man of honour in society. He could assure the noble lord that he had no intention to justify the present libel—on the contrary, he looked upon it with extreme indignation; all that he had done was, to compare it with paragraphs not less infamous, with attacks not less malevolent, which had appeared in other papers, arraigning interests the most sacred, and insulting the personal character even of majesty itself. He should like to know whether the noble lord had never taken in the
672
Mr. W. Courtenay,
after stating that he wished to call the attention of the House to the true question before it, proceeded to implore it to be consistent in its conduct, and to deal out the same measure of justice in this as it had done in a former instance, if it conceived the cases to be at all parallel. He could not hope to add any weight to the indignation which had been so justly expressed against the language used in this publication; but he thought the House was going out of its way in entering into any discussion on the general conduct of any newspaper, when they had before it a paragraph which was at once a violation of the privileges of the House, and a libel upon one of its members. He conceived it to be the duty of the House to consider whether the case which had been so often referred to, was analogous to the case then before it. In his opinion, the analogy was perfect. That being the case, he thought the House ought not to allow itself to be carried away by the indignation which it felt at the general conduct of the "John Bull" newspaper, but should adopt the course recommended by the noble marquis, in justice not only to the House itself, but to each of its members individually.
Lord John Russell
said, that as he had never read Mr. Hone's publications, he did not think the point which the noble marquis had started regarding them worth discussion. He had never taken them in; but he believed they were all of a political nature, and not subversive of private character.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that as he was for the severer punishment on this occasion, he felt it necessary to say a few words upon it. He was one who thought that the greatest latitude ought to be allowed in discussions on public men and public measures; so much was he of this opinion,
673
Mr. Hutchinson
could not allow the present question to proceed to a vote, without entering his protest against the comparison which had been made between two parties without the slightest justice whatever. To make such a comparison was to confound innocence with guilt, was to confound the individual who had intended to wound with the individual who had, unintentionally wounded, was to confound great respectability of character with all that is mean, despicable, and infamous. Let the House look at the two cases. Mr. Collier was connected with a most respectable establishment in the city —an establishment as useful and as beneficial as any establishment in the country, and little liable for charges of wantonly wounding private feelings. It was an establishment accustomed to take up and
674
Mr. Wilmat
said, he should give his vote for the infliction of the severer punishment. He thought the analogy which it had been attempted to establish be-
675
Sir T. Lethbridge
denied that he had ever asserted that the press ought to be submitted to a committee of the House. All he had said was, that it was high time for the House to mark its disapprobation of the gross libels daily circulated.
Mr. Baring
added, that his only motives for persevering in his motion were, that the privileges of the House might be vindicated, and the guilty party duly punished. With regard to the case supposed by some to be analogous, he must say that he saw little or no resemblance between the two. That which occurred two years ago was merely a misrepresentation; but the one now under consideration contained a statement entirely fictitious.
Mr. Bankes
requested the noble marquis to withdraw his amendment. The House had committed a gross error in the precedent quoted; and he begged to add that he had been a reluctant party to it.
The Marquis of Londonderry
replied, that an appearance of as much unanimity as could be procured was desirable; and on that account he would withdraw his amendment. He was free to confess, that he thought it better to break than to observe the precedent.
Sir J. Mackintosh
submitted to his noble friend, whether he would not withdraw his amendment, the noble marquis having already complied with what appeared to be the general wish of the House. He thought it one of the most unfortunate symptoms, of the present times, that several most respectable members had, oh the present occasion, expressed what he could not but consider a groundless and fatal doubt regarding the right of asserting the privileges of parliament, which constituted, in. fact, one of the main securities of the subject. He had looked into the publication in question; and from what he had seen and heard, he was satisfied that it pursued a system of savage hostility to individuals, tend-
676
Lord Nugent
said, he Would not resist the general wish of the House by persevering in his amendment.
Mr. Brougham
said, that as the case of Mr. Collier had been so much alluded to, he rose to state his recollection of the circumstances. The case of Mr. Collier was not one of wilful misrepresentation. When called to the bar, his manner made a very favourable impression. The consistency of his statement was also considered, and there was the evidence of a member of that House, that, to the best of his recollection, the hon. member for Aberdeen had made use of words similar to those which were reported by Mr. Collier. If he thought Mr. Collier had been guilty of putting into the mouth of a member of that House malicious falsehoods, in order to gratify his own malignity, for that was the charge against the young gentleman, no consideration of lenity would have induced him to vote in that case for a lesser punishment. The case of Mr. Collier was entirely different from the case before the House. Here there was nothing to exculpate the party; on the contrary, there was the absence of every extenuating circumstance. He should therefore vote for the more severe punishment.
Lord Nugent
said, that though he withdrew his amendment in deference to the House, he did not at the same time surrender his own opinion.
List of the Minority.
Astley, J. D.
Innes, J.
Barrett, S.
Johnstone, col.
Bernal, R.
Martin, sir B.
Burrell, W.
Monck, J. B.
Burrell, sir C.
Moore, P.
Bury, lord
Nugent, lord.
Chaloner, R.
Tavistock, lord
Crawley, S.
Ward, J.W.
Downie, R.
Wemyss, J.
Graham, S.
White, J.
Grosett, J, R.
TELLERS.
Harbord, hon. E.
Fergusson, sir R.
Hume, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
677
After the division,
Mr. Sturges
Bourne said, he thought the House was placed in an embarrassing situation, in being called upon to punish persons for what they had done in the course of an examination at the bar into1 their private concerns. That examination had been carried further than he had recollected the House ever to have gone before and had it not been for the obloquy attached to such an interference, he should more than once have stood up for the protection of the witnesses against questions tending to criminate themselves. Besides this, many members could not be prepared to vote on this part of the question, not having been present during the whole of the evidence. In order to enable them to form a judgment, the evidence ought to be printed; but he was prevented from voting for making a motion to that effect, from a conviction that a great part of the examination had been of so indiscreet a nature on the part of the House, that it would not reflect much credit upon it.
Sir J. Mackintosh
expressed his deep regret that the right hon. gentleman, for whom he entertained the highest respect, had been induced to make the statement just heard it amounted to this—that during the long examinations that had taken place on this subject, which he thought derogatory to the House and oppressive to the individuals, he had set still, without urging any objection, on account of the obloquy and unpopularity he might incur: he had permitted the House, in his judgment, to disgrace itself by the course it had pursued, because he did not choose to run the risk of an unjust imputation. It was deeply to be lamented that a member so endowed should have made such a statement. He would protest against this reference of the order of their proceedings to that of other courts. They were alone to be governed by the
lex et consuetudo parliamenti.
678
Mr. S. Bourne,
in explanation, said, that what he had stated was, that in the unpleasant situation in which the persons at the bar were placed, being called on to acknowledge their own criminality, the House had gone too far in the examination. All he should have thought proper to do, and all that had usually been done in such cases was, to get at the legal liability of the persons called on to answer for their offence, and having done that, to abstain from all questions tending to aggravate their criminality. He had urged that they should consider the circumstances under which the prevarication took place; for really, as to the libel, they did not prevaricate. The printer had stated, for instance, that he had nothing to do with the literary department. But many questions were asked him which were not relevant: a noble lord had asked him, what he had to do with "The Traveller?" Another hon. member had asked, whether he had any money at his banker's? These questions as to private affairs were unwarrantable. He had on former occasions made the same objections to the latitude of examination pursued in the House.
Mr. Scarlett
agreed that limits should be set to the examination of individuals: but, in the present instance, he conceived the course of the examination to have been proper; for Weaver having given an answer respecting the property of the paper, which gave the House reason to suspect that he prevaricated, it became necessary to pursue that examination farther.
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, the House had proceeded on the true principles of justice and in support of their privileges. The questions which had been put, led directly to the real merits of the case.
Lord Nugent
said, he had not asked
679
Mr. Wynn
agreed, that no questions ought to be unnecessarily put to a witness for the purpose of aggravating his offence: but, though he could not defend every question which had been put, he thought the questions alluded to might have proved material.
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that if the discussion was to be continued upon the comparative testimony of the witnesses, it would be better to have the evidence printed, and the decision deferred. This was a case in which the House ought to avoid incurring the charge, of precipitation.
Mr. Denman
was not prepared to vote all the witnesses guilty of prevarication, without having the evidence previously printed. He had voted for sending the editor to Newgate, because he had heard what he said at the bar of that House.
Mr. Bernal
admitted that the House was in possession of the power of committing for breach of privileges; but they should not fritter it away by exerting it on light occasions; and he thought it would have been well if, after the member for Shrewsbury had vindicated his honour, which had been most unjustly aspersed, the matter had been dropped.
Mr. W. Smith
had no objection to the printing of the evidence, if any further proceedings were deemed necessary; but, for his own part, he thought that a sufficient number of members were present who had heard the evidence of the parties, to come now to a decision upon the fact of their prevarication. He would therefore withdraw his motion, and move, instead of it, "That Robert Thomas Weaver has grossly prevaricated in his evidence before this House."
Mr. Wilson
could not pretend to assert that Weaver had not been guilty of prevarication, but he thought enough had been done for the dignity of the House. As to the other two, he thought there was more impropriety of motive apparent than of absolute prevarication. It appeared that Shackle and Arrowsmith had been prosecuted for a libel; and finding that they were likely to get into more of such scrapes, had made a. bargain with the printer to the effect, that if he took the paper off their hands he should have the profits. At least this might have been the case and the evidence did not con-
680
Lord Stanley
said, he had been present at the whole of the examination, and he must say that if ever he witnessed a gross attempt to defeat the ends of justice by prevarication, it was in those witnesses. They all of them seemed to have some mental reservation, and in every answer showed a wish to induce a different meaning from what they entertained.
The motion was agreed to. Mr. Smith next moved, "That Robert Thomas Weaver be, for his said offence, taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms, in order to his being brought to the Bar of this House, and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker." Mr. Wynn moved, by way of amendment, to leave; out from the word "Offence" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "Committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate," instead thereof. The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question,"
The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 34. The amendment was then agreed to, and Mr. Speaker was ordered to issue his warrants accordingly.
Mr. Brougham
said, he was not prepared to give a vote on the case of the other two individuals without having the printed evidence before him. Whether they had prevaricated or not, he did not know at that time, and therefore he wished the further consideration of the subject to be adjourned.
Sir W. De Crespigny
Sir C. Long
said, that pregnant doubts existed in the minds of many gentlemen as to the fact whether these men had or had not been guilty of prevarication. He had himself heard the whole of the evidence of Arrowsmith; and he saw not thing like prevarication in it. Neither did he think that there was any prevarication in Shackle's evidence. Doubts being entertained whether they had prevaricated or riot, he thought the House ought to proceed no further.
Mr. Baring
concurred in the opinion that it would become the House not to go farther in this affair. This was his opi-
681
Colonel Davies
thought that as the House had gone so far, it should, not allow the greater delinquents to escape with impunity, while their instruments were condemned to imprisonment. For his own part, he was of opinion that it would be better not to take any notice of attacks of the press of this description: but when the attention of the House was called to them, it was due to its dignity and character to proceed to ascertain and punish the real offenders.
Mr. Wynn
thought the House could have no doubt, that the individuals on whose case they were now to decides were the proprietors of the paper. To him it appeared that they were more guilty than the men of straw who had been committed to Newgate. He did not consider that it was necessary to print the evidence. In a case like the present, where the offence complained of was proved to have been committed by the parties brought before them, he thought the heaviest punishment ought to be inflicted.
The motion for printing the evidence was then negatived, and Messrs. Arrowsmith and Shackle were discharged.
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
Mr. Ward
Mr. Hume
said, he could not permit the Speaker to leave the chair, without placing on record his sentiments with regard to the Ordnance Estimates. Having compared the expense of the Ordnance department at the present moment with that of past years, he was called on to lay the result before the House, to show the extravagant scale, on which the Ordnance establishments were now conducted. He was the more anxious to do this, because on a, former occasion the clerk of the Ordnance, had taken upon himself to declare that the utmost anxiety had been manifested by the noble duke at the head of that department to adopt economical measures in all its branches. He thought he should be able to show the House that no part of that statement could be supported by facts. Now, what
682
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
683
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
684
l.
l.
l.
685
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Ward
said, that if the hon. gentleman wished to take the debate upon this
686
Colonel Davies
thought it would be more expedient to take the debate upon this question, and to put off the committee of supply till Monday.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the preliminary resolutions of the hon. gentleman were, in fact, incapable of being discussed. It was quite impossible, before going into the committee, to reply to the variety of details upon which the conclusion of the hon. gentleman was founded; and, after all, that conclusion was a mere truism, which nobody was disposed to deny, namely, that it was expedient for the committee to observe all possible economy, and make all practicable reductions.
Mr. Bernal
thought the annual excess of expenditure above the sums voted in the estimates might be explained without inconvenience before going into the committee.
Mr. Ward
said, that the question of the hon. gentleman admitted of a very easy answer. The difficulty arose entirely from the manner of keeping the Ordnance accounts. Many sums granted in one year were not expended for two or three years, and in some instances there were sums credited for six or seven years. That, indeed, only happened during the war. In 1819 the finance accounts stated an excess, of 200,000
l.
687
l.
The Question being put. "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 56: Majority against the Amendment, 54.
List of the Minority.
Benett, John
Macdonald, J.
Buxton, T. F.
Maxwell, John
Boughton, sir C.
Milbank, M.
Bernal, Ralph
Milton, lord
Birch, J.
Monk, J. B.
Bury, Visct.
More, P.
Chetwyn'd, S.
Newman, W. R.
Chaloner, Robt.
O'Callaghan, J.
Calcraft, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Cavendish, C.
Pryse, Pryse
Crompton, S.
Ramsden, J. C.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Robarts, G.
Davies, col.
Rowley, sir W.
Denison, W. J.
Russell, lord J.
Duncannon, visct.
Russell, lord W.
Grattan, J.
Smith, hon. R.
Griffiths, J. W.
Smith, Wm.
Haldimand, W.
Sefton, lord
Harbord, hon. E.
Tremayne, J.H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Honywood, W.
Warre, J. A.
Hornby, Ed.
Western, C. C.
Hurst, Robt.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Williams, W.
Johnston, col.
Winnington, sir E.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wood, alderman
Lemon, sir W.
TELLERS.
Langston, J. H.
Hume, Joseph
Maberly, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Maberly, W. L.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Ordnance Estimates were referred,
Mr. Ward
made a variety of prefatory remarks, calculated to prove the entire necessity of the present extensive arrangements adopted in the Ordnance department, and the consequent expense occasioned by them; and he contended that, comparing the present period with the time of Cromwel, when the charge for Ordnance (exclusive of the half-pay), and for England only, was upwards of 120,000
l;
l.
l.
688
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
689
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
690
l.
l.
l.
l.
691
692
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
693
l.
l.
s.
d.
Mr. P. Moore
said, that the right hon. gentleman had made a premature display of artillery, and had nearly expended all his ammunition before he had well taken the field; but every night, when it came to the hour of twelve, he would arrest the business, in consideration of his own health and the health of all loyal subjects, that they might take that refreshment of which they stood in so much need. He would therefore move, that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The amendment was carried
nem.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 14, 1821
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that previously to the order of the day being read, he had to submit a proposition to their lordships, which was, that a committee should be appointed to report the names of the mayor, aldermen, and freemen of the corporation of Grampound, distinguishing those against whom evi-
694
695
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he never was a parliamentary reformer in the abstract, but when a case of gross corruption in the exercise of the elective franchise was made evident, he would always approve of the principle which parliament had frequently adopted, and vote in favour of a measure to prevent the recurrence of the evil. The noble earl, after stating that there were forty-one corrupt electors in the borough, arid only thirty-two uncorrupt, concluded by expressing his opposition to the motion.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the present bill was completely irreconcileable with the law and constitution of this country. Other measures of a similar nature had been founded on mistaken notions of the law and constitution. It had been contended, that the bill was not a bill of pains and penalties, or an
ex post facto
696
The Earl of Liverpool
wished to say a few words on the question before the House, because he believed it was proposed for the purpose of defeating the object of the bill. He would not enter into the question whether the bill was a bill of pains and penalties or not. If he found that bills of pains and penalties had been recognised by the constitution, it would be only necessary to consider whether a bill of that nature would apply to the present case. The elective franchise was conferred on the corporation, not for the benefit of individuals, but as a public trust; and when parliament should be of opinion that this trust was abused, it became their duty to withdraw it. The privileges possessed by the corporation of Grampound stood on the same footing with the privileges of their lordships. If any peer were found guilty of gross corruption in the discharge of his public duties, he might be deprived of his rights; and this had been done. He might be told that in such a case the guilty alone was punished, and not the innocent. But the principle was the same where a body acted by the majority, and where the reform applied to the majority. In former cases parliament had given to the uncorrupt electors the right, of voting in the hundreds. If it should be thought necessary, a proposition to that effect might be made in the committee on the bill. His noble friend objected to all bills of this nature. The doctrine of his noble friend would prevent parliament from adopting any remedial measure, in a case where only two or three electors might remain uncorrupt out of several hundreds. It was his decided opinion that where systematic corruption was proved against a borough, some remedy should be applied. He stated this without reference to the number of electors which a
697
Earl Bathurst
said, he opposed the bill because it enacted the complete disfranchisement of Grampound, and did not, as had been done in other cases, throw the borough into the hundred. He preferred extending the right of election to the hundred, because that was not extinguishing the borough; but, in the present case, nothing less than extirpation was intended, and what was taken from one place was to be given to another; an advantage was to be conferred on persons who hitherto had not possessed it. The principle thus acted on was calculated to open a door to parliamentary favour and jobbing. To give the selection of the places to be represented to the Crown, was an arrangement which might be attended with dangerous consequences. Of the two modes of transfer which had been suggested, that of giving two additional members to the county of York was the best, because it
698
Lord Redesdale
objected to the measure as tending to establish the principle, that population was the scale for representation. This principle would lead to the system adopted by the National Convention of France, and might be so used as to destroy our present institutions.
The motion was negatived; and the bill was ordered to be committed on Monday,
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 14, 1821
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Ordnance Estimates were referred. On the Resolution, "That 43,071
l
s
d
Mr. Ward
said, that the hon. member for Aberdeen having, on a former occasion, moved for a return of the number of clerks in the Ordnance office, had stated, that 67 individuals had been appointed to offices by the noble duke at the head of it. It was certainly true that 67 appointments had taken place; but of these only 22 had been made by the duke. Five of those 22 had been assistant clerks, and were promoted in the ordinary routine of the office.
Colonel Davies
observed, that it appeared by the report of the commissioners of military inquiry that the patronage of each department was vested in the head; of it. He wished to know whether this was the case in the board of Ordnance. If it were, it would be a complete instance of an
imperium in imperio
Mr. Ward
stated, that the Ordnance was governed by a master-general, whose will was supreme. He could, by his mere fiat, upset all the proceedings of the board. The board, however, on points in which the master-general did not interfere, was also supreme. There were four officers, holding their places by patent, who were entitled to a seat at the board, though they received no emolument from it. They had the right of appointing their own clerks.
Colonel Davies
observed, that according to this statement the master-general was a mere puppet, who placed upon the I shoulders of others the responsibility which ought to rest upon his own.
699
Mr. Ward
said, the gallant officer ought to have known that the master-general was as responsible as any other officer under the Crown. Out of five or six hundred offices, the majority were disposed of by him.
Mr. Birch
thought it was not fair to compare the estimates of the present year with those of 1792. The situation of England at present was in every way different from the situation in which she stood in 1792. The country was then on the eve of war; at present, we were in a state of profound peace The hon. member next drew a comparison between the amount of the army expenses of France and England, and contended that on the face of the estimates before the House, there appeared an excess of expenditure of 5,500,000
l
Mr. Hume
begged leave to repeat the statement which he had made on a former night. He had said, that since the termination of the war there had been 67 individuals introduced into the civil part of the Ordnance, and that 6,939
l
l
l
700
l
l.
701
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
702
l
l
Ex uno disce omnes
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
703
l
l
Mr. Ward
regretted the necessity he was under of troubling the committee at some length, but after the challenge thrown out to him by the hon. gentleman, he found this was unavoidable. He again insisted that the duke of Wellington, instead of making new appointments, had constantly applied himself to suppress all useless offices. The 67 appointments which the duke had been stated to have made, he had on a former night succeeded in reducing to eight or ten. The hon. member had on a former night complained of a "discrepancy" in the Ordnance accounts to the amount of 300,000
l
704
705
706
"Ward and lord Palmerston always detest him at
A dull unamusing debate on an estimate;
E'en Huskisson's best explanations he spurns,
And is constantly calling for further returns.
When papers are granted, he's never contented,
But condemns them as vague before they're presented."
Mr. Hume
inquired if the lines quoted were in John Bull?
Mr. Ward
said no; and proceeded to notice the praises bestowed on the hon. member for his industry. He was said to have done more good than any body else: but nearly all the information which he had brought before the House was to be found in the Red Book. The salaries of the officers, it was true, were not there, but they were to be found in the papers that had annually been presented to parliament. Another proof of the correctness of the hon. gentleman was found in
707
l
l
l
l
l
l
708
l
"The member's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,
"Glances from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;
"And, as imagination bodies forth
"The form of things unseen, the member's eye
"Turns them to shape, and gives to airy nothing"
A local habitation and a name."
l
"Ye Gods, annihilate both space and time, And make two lovers happy
l
709
l
l
Colonel Davies
supported the statements of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen; and denied that the right hon. gentleman's speech was an answer to them. He had gone much upon the
argumentum ad hominem,
Sir U. Burgh
asserted, that instead of 67 appointments which were said to have been made in this office by the duke of Wellington, he could assure the hon. member, that there had "been only 12 or 13 made by his grace since he entered upon his office.
Mr. Maberly
hoped the hon. gentleman would direct his attention to the charge of the store department; the whole of
710
Mr. Hume
allowed that he was not competent to vie with the right hon. gentleman in wit and eloquence and poetry but still thought it unfair that the hon. gentleman should have dwelt so long on his dulness of intellect and gullibility. This was, however, a proof that the right hon. gentleman was unable to answer the statements which he had made. The fact was, that in 1796, the civil department of the Ordnance at the Tower and Westminster cost only 18,000
l
l
The committee divided: For the amendment 78; Against it, 134. Majority, 56.
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Johnstone, col.
Barnard, vis.
Lambton, J. G.
Barrett, S. M.
Lennard, T. B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Langston, J. H.
Benyon, Ben.
Maberly, W. L.
Brougham, H.
Macdonald, J.
Bright, H.
Martin, J.
Buxton, T. F.
Maxwell, W.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Milbank, M.
Calcraft, J.
Monck, J. B.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Moore, P.
Calvert, C.
Marjoribanks, S.
Coffin, sir I.
Newport, right hon. sir J.
Coke, T. W.
Colburne, N. R.
O'Callaghan, J.
Concannon, Lucius
Ossulston, lord
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Palmer, C. F.
Creevey, Thomas
Powlett, hon. W.
Chetwynd, G.
Price, Robert
Corbett, Panton
Ramsden, J. C.
Denison, W. J.
Ricardo, David
Duncannon, viscount
Robarts, G.
Ebrington, viscount
Robarts, A.
Evans, Wm.
Robinson, sir G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Rumbold, Charles
Gordon, R.
Russell, lord J.
Graham, Sandford
Russell, lord W.
Griffith, J. W.
Smith, hon. R.
Gipps, G.
Smith, J.
Haldimand, W.
Smith, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Sefton, lord
Harbord, hon. E.
Tavistock, marq. of
Heron, sir R.
Taylor, M. A.
Hornby, Ed.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Hume, Jos.
Townshend, lord C
Hurst, Robert
Tremayne, J. H.
James, W,
Wharton, J.
711
Whitbread, S. C.
Whitmore, W.
Williams,
Williams, T. P
TELLER,
Wilson, sir R.
Davies, T. H.
Winnington, sir E
PAIRED-OFF,
Wood, ald.
Bernal, R.
On resolution, "That 20,163
l
s
d
Mr. Hume
said, that if this included Woolwich, he should object to some of the items. He then went through several details, in order to show that many situations were kept up which were not at all necessary. Among others, he objected to the continuance of fire-masters, to the; office of inspector of the royal powder 'manufactory, to the inspector of artillery, and of the brass foundery; all of which, be contended, might be dispensed with. There was also an inspector and deputy Inspector of the carriage department: now, at least, the salary of the deputy-inspector might be saved. As to the storekeeper at Chatham, he could not but think that his salary was too large, when he recollected that a major-general had only 480
l
712
l
l
s
d
l
s
d
Mr. Ward
said, it was the intention of government to cut down that establishment at Sheerness as soon as the stores were removed to Chatham. With respect to the six officers who had houses at Sheerness, it was not the fact that five of them resided at Queenborough, and let their houses at the former place. He had again to complain of the manner in which the hon. member brought forward his statements. He had now represented the store-keeper as holding a useless office. But he had, in fact, stores to the value of 1,000,000
l
Sir W. Congreve
assured the House that he was certainly not a sinecure holder in the Ordnance department. He had been held out as a pluralist, when, in fact, both his offices in the Ordnance department only amounted to 25
l
s
713
Mr. J. Smith
bore testimony to the great services rendered to the country by the exertions of the hon. baronet. He, for one, could not consent to a reduction of one shilling in that hon. member's allowance. If the suggestions of the hon. baronet had been attended to, a great step would have been taken to check, if not entirely to put an end to forgeries upon the Bank.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that the naval service had been highly benefited by the improvements made by the hon. baronet.
Mr. Hume
said, that while he admitted the services of the hon. baronet, he must persist in saying that other departments were greatly overpaid. Formerly, the store-keeper was paymaster; now the, very few men were at Woolwich, there was a paymaster and two clerks receiving 758
l
Mr. J. Smith
said, that there were three situations in which it would be harsh, and even cruel, to make any reduction.
Mr. Hume
said, that in order to remove that objection, he would deduct the amount of those situations from his amendment, and move that only 4,295
l
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 53; Against it, 110. The House then resumed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 15, 1821
PETITIONS COMPLAINING OF THE
Sundry petitions were this day presented, complaining of the proceedings at Manchester. On presenting a Petition from William Butterworth,
Mr. Harbord
said, he believed the petitioner to be a very honest man. He was a weaver, and had received a cut of a sabre, on his right arm, which incapacitated him from following his occupation; so that, having a wife and three small children, he had been reduced to great distress. He prayed for justice, and that the perpetrators of the outrages of the 16th of August might be brought to justice. Perhaps, in courtesy to the hon. baronet, who was about to bring the subject before the House, he ought to abstain from any thing like an anticipation pf the debate. Yet, knowing as he did,
714
l.
l.
715
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, he could not hear the hon. member call the yeomanry a political soldiery without entering his protest against it. The yeomanry were a most useful and efficient body, and no country on earth could create or support such a body except Great Britain and Ireland. As to the observations of the hon. member respecting Mr. Hay, the rev. gentleman was bound as a magistrate to act to the best of his judgment; and if he had refused to act he would have rendered himself liable to be struck out of the magistracy. Another assertion of the hon. member was respecting the living which had been given to this rev. gentleman. It was true he had not said it was given for any particular conduct on
716
Lord Milton
said, that his hon. friend did not speak of the yeomanry of England, but of the yeomanry of Manchester. He would ask any man connected with Manchester, to say whether the yeomanry cavalry of that town were like the yeomanry of Surrey or Sussex, farmers residing on their own lands, or whether they were not persons entertaining strong personal and party feeling. With respect to the living given to Mr. Hay, he had heard, and he should like to hear it contradicted, that an arrangement had taken place by which the rev. prelate who gave that living, was to have in return the disposal of one of those livings which were more immediately in the patronage of government.
Mr. Bathurst
said, he had no hesitation in contradicting that assertion.
Lord Milton
expressed his satisfaction at hearing the report contradicted.
Sir R. Wilson
presented thirteen petitions from persons who had been cut down and wounded at Manchester. Among them was one from W. Cheetham, who stated, that he was addressed by Meagher, the trumpeter, who said, "Damn you, I will cut your head off," and who immediately gave him a wound in the neck, and cut nine inches off the rim of his hat. The petitioner went to Lancaster, in the expectation of bringing the cowardly trumpeter to justice; but, lo! the grand jury, of which lord Stanley was foreman, the petitioner's late colonel, threw out the bill; his lordship said laughingly, he was sorry one of his regiment should have brought himself into such a hobble; the petitioner then attempted to show to his lordship his hat that was cut, and the blood that run from his wound out to his clothing, but he would not look at them, or allow the petitioner to show them.
Lord Stanley
said, he remembered, that having some recollection of the person in question, he had asked him to what
717
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the next petition was from a person who had been considered as the leader of the Manchester meeting; it was from Mr. Henry Hunt, whose conviction at York was, in his opinion, produced by a violent straining of the law, and whose punishment was most oppressive, vindictive and unjust, in a country where justice was administered in mercy.
Lord Milton
said, that the case of Mr. Hunt was totally different from that of the other petitioners.
Mr. Scarlett
felt that it was but an act of justice, on his part, to state that the subject of the petition had been before the court of King's-bench, and that the charges had been answered upon affidavit; that the counsel of Mr. Hunt, after having heard the affidavit read, consented to have the conditional rule obtained by Mr. Hunt, discharged with costs.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Sir R. Wilson
presented another petition from Mr. Hunt complaining of the conduct of the gaoler at Ilchester. The petitioner stated, that the cold and noxious vapours of the gaol were aggravated by the inhuman, cold-blooded, and remorseless keeper's conduct: that the judges had deliberately and intentionally selected the most unwholesome, the worst regulated, and the most immoral gaol in the kingdom; and that one of the judges, who had been born in the neighbourhood of this bastile, had not been able to conceal his joy, when he saw the petitioner sentenced to imprisonment in it for two years and six months.
On the question, That the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Bright
said, he felt himself called upon indignantly to notice the vile, base, and atrocious imputations which the petitioner had thrown upon the judges. How
718
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he would leave it to every impartial man to say whether the petition was intended to inflame the public mind, or to seek for justice and redress of injuries. In his opinion, it was impossible that the House could suffer to lie upon the table a petition full of such monstrous aspersions upon the venerable judges of the land.
The Attorney General
said, he had been present when the sentence of the court of King's-bench was pronounced upon the petitioner; and he could assert, that upon that occasion no expression in words or by gesture was made by any of the learned judges such as described by the petitioner. He believed in his conscience that the gaol of Ilchester had been selected because it was supposed to have been the best regulated.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that the petition, as it related to the judges of the King's-bench, he looked upon as base, false, and slanderous. The terms of the petition were scandalous and base in the extreme; if such language as the petition contained was to be tolerated in that House, then it would be better to give up all respect for the administration of justice. The learned judges, throughout the whole case of the petitioner, had conducted themselves with a cautious and fearful anxiety. They were anxious throughout to do what was equitable and just. They gave to the defendant advantages and opportunities which few parties had ever possessed before; they gave him their assistance when he had no counsel, and bore with the utmost patience language and conduct from the petitioner which courts
719
Dr. Lushington
said, that he would vote that the petition be rejected, because, instead of facts, it stated the mere opinion of the petitioner. It was now five weeks since a motion had been made for a commission to inquire into the state of Ilchester gaol, yet no inquiries had been made under it. If it were true that the keeper conducted himself in a cruel and barbarous manner, the sooner he was removed the better: it was not fit that 150 of his majesty's subjects should be under the care of a person, against whom such heavy charges had been brought, without the government proceeding to an immediate inquiry as to the truth of those charges.
The motion, That the petition do lie on the table, was then put and negatived.
MOTION RESPECTING THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE MANCHESTER MEETING.]
Sir Francis Burdett
rose. He said, that after the various petitions which had been presented to the House, stating, in terms as simple as they were incontrovertible, and as affecting as they were unaffected, the injuries which had been inflicted on the people whilst peaceably assembled for a purpose of the highest importance to the country, namely, the expression of their feelings upon the necessity of reform of that House—he rose, not knowing to whom the blame of the transaction ought to attach, but with the intention of discovering that point by his motion: for, whether it was to the ministers, or whether it was to the magistrates, or whether it was to the yeomanry, who so particularly distinguished themselves on that occasion, that the great share of blame ought to attach, or whether it was to attach to them all collectively, was more than he could tell at present, and was, therefore, a proof that some inquiry into the subject was necessary. It had fallen to the lot of others to celebrate the triumphs of our arms abroad: to him belonged the unpleasant task of repeating to the House one of the sad events of domestic war—
celebrare domestica facta;
720
"——galeatum sero duelli
Pœnitet."
721
dolus an virtus
722
723
724
*
Lieutenant de police,
*
725
726
727
728
sauve qui peut.
729
730
731
l.
per se,
732
733
734
"Immortale odium, et non sanabile vulnus."
735
736
efficia, velox et salutaris.
737
738
739
Mr. Hobhouse
seconded the motion.
Mr. Bootle Wilbraham
said he presented himself to the House with great diffidence on this occasion, although he was most anxious to rescue the conduct of the magistrates of Lancashire from the aspersions which had been cast upon it. Notwithstanding he felt personally interested in this question, he was extremely
740
741
742
743
Lord Milton
wished to know what the precise nature of those documents was? Whether they were depositions taken before a magistrate; or whether they were depositions made is a court of justice where the witnesses were cross-examined?
Mr. Wilbraham
continued. He stated, that he had no hesitation in saying, that they were not of that description, but were depositions made before the different magistrates, by persons who voluntarily offered themselves to state what they saw and heard. He did not wish to give them a, higher character than they deserved, but he believed that those who made those depositions: swore, only that which they were, convinced was true.—The hon. member, then read a number of depositions, stating the drilling, and the violence used; towards those who would not join in. them. He also read, depositions stating the language of the people, as to their revolutionary intentions and as to their expectations, from the meeting on the 16th of August. The magistrates, conceiving the meeting would be numerous, had every, thing done to preserve the public, peace which was in their power. They s had, three hundred constables stationed; forming two lines to the hustings; but in
744
Mr. Bennet
.—May I ask where is his deposition? Has he ever sworn to this fact of having read the Riot act?
Mr. Wilbraham
said, he did not know, but he had been told so. Another magistrate, thinking that not sufficient, went into the street and read it again; but he was speedily tripped up, and trampled upon. Much stress had been laid upon the Riot act not having been read, or heard read; but he thought that of little consequence, for it must be considered, that the meeting was liable to be dispersed, not because it was riotous, but because it was a decidedly illegal meeting. He admitted that professedly it was, not illegal; but it was so in fact and in law. Then the military array in which those who assembled at it proceeded to the spot, and many other circumstances, combined to make it of a very peculiar as well as very formidable nature. It could not, therefore, be considered as a meeting of any known or ordinary, character, such as those were which were, contemplated by the Riot act, at the time, of its en-
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
l.
752
*
*
753
Lord Milton
said, that though he respected as much as any man, the character of his hon. friend who had just sat down, yet on this occasion the House had nothing to do with the character and station of his hon. friend; they had only to do with the case which he had made out, and that which had been attempted to be made out against him. It would, he thought, have been better had his hon. friend abstained from making the allusions which he had indulged in towards the close of his speech, respecting the power of the House to make that a crime which was not so before. His hon. friend had read a number of depositions made by various persons relative to the events of the 16th of August. He was glad to find that those persons no longer thought it necessary that their names should be concealed from public view. But he must ask why those persons were not called on the trial of Hunt? There was a person named Barlow, who had deposed that there were not twenty persons in the Exchange, and that the people at the meeting had bludgeons. But on the part of the witnesses on Hunt's trial there was not one word of this. What was his hon. friend then doing? Were he and the other magistrates sleeping at their post? They could not have been ignorant of the nature of the evidence. Why was the evidence on the trial so different from that given before the magistrates? But Barlow was not the only one in the same predicament. Dunthorpe had stated, that he heard one person coming from the country to the meeting say, that they intended to meet in such numbers as to overawe the civil and military power. That person's name was Wilde; he was one of the defendants, and it was remarkable that judge Bailey, whose name he could never mention without feelings of affection and veneration, in summing up had stated, that there was no evidence against Wilde. Would it have been so if Dunthorpe had been called? But they did not venture to produce him, notwithstanding such a deposition. Perhaps they were influenced by some knowledge of the character of the witness. But whether it was so or no, this was an important question which he was firmly convinced, could never be set at rest but through the intervention of parliament. As the hon. baronet had well said, it was a question whose dimensions were too large for one of the ordinary tribunals. It was not a question affecting
754
755
756
757
Mr. Wilmot
assured the House, that if he did not consider that this was a question which was capable of being argued conveniently and conclusively within a much narrower compass than that in which it had been discussed in the course of the debate, he should not have risen, feeling as he did, that it was impossible at that late hour of the night to enter fully into the subject; yet, when he considered how deeply the character of the magistracy, the yeomanry, and even of the government itself was implicated, he trusted the House would not refuse to indulge him with a hearing for the very abort time he should claim its attention.—With respect to one gentleman whose name, had been mentioned by the hon. baronet, he thought it his duty to state, that whatever might be the opinion of the House as to his conduct in this instance, no person who had the pleasure of his acquaintance, could entertain a doubt as to the uprightness and humanity of his intentions. He alluded to Mr. Hulton, the chairman of the magistrates on that distressing occasion. He had known Mr. Hulton well in early life, and he appealed to those who also knew him, whether he was not distinguished for that manliness and high and generous spirit which were utterly incompatible with cruelty and oppression. They had heard a number of petitions read, which could not but have excited a considerable degree of regret, as they contained a melancholy detail of individual misfortune; but it appeared to him, that these petitions had been unnecessarily presented to the House, for if they once determined, as he had no doubt they would, that the magistrates, under the peculiarly trying circumstances of the case, were justified in calling in the military to aid the civil police, it would at once be seen, that the extent of casualty
758
759
760
761
762
"Give the warm1 people no considering time,
"For then rebellion might be deemed a crime,"
Mr. Denman
rose amidst repeated cries of adjournment. He said he was sorry to trespass on; the attention of the House at so late an hour of the night: he knew that the word "adjournment" had in it a magic charm for: the ears of gentlemen at that hour, but after witnessing the effects of an adjournment upon the decision of an important question in some recent instances, he hoped nothing would induce his horn friends to risk the experiment on the present question. He could have been content to leave the question to the effect of the powerful speech of the hon. baronet who opened the debate; for notwithstanding the eloquent speech they had just heard—not withstanding the detailed statements of the hon. member for Dover, he was confident the House could not but feel as he did, the utmost astonishment and indignation at the determined silence of his majesty's ministers, not one of whom had ventured to speak in reply to the charges of his hon. friend what yet remained unanswered and wholly unshaken. The hon. member for a 'Dover had stated, that it might be possible that in the alarm of the moment the magis-
763
764
765
766
The Solicitor-General
observed, that his hon. and learned friend had expressed his surprise that no person connected with government had risen to offer his opinion on this most important question; and had not merely insinuated, but boldly asserted, that the magistrates of Manchester had proceeded under the immediate directions and orders of government. That assertion he took upon himself confidently to deny. He distinctly affirmed, that although his majesty's ministers felt it to be their duty to support the magistrates, not doubting they had acted conscientiously, yet they were in no way personally responsible for that conduct on the part of the magistrates, which they had not directed, and of the intended nature of which they had no previous knowledge. He regretted that his hon. and learned friend had introduced into his speech, subjects perfectly unconnected with the question, for the purpose of inflaming the passions of the House, and through the House the passions of the country against his majesty's ministers. Among others, he had revived a question which it was for the happiness and interest of all parties that it should be buried in oblivion. He could assure the hon. and learned gentleman, that ministers were not at all ashamed of the part they had acted on that subject. They had discharged a painful but imperious duty. They had discharged that duty faithfully and conscientiously; the House
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
Mr. Philips
said, that the peculiar circumstance of his residing where the meeting took place, must be his apology for rising at that hour of the night to address the House. He had considered it his duty to get at the knowledge of the facts of what took place at the meeting before he had made up his mind as to what occurred on the 16th of August. Much had been said as to the state of the county of Lancaster before the meeting took place: he agreed with the hon. member for Dover, that the neighbourhood of Manchester required great care at that time, as he knew that trainings took place in the day-time; he had no doubt but they were illegal, and was of opinion that the magistrates ought to have put them down. There was no doubt but the magistrates thought that the meeting of the 16th of August was legal. He was convinced it was the determination of the people to be peaceable on that occasion; and no doubt they would have been so if they had not been so cruelly attacked by the yeomanry. He had inquired of a great many persons, who went there as spectators, and were not connected with either party, and could state, that the meeting was quite peaceable until the advance of the yeomanry; but the scene that followed, as described by those who saw it, was sufficient to excite horror. He knew persons who had placed themselves near where the magistrates had stationed themselves, and they never understood that the Riot act was read. A Mr. Stanley, a gentleman of the greatest honour and
774
775
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 16, 1821
MOTION RESPECTING THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE MANCHESTER MEETING.]
The adjourned debate being resumed, the question was again put, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to inquire into the Transactions which took place at Manchester on the 16th of August 1819."
Sir Robert Wilson
rose. He said, it was perfectly consistent with the official duty of the hon. and learned member who had spoken last but one on this subject—he meant his majesty's solicitor-general—to do the ministers all the service he could, by vindicating the magistrates and yeomanry from the heavy charges which had been brought against them. It was natural for that hon. and learned gentleman, in the view which he took of the events of the 16th of August, and of those immediately preceding them, to describe the conduct of the magistrates as upon all occasions temperate and judicious, and that of the people as irregular and criminal—or, if not criminal, as very little short of it in intention. But, notwithstanding his talent and his ingenuity, he had not succeeded in disguising the hideous deformity of the Manchester massacre. It was unnecessary for him to analyze all the arguments which that hon. and learned gentleman had used; it would be enough for him to show that sufficient grounds were laid for an inquiry. It was not necessary for him to refute all the statements of the other side; it would be enough for him to show that there were counter statements. At the same time, he could not help noticing the attempt which had been made to introduce into the discussion evidence which the other side had not dared to offer to a court of justice. The solicitor-general had formerly told them, that the best way of obtaining a fit decision upon the question would be by bringing all the evidence which bore upon it into a court of justice. The solicitor-general now disdained to follow his own advice, and brought forward testimony which his employers had carefully withheld from the proper tribunals. Those employers on a former occasion had triumphantly taunted the friends of the people with being 10th to enter the courts of justice, and had said, that whenever they did so, the emptiness of their accusations would
776
777
l.
l.
l.
778
779
animus
780
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, he felt for the sufferers at Manchester; but he felt also for the British parliament, which, he hoped, would not go down to posterity with the stigma of having passed over this disgraceful transaction without inquiry. The hon. baronet proceeded to read a narrative of the events of the 16th of August, which he had obtained from an individual of the highest respectability who was present. It corroborated, in the chief points, statements which have already appeared, describing the meeting as of a most peaceable description, until the violent attack of the yeomanry produced the disorder which led to the fatal events of that day. The paper was from a gentleman in orders, named Wimbush, who had been an hour and a half on the ground, and gave a frightful description of the havoc committed on the multitude, whom he compared to a flock of sheep devoted to the slaughter. He also stated, that the avenues through which the people attempted to fly were closed by the military, who, in a threatening attitude drove them back, and he fled for refuge into the House of a friend. The allegations contained in this paper, would, if necessary be supported at the bar by the gentleman who had written it. Sir William said, he had himself been at Manchester a few days after the 16th of August, and had, from his inquiries, every reason to believe the statement in the narrative correct.
Mr. Tynte
rose to eulogise the yeomanry as a most valuable and peculiarly constitutional force. He was himself a
781
Mr. Becker
said, he had hitherto given a silent vote in favour of every motion for inquiring into the unfortunate affair at Manchester, and he should have still preserved the same silent manner of recording his opinion, were it not that, both within and without the walls of parliament, the motives of gentlemen who thought as he did had been misrepresented. It was insinuated, but most erroneously, that those who disapproved of the dispersion' of the Manchester meeting, necessarily approved of the principles of those who had convened the people on that occasion. Now, no person felt less disposed than he did to countenance the extravagant notions of reform entertained by some of those who had called that meeting together, or to sanction many parts of the conduct of the leader who presided on that day. No person felt more disposed to invest the magistracy of the country with every proper discretion for the maintenance of the public peace, to give them every proper support, and enforce the utility and respectability of their functions; but the more he reflected upon the occurrence at Manchester, the greater and more decided was his conviction, that no line of conduct was more calculated to check the growth of that respect which, was due to the magistracy from the people, and to weaken that bond of union which held the different classes of society together, than a refusal to concede such an inquiry as this to the general voice of the country. Me knew it was said, that if this particular inquiry were permitted, it would be impossible to shut out others from the same mode of examination; so that a new principle, of a most impolitic and injurious nature, would be established. The line of distinction between what ought and what ought not to be done, might, he thought, be rendered sufficiently obvious. Where
782
Mr. Egerton
said, lie thought the measures pursued by the magistrates on the 16th of August had saved the town of Manchester from the greatest disturbance and riot. Let the House look at the state of the county at that period, the organized system of communication which was going on, and the drillings, together with the assembling with banners—let them look at all these circumstances, and then calmly say whether the magistrates acted imprudently in issuing the warrant to apprehend Mr. Hunt and the other leaders of that meeting. From the state in which the hustings were, it was impossible that the warrant could be executed without the aid of the military. The magistrates had a great duty to perform; they did it to the best of their power, and they took the responsibility on themselves. They were called upon to decide on a sudden emergency, what was best for the safety of the town; and if they had erred, their conduct was open to be inquired into by a court of law. With regard to the people, it was notorious that the
783
Mr. Grenfell
observed, that on this question he differed in opinion from most of those with whom he usually acted, and from whom he never differed but with regret. He took that opportunity of stating his opinion with regard to the measures which the legislature had adopted, in consequence of the events at Manchester to August 1819. It would be unbecoming in him to enter into the discussion of the general subject; for even in the hands of those who had greater claims on the attention of the House than he could pretend to, that subject no longer excited interest and attention. The reasons which had influenced him in giving his vote in 1819, with reference to this subject, remained unshaken; and there was no act of his public life to which he looked back with greater satisfaction or a more self-approving conscience.
Mr. Bernal
denied that his hon. friend was correct in stating that the subject before the House had lost its interest. If, indeed, he looked at the question in the most limited point of view, he would concede it to him; but, in its broad and constitutional point of view, it had not and could not lose a particle of the interest which had at any time attached to it. He begged to deny the correctness of the solicitor-general's statement last night, that a court of law had pronounced that the meeting at Manchester was an unlawful assembly. The verdict at York had established no such fact. The indictment, if he was rightly informed, consisted of eight counts. In the fourth it charged Mr. Hunt and others with having been engaged in a conspiracy to bring together an illegal meeting for the disturbance of the public peace. Other counts charged them with joining in an unlawful assembly; but they were acquitted upon all except the fourth count, which by no means involved the question of the legality of the meeting. If the meeting, then, were not illegal the interference of the military was unnecessary, and the magistrates had no authority to order a single soldier to advance against the people. It was true that an eminent lawyer (Mr. Plunkett) had pronounced the meeting at Manchester illegal; he however never concurred in that opinion; but even if the meeting were illegal, the learned judge who tried the case at York
784
libenter homines quod, volunt credunt
785
Mr. B. Wilbraham
said, he did not state that the outrage committed on Campbell had taken place on the 16th of August. He had merely observed, that because Campbell was a constable, he had been pursued into a hbuse—that he had been severely treated, and that, in consequence of the injuries he had received, he died in the infirmary.
Mr. Horace Twiss
spoke as follows:—Sir; I should not have expected to hear from my hon. and learned friend a complaint about the employment of depositions in this debate; since, where one of the speakers on this side has resorted to these narratives on oath, not fewer than three or four among the hon. gentlemen opposite have relied on private statements, to which the sanction of an oath is wanting. The balance, therefore, is not a little against those who complain of a departure from the evidence produced by the trial at York. The
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
primâ facie
797
facie
ex-parte
primâ facie
de vicineto
798
799
Mr. Hobhouse
rose, and spoke in substance as follows:
800
de vicineto
de vicineto?"
801
802
803
804
Mr. Stanley
, in the narrative quoted by the gallant member for Southwark, and who saw, let it be recollected, the whole transaction from the room above that in which the magistrates were assembled, distinctly says, "I saw no missile used throughout the whole transaction." That their walking-sticks were used by the people when attacked, is likely enough. Mr. Stanley says, "No doubt the people defended themselves to the best of their power, as it was absolutely impossible for them to get away, and give the cavalry a clear passage, until the outer part of the mob had fallen back." Yet, what the ministers of the Crown, with all their power, have been unable to allege—what the magistrates of Lancashire, with all their local information, were unable to adduce—what the learned counsel for the prosecution, with all his talent and address, was unable to prove—namely, that the first aggression came from the people—this discovery was reserved for the learned gentleman opposite, who boldly assumes that all-important fact as a thing notorious and admitted on all sides. Sir, I repeat the direct contrary is the fact; the yeomanry attacked the people without warning, without provocation.
805
Mr. Serjeant Onslow.
—I rise to order. My hon. friend will forgive me; but it is irregular to allude to a former debate [Order, order!].
Mr. Hobhouse
resumed. My learned friend forgets that I allude to the debates of a former parliament; but I beg to say, that I am always obliged to any gentleman who recalls me from any improper course of argument, especially when he does it with the politeness of my learned friend. But to return—the words of the chief justice of Chester were, "Let hon. gentlemen consider next what the banners were; one of them had a female figure, with a bloody dagger in her hand; that was necessarily connected with an altera-
806
807
808
809
followed
810
forbearance
811
"impeditus,"
It was not read.
812
813
814
815
816
"To die for treason is a common evil,
But to be hanged for nonsense is the devil."
nullum tempus occurritregi
817
818
819
l.
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
820
821
822
823
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that after the extent to which the discussion had been protracted, he thought it would be an abuse of the patience of the House if he were to occupy their time, in using more argument than was necessary; but he was sure the house would feel, after the many personal appeals which had been made to him in the course of the debate, that, independently of the situation which he held, and his responsibility as a minister of the Crown, he should not stand justified if he did not enter into some explanation upon the question. That he had delayed doing so until that moment, was owing to the declaration of the hon baronet that not only the Manchester magistrates, but also the executive government were culpable in those transactions. He did not object to the executive government being held responsible for their conduct, and therefore he would enter into an explanation of that conduct; but before he did this, he begged to say a word as to the situation, of government and of the House itself with respect to this question. And here he must protest against the assertion that any of the transactions at Manchester were under the direction of his Majesty's government. He could state that government was quite distinct from the whole of these proceedings; that all the matters
824
825
826
827
828
829
l.
830
Mr. Scarlett
said, he had no doubt that the noble lord's speech was well calculated for its purpose, and that it would have its impression. It was a speech partaking more of the nature of magi than of reason. If it had not reason in it, it had some-
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
The Attorney General
said, that after the length of discussion into which this question had gone, it was not his intention to occupy the time of the House, because he thought the speech of his hon. and learned friend, and the very candid statement he had made on this occasion, had not only relieved him from the necessity of addressing many observations to the House, but must have convinced those who sat around him that his motion could not be supported. The hon. baronet, in his opening speech, attached great blame upon two parties who were entirely relieved by the speech of his hon. and learned friend, namely, his majesty's ministers and the magistrates. What was the charge against his majesty's ministers, made by the hon. baronet and
838
839
840
841
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, so much allusion had been made to the York meeting, that he thought he should be wanting in respect if he did not state his own opinion, that in the resolutions of that meeting the question of the legality of the assembly at Manchester was not prejudged; because particular words were inserted, qualifying the opinion and limiting the object of the people on that occasion. He felt called upon to say further, that in the speeches made on that occasion, his friends who were opposed to him did not prejudge the question: they did not state that the meeting was legally assembled, but they said that the transactions required investigation. Having said thus much, he had only one other remark in answer to what fell from the gentlemen on the other side, as to the reason why he could not vote for inquiry formerly; namely, that a prosecution was pending. Undoubtedly that was one of the reasons that he gave; but he also gave as a reason, that these circumstances never could be inquired into by parliament with any hope of coming to a satisfactory conclusion. But if he was of that opinion formerly, he must say that the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Scarlett) had completely convinced him, that, to enter into inquiry would be useless, and that the persons who were injured had a remedy in a court of law. The learned gentleman had acquitted the magistrates of blame: he had stated that the yeomanry advanced without authority. Was not that a subject for investigation in a court of law? He had always understood that a military person in command, If his troops acted against the people without orders, was amenable to a court of law; and it appeared to him that the not bringing these
842
Lord Milton
observed, that the explanation of his hon. colleague as to the York county meeting, rendered any observations from him on the subject unnecessary.
Sir F. Burdett
rose to reply. He said, that after the ample discussion which the subject had undergone, he would detain the House but a few moments. The case remained precisely where it was; for the noble marquis and the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, and all their adherents, seemed determined to shut their eyes to the real and great question, and to endeavour to turn the attention of the House to minute parts of it. They talked of it as a question between certain persons who had been aggrieved, and those by whom they had been aggrieved, instead of a question between the people of England and his majesty's government. That the people assembled at a public meeting were to have the military let loose upon them, and that it was to be held that no one was amenable for that act, surely afforded the strongest ground for parliamentary inquiry. The House ought to be informed by an inquiry at the bar, whether the troops had committed military execution without the authority of the magistrates, and had of their own head perpetrated the violences which had occurred. They ought to be informed whether ministers stood clear on the subject. Seeing the correspondence that existed between the magistrates and his majesty's ministers; seeing that the latter had published the letters of the magistrates, but had not ventured to lay before the House their answers; seeing the ungracious answer to the sheriffs of London put into the mouth of his majesty, who was made to say, that the citizens of London could not know the previous transactions and circumstances at Manchester; seeing all this, it was difficult to believe that what had taken place was not, in a great measure, the result of directions from his majesty's government. As to its being too late for the investigation, that he denied. The time that had elapsed had only served to divest the subject of all false appearances, and to exhibit it in its true shape and colours. The noble lord had made his statements lightly, and without any shadow of proof. The attacks of the military upon the people were distinctly
843
Mr. Wilmot
appealed to the House, whether any hon. member had a right to put a forced construction upon his words? What he stated was, that if the military
844
Sir F. Burdett
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the hon. member, as it appeared that he was not an advocate of that extended justice to which he had alluded. The noble lord had stated that which was a perfect truism: he had said, that he could rely upon the present construction of the House of Commons. No man would dispute the noble lord's intimate acquaintance with the formation of the House: he was a witness,
omni exceptione major
The Speaker
was satisfied that he need not repeat the words which had fallen from the hon. baronet in the heat of the moment, to convince him that his conduct was irregular.
Sir F. Burdett
professed himself ready to submit to whatever the Speaker might judge correct in the course of debate. The real question at issue was, whether in future the people of England should be allowed to exercise their undoubted and unalienable right of meeting in any manner and in any numbers, for any lawful purpose; or whether the intestine war, which the noble Secretary at War had said had been carried on against them for the last five years, was still to be continued. He was convinced that the people were in no way hostile to the institutions of the country; but they thought themselves entitled to the constitution, and to all those rights which the constitution gave them; above all, to that great right of free election of their representatives for the protection of their interests and
845
The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 235: Majority against the motion, 124. Adjourned at a quarter before three in the morning.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Birch, Joseph
Anson, hon. G.
Brougham, Henry
Allen, J. H.
Bury, visct.
Baring, H.
Byng, G.
Barnard, visct.
Blake, sir F.
Barratt, S. M.
Bright, Henry
Becher, W. W.
Chaloner, Rob.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Calcraft, John
Benyon, B.
Calvert, Charles
Bernal, Ralph
Carter, John
846
Cavendish, H
Philips, George
Clifton, visc.
Philips, G. jun.
Coke, T. W.
Powlett, hon. W.
Colburne, N. R.
Price, Robert
Concannon, Lucius
Pryse, Pryse
Crespigny, sir W. De
Peirse, H.
Crompton, Saml.
Ramsden, J. C.
Creevey, Thomas
Ricardo, David
Davies, T. H.
Robarts, A. W.
Denison, W. J.
Robarts, G.
Denman, Thos.
Robinson, sir Geo.
Dundas, hon. T.
Rowley, sir W.
Ebrington, visc.
Rumbold, Charles
Ellice, Edw.
Russell, lord Wm.
Fergusson, sir R.
Rice, F. S.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Smith, John
Fitzroy, lord C.
Smith, Wm.
Folkestone, visc.
Smyth, J. H.
Gordon, Robt.
Scarlett, James
Grattan, J.
Scudamore, R.
Grant, J. P.
Scott, sir W.
Griffith, J. W.
Sefton, earl of
Guise, sir W.
Stanley, lord
Gaskell, Ben.
Stuart, lord J.
Haldimand, W.
Tavistock, marq. of
Harbord, hon. E.
Taylor, M. A.
Heron, sir R.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hill, lord A.
Tichfield, marq. of
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tynte, C.
Hughes, W. L.
Webbe, Ed.
Hume, Joseph
Western, C. C.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Wharton, John
James, W.
Whitbread, W. H.
Johnson, col.
Whitbread, Sam. C.
Lambton, John G.
Williams, Wm.
Lemon, sir W.
Wilson, sir Robt.
Lennard, T. B.
Wood, alderman
Lushington, Dr.
Wyvill, M.
Maberly, John
TELLERS.
Macdonald, J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Burdett, sir F.
Maddocks, W. A.
Duncannon, visc.
Martin, J.
Maxwell, John
PAIRED OFF
Milbank, M.
Barham, J.
Milton, visct.
Cavendish, C.
Monck, J. B.
Hamilton, lord A.
Moore, Peter
Hurst, Robt.
Moore, Abraham
Mahon, hon. St.
Nugent, lord
Maberly, W. L.
O'Callaghan, J.
Ossulston, lord
Ord, Wm.
Plumer, W.
Palmer, col.
Russell, lord John
Palmer, C. F.
Warre, J. A.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 18, 1821
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
The order of the day was read for going into a Committee of Supply to consider further of the Ordnance Estimates. On the question, "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Chetwynd
said, that at a period
847
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not deny the general proposition, but he would deny that there existed any necessity for the instruction proposed.
Mr. Maberly
said, that the wanton extravagance of ministers was not to be endured. Seventeen millions were spent annually upon our military establishments in time of peace. What must it be if a war were to break out? He was satisfied that a saving of four millions might be ef-
848
The Marquis of Londonderry
objected to these preliminary discussions, because they enabled gentlemen to make bold and exaggerated assertions, the fallacy of which could not be detected until the details were entered into in the committee. The lion, member had stated the expenditure at 17 millions, forgetting that 5 millions was a dead expense for pensions, half-pay, and other allowances: so that 12 millions only remained for the government of this immense empire; and from this the hon. gentleman maintained that 4 millions might be saved. The hon. gentleman would not have risked such a statement in the committee. There was no practicable economy that ministers were not desirous of making.
Mr. Calcraft
was happy that this resolution had been brought forward. When, night after night, such vain attempts at reduction were made by a few, against overbearing ministerial majorities, such motions could not be too frequently made. The greater the dead expense which must be borne, the more necessary it was to economise in those charges that could be diminished. He saw plainly that the principles of a military government were in a gradual course of introduction; and he was much more suspicious of so large a standing army under the control of the present ministers, than of other persons. He was quite sure that large savings might be made in the Ordnance department, as he would show when the House came to the items.
Mr. Huskisson
contended, that as the civil list was granted for the reign, no reduction could be made in it, though he admitted that both it and the collection of the revenue might be proper subjects of debate. The instruction to the committee, if carried, could have no effect, as the utmost economy had been observed in the formation of the estimates. It was very convenient for the other side to keep
849
Lord Milton
said, that when the gentlemen opposite declared the impossibility of reducing the estimates, he could not forget a similar declaration made in the same quarter a fort night before the House of Commons deprived the ministers of the property tax. On that occasion, the secretary at war declared he could not reduce the army estimates; yet a fortnight after the repeal of the property tax, his noble friend came down with reduced estimates, although a week or two before, all, economy was declared impossible. Let them now look to the pension the and say if it was not possible to reduce that branch of the pubic expenditure. Let them look to that part of it filled by the names of members of that House. He did not allude to the noble marquis opposite, nor to the chancellor of the exchequer, nor to the president of the board of trade—all these he should always wish to see members of that House; but let them look to the right and the left, and say if there were not some members in their view who ought not to hold their pensions and their seats. Against the inordinate expenditure of the government he must protest; its inevitable effect, if continued, must be to break down altogether the middle classes of society. There would then only remain the very rich, and very poor, and the valuable link hitherto connecting both, would no longer remain. He could not help thinking that government incurred great deal of this unnecessary expenditure, in consequence of their not being sufficiently acquainted with the real state of the country.
Mr. Hume
contended for the right of parliament to review the amount of the civil list, and hoped that before the year was expired, the amount of that establishment would be reduced. If ever a House of Commons had been indifferent to the people's purse, it was when they established the civil list at 870,000
l
l
l
850
l
s.
Mr. Hume
entered, into a review of the several items which composed the vote. He said that all the Ordnance establishments abroad ought, to be considerably reduced. The Gibraltar establishment ought to be diminished: so ought the Malta, which had been considerably augmented since 1808. In Barbadoes the Ordnance expense was increased from 487
l.
l.
l.
l
l
l
l
l.
l
l.
s.
Mr. Ward
assured the hon. member, that when the salaries of the clerks alluded to had been augmented, they had been deprived of certain perquisites which they previously enjoyed. The Ceylon establishment had been increased, because the Ordnance had not only Columbo to serve but Tricomalee and Pont de Galli. In. Malta, during the war, the local government paid a portion of the expense, which now altogether devolved upon the Ordnance department. It was a curious fact, that the fortifications at Malta, on which 600 guns were mounted, would, if extend into one straight line, occupy 50 miles of ground. With respect to the garrison. at Heligoland, the argument of the. Hon. gentleman was most fallacious. He might as well say, that because when Gibraltar was taken it was supplied with a garrison
851
Mr. Bennet
said, that the right hon. member had introduced a most dangerous doctrine with respect to compensations. He had stated that a certain number of persons had been accustomed, for a considerable period, to receive perquisites and allowances of a particular description, in lieu of which compensation was now made their descendants; so that because A, B, C, and D, were lineally descended from certain public officers, they were to be remunerated, in consequence of an abuse having been removed, by which their ancestors had profited; because a robbery was found out, and it was deemed necessary to prevent its recurrence, therefore those individuals were to receive compensations. No gentleman could think of supporting such a proposition unless he was affected by that sort of mania which pervaded the Ordnance department, where they were so powerfully inoculated with the disease of extravagance, that they could not get rid of it. Unless gentlemen were possessed by such a devil as this, it was impossible that they could state, much less agree to, a proposition of this nature. It reminded him of an attempt made by an individual some time ago to procure compensation; and it appeared to him that the person in question could have borrowed the idea only from the Ordnance department. The magistrates of Middlesex, finding that a number of the most depraved characters were in the habit of visiting Cold-bath-fields prison, set an inquiry on foot to discover the reason of it. At last it came out, that a clerk at one of the police-offices was in the habit of handing up to the; magistrates a list of persons who wished to visit their friends in gaol, and that from each of the applicants, he received a fee. When this was discovered, what did the clerk do? Why, he called out for compensation. He quoted high authorities in his favour, and observed that they had their compensations, and he must have his. What did the magistrates say? They told him that he should have no compensation, because they did not understand the system of rewarding individuals for their misconduct. He entreated the House to consider how they must be regarded by the country, if, after so many forcible appeals to their justice, they should still continue to disregard every consideration of economy. They
852
Mr. Ward
could, not but regret that gentlemen should avail themselves of their privilege to slander individuals who had no means of answering the charges brought against them.
Mr. Hume
denied that he had made any sweeping charges. In challenging particular facts, he had been anxious to confine himself to those facts, and not to indulge in generalities.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that when the Gape of Good Hope was in the possession of the Dutch, it did not cost the government a single stiver. Why, then, should it be expensive to this country? Some inquiry ought to take place on this subject.
Mr. Ward
said, it was a fallacy to argue that the Dutch kept the Cape against a superior, maritime power, seeing that we had taken it from them.
Mr. Warre
said, that every exertion ought to be made to compel the colonies to defray their own expenditure. The salary of the governor of the Cape was 10,000
l.
l.
Mr. Goulburn
denied that the revenues of the Cape had ever defrayed the expenses of its civil and military establishments, when that colony was in the possession of the Dutch. The civil establishment of the Cape was paid out of the revenues of the colony, and the surplus went towards defraying the expenses of the military establishment. The hon. gentleman complained of the amount of the salary of the governor of the Cape, as compared with that of a high officer in this country, without taking into consideration the enormous expenses to which governors of colonies were of necessity subjected.
l
853
l.
l.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 21, 1821
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
The House having resolved into a committee on this bill,
The Earl of Liverpool
said the first enactment declared that the borough of Grampound should cease to return members to parliament. With this enactment be entirely agreed. It was a distinct proposition from the remainder of the clause which proposed to provide for supplying the deficiency created. As this latter part might form a subject of discussion, he would propose that all that part of the clause which follows the word "parliament," should be left out.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that although he objected totally to the principle of the bill, yet as parliament had frequently passed bills for disfranchising voters, he thought he should be doing more than he ought to do, if he proposed any thing more than to make this measure consistent with the precedents established by former bills. Those who had not been proved guilty should not be punished. He therefore proposed, that there should be inserted in the clause these word.s:—" That henceforth the burgesses of the borough of Grampound which have not been convicted, shall be the only electors for that borough."
Lord Erskine
was decidedly in favour of the bill as it stood, and would vote against the amendment. He had heard, with a great deal of satisfaction, the noble and learned lord, because he liked to hear arguments against bills of pains and penalties from the highest law authority in the state; and he never could wish that any man should forfeit by the law what he held under the law. Here, however, a systematic corruption had been proved, and called for the visitation of a remedial law. The true question was, were theirs lordships
854
The question, as proposed by the earl of Liverpool, being put,
The Earl of Harrowby
thought it became the duty of parliament, when such cases of gross and notorious corruption were brought before it, to meet them. With respect to the present being a bill of pains and penalties, such a measure was clearly a remedial law, and applicable in the; deficiency of the existing law. What, indeed, was the system of English law but punishing in many cases the: innocent with the guilty? From the Revolution to the present hour, it unfortunately so happened, that descendants were punished for the offences of those who preceded them. Had not their lordships for centuries past been punishing the innocent Catholics for guilt that was attributed to their forefathers? The system was to be deplored; but it appeared to be inseparable from the nature of things.
The Earl of Westmorland
thought the principle of this bill was most pernicious. There were at present Jaws against corruption, which punished the guilty much more effectually than any of these remedial innovations upon the constitution. It confounded the innocent with the guilty. It made the former answerable for crimes which they had never committed while it passed over the crimes of the latter with comparative impunity.
Lord Melville
defended the principle of the bill. He said it was no sufficient objection to the measure to say that it involved the punishment of the nocent. Such punishment was alrea-
855
Lord Redesdale
objected to the measure, on the ground that it was completely revolutionary in its principle. It was argued, that the number of representatives in Cornwall was too large. If that argument were admitted to be valid, they must proceed to remodel the whole constitution. To agree to the measure would be to proceed to sea without compass or rudder.
The Earl of Liverpool
remarked, that his noble friend had completely misapprehended the argument of the advocates of the bill. That argument was, that whatever might be the number of electors in a. place, while they exercised their right justly, they ought not to be deprived of it; but that if corruption were proved against them, it was the duty of the legislature to apply a remedy. As to punishing the innocent with the guilty, was not that done at the Revolution, when by the change of dynasty, the descendants of James the second were punished for the crimes of James the second, because it was for the
856
The Lord Chancellor
could not agree to a measure which must have the effect of confounding the innocent with the guilty. He did not consider the cases referred to as having a bearing on the question. He had concurred with Mr. Fox and Mr. Ellis in opposing the bill for the disfranchising Stockbridge, and conceived that the same objections applied to the present measure. In order to disfranchise a borough, nothing more would in future be necessary, but to get a majority of the electors to take money. The place would then be deprived of the right of election, and the innocent punished for the guilty.
The Marquis of Lansdown
argued in favour of the bill. If, when by the lapse of time, and by other circumstances, a borough was reduced to a state in which the electors were incapable of discharging their duty with fidelity, the legislature refused to exercise their power of transferring the elective franchise, they abandoned one of their most important duties. With reference to the objection, that the innocent would suffer with the guilty, that was the necessary result of many legislative measures; for instance, the act of 1805, by which the inhabitants of any district in Ireland were subjected to heavy fines in the event of the discovery of illicit distillation in that district. As to the place to which the franchise should be transferred, he ridiculed the theory that there was in the surrounding district an inherent right to it. He was certainly in favour of transferring the franchise to some populous and unrepresented place; because, however averse to any sweeping change in the representation, he was yet desirous to repair the inroads of that great innovator time, by connecting more intimately, whenever an opportunity occurred, large bodies of the people with the representatives of the people.
Earl Bathurst
thought, if the House adopted the principle of depriving a body of electors of the right of suffrage, they
857
The Earl of Carnarvon
contended, that there never could be a stronger case for legislative interference than the present. As to any danger from speculative opinions on the subject, he maintained that the fear was utterly groundless.
The Earl of Lauderdale
opposed the bill, because it yielded to the reformers all that they could wish, and legislated by carrying further than the existing law the system of disfranchisement. It was a law new in its nature, and one to which, in his conscience, he could never assent.
Marquis Camden
was of opinion that the bill went td establish a new principle of legislation. He thought parliament should mark its sense of the gross corruption which had existed at Gram-pound; but he could not see why it should alter the mode of legislation which had been adopted in all similar cases.
The Committee divided: For the Earl of Liverpool's Motion, 60; Against it, 26. Majority, 34.
The Earl of Liverpool
then urged the propriety of granting to the county of York the privilege of henceforth sending four members to parliament instead of two. He thought it was best in the first instance of departing from the principle of extending the right of suffrage to the hundreds to transfer it to the county of York. He also preferred to extend the right of voting to the county of York, in preference to Leeds, because the change would involve no principle of a new mode of election.
The Earl of Carnarvon
would not oppose the motion, but hoped, if other bills of a similar nature should come before their lordships, they would grant the elective franchise to large towns, which would be the means of removing one great existing cause of discontent.
The Earl of Harewood
was of opinion that the proposition would, if acted upon, create great inconvenience to the county of York. It would afford an opportunity for any individual to offer himself as a candidate and by keeping the poll open, to put his opponents to considerable expense.
The Marquis of Lansdown
suggested, that the evils contemplated by the noble earl might be avoided by causing two members to be returned for the north
858
Earl Fitzwilliam
objected to the transfer of the elective franchise to Leeds. He however wished to be understood as not objecting to the principle of bestowing the right of suffrage on large towns. Alluding to what had fallen from the noble marquis, he feared it would be impossible, without completely altering the constitution of the country to divide it in the manner proposed.
Lord Redesdale
thought the suggestion of the noble marquis might easily be acted upon, as the county was already divided for every purpose except that of election.
The motion was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 21, 1821
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES—BARBADOES FUND.]
The order of the day was read for going into a Committee of Supply to consider further of the Ordnance Estimates. On the question, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. Creevey
said, he felt it his duty to object to the item of 5,900
l.
859
860
l.
l
l.
l.
861
l.
l.
Sir C. Long
contended, that the grant, in the first instance, was made unconditionally. The grants respecting all the islands were made to the king and his heirs for ever, on condition that the Crown would afford security to the settlers. He was willing to admit that it was one condition of the grant that the fortifications should be repaired, but the fund was for an entire century applied, with the knowledge of parliament, precisely as it was now intended to be applied. Having for so long a period been so applied without any doubt having been expressed as to the propriety of its application; he thought it was too hard to raise a question upon it now. The application of the fund was known to the committees of that House. During the time of queen Anne, the fund was applied to the repairs of fortifications: the fortresses having been neglected* and much dilapidated, the inhabitants applied to the Crown on the subject; and in consequence of their re-
862
Sir F. Burdett
said, that the right hon. gentleman appeared to him to have made out no case whatever. The question before the House lay in a very narrow compass. The right hon. gentleman denied that the application of the fund was confined to the repairing of fortresses. Whether the fact was so or not, was a matter of minor importance: the question was, whether it was better to apply the funds to the repairing of fortresses, or to the corruption of members of that House? The right hon. gentleman said, that it had been so for a century back. That only showed the necessity of something being done to check the influence introduced into that House, or to render that House at least less liable to such influence. What practice of a more flagrant kind could be mentioned than the practice of members of that House transferring public money into their own pockets? The long practice of members putting public money into their own pockets was no argument why it should longer, be endured. Let the fund have been granted for whatever purposes the right hon. gentleman might allege; let it be at the disposal of the Crown or not; still, like every other grant, it must have been intended for the benefit, riot for the detriment of the public. It became parliament, therefore, to see how it was applied.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that the motion would apply to the other islands as well as to Barbadoes. With respect to the charge of corruption, the character of his right hon. friend was a sufficient answer to any imputation of that kind.
Mr. Monck
contended, that the fund^ should be applied to colonial purposes, and should not be made the source of corrupt influence. With respect to Ina right of' parliament to interfere, it could not be doubted. If parliament had no
863
The House divided: For Mr. Creevey's Amendment, 58; Against it, 86.
List of the Minority.
Barham, J. F.
James, W.
Blake, sir F.
Johnson, col.
Benyon, B.
Lemon, sir W.
Baring, H.
Lambton, J. G.
Barnard, visct.
Leonard, T. B.
Becher, W. W.
Milton, visct.
Brougham, H.
Maberly, J.
Bury, visct.
Monck, J. B.
Burdett, sir F.
Milbank, M.
Birch, J.
Newport, sir J.
Concannon, L.
Martin, J.
Calcraft, J.
Ossulston, lord
Curwen, J. C.
Price, R.
Calvert, C.
Philips, G.
Chaloner, R.
Parnell, sir H.
Chetwynd, G.
Ramsden, J. C.
Crompton, S.
Robinson, sir G.
Colburne, N. R.
Rice, T. S.
Duncannon, visct.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Denman, T.
Ricardo, D.
Denison, W. J.
Sefton, earl of
Davis, T. H.
Stanley, lord
Dickenson, W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Ellice, E.
Taylor, M. A.
Folkestone, visct.
Wharton, J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Wood, M.
Guise, sir W.
Wilson, sir R.
Heron, sir R.
Yorke, sir J.
Hume, J.
TELLERS.
Harbord, E.
Creevey, T,
Hutchinson, C..
Bennet, hon. H. G,
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply to consider further of the Ordnance Estimates, Mr. Ward moved, "That 94,356
l.
s.
d.
864
l.
l.
s.
d."
Mr. Monck
said, it would be recollected, that in the last session 100,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was not the intention of government, in the present session to ask for any additional vote for the expenses of the coronation.
Mr. Hume
said, the right hon. gentleman had given but half an answer to the question put to him. He had said, that no vote would be required, on account of the coronation, in this session—would there in any subsequent session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the 100,000
l.
Mr. Bennet
said, there could not be a vote of a single shilling proposed to the House on which it was not competent for every member to ask such questions as he thought for the benefit of the public
865
oyez
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that though he fully admitted that all grievances could be entered upon when the House was in a committee of supply, he still thought it would exceed all the ingenuity of the gentlemen opposite to apply that principle to the present case; unless, indeed, they were prepared to contend, that it would be a public grievance if her Majesty was not crowned at the ensuing coronation. It appeared clear to him that it required an act of the Crown to authorize the coronation of her Majesty; for though her Majesty was, in the eye of the law, the consort of the King, yet there was no prerogative of the Crown more, sound, or more indisputable, than that it rested with his Majesty to decide whether his consort should participate in the honours of the coronation or not. He might, however, as well now say, that neither he, nor any of the other servants of his Majesty were prepared to recommend an act of the Crown to include her Majesty in the ensuing ceremonial. If the gentlemen opposite wished to revive the dying, or, as he should rather have said, the dead embers of that painful controversy, which had recently agitated the country, he was content to leave the responsibility to their discretion, or, more properly speaking, to their indiscretion.
Mr. Brougham
said, that though any matter of grievance might with perfect order be discussed in a committee of supply, he should abstain from entering into the question which had been raised. He only begged to protest against being supposed to assent to the principle that the Queen had not a right to be crowned. That question not being regularly before him, he did not wish to give an opinion one way or the other.
The resolution having been again read,
Mr. Hume
rose, not for the purpose of
866
l.
l.
Mr. Ward
said it had been a mooted question whether in the artillery it was better to retain the officers and dismiss the men, or dismiss the officers and retain the men. The present master-general of the Ordnance was of opinion, that the former was the better plan, owing to the expense of an artillery officer's education, and the science and experience which it was essential he should possess. The Finance Committee of 1817 were also of a similar opinion.
Mr. Hume
said, he was aware that artillery officers should have all the practice possible, but in fact they had now no practice, and from the length of service of most of the officers, if they were put on half pay, there was no doubt that when called into activity at any future time, they would be perfectly efficient; so that the present vote was not one of efficiency, but simply of expense.
Sir H. Hardinge
maintained, that if the proposed reduction were adopted, the service would be full of officers who were too old for employment. This had been the case m the peninsular war, where, until the duke of Wellington had taken measures to prevent it, men who had not sufficient vigour of body had been at the head of the artillery. At last lieutenant-colonel Dixon, who was only captain of" artillery was placed in command of that corps, and had under him a force of 7,000 men. Lieutenant-colonel Wood also commanded at Waterloo a force of 7,000 artillerymen, and 6,000 horses.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 16; Against it, 43.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, H, G.
Chaloner, R.
867
Chetwynd, G.
Newport, sir J.
Creevey, T.
Parnell, sir H.
Denman, T.
Ricardo, D.
Guise, sir W.
Smith, hon. R.
Harbord, hon. E.
Western, C.
James, W.
TELLER.
Martin, J.
Hume, J.
Monck, J. B.
On the resolution. That 8,377
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
complained of the expense in the medical department, which was at present nine times greater than it was. There were only five surgeons in 1792, and there were now forty-one, although the increase of men in the artillery had been only 1,200. Thinking that the director-general and his assistant, with the surgeon-general and his assistants, might well be reduced, he felt it his duty to move that 3,778
l.
Mr. Ward
observed, that there was no medical establishment attached to the artillery in 1792, each corps being attended by some medical practitioner, in whatever station it was quartered; but this system was found by the Ordnance-board to be so inefficient and expensive, that it was deemed expedient to adopt the present plan.
The committee divided: For the Amendment 18. Against it, 47.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, H. G.
Martin, J.
Bright, H.
Monck, J. B.
Chaloner, R.
Parnell, sir H.
Chetwynd, G.
Portman, E. B.
Harbord, hon. E.
Ricardo, D.
Heron, sir R.
Smith, hon. R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Yorke, sir J.
Hume, J.
TELLER.
Hutchinson, C.
Bernal, R.
James, W.
On the resolution, "That 6,610
l.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
said that the whole sum voted for that establishment this year had been 15,047
l.
l.
l.
868
Sir U. Burgh
maintained that the greatest economy had been observed at Woolwich, by a reduction of both masters and pupils. The estimate for this, was 1,700
l.
Mr. Hume
contended, that the establishment ought to be reduced to 40 or 30 pupils, and moved as an amendment a reduction of half the vote, or 3,305
l.
Mr. Ward
explained the manner in which promotion took place in the artillery, stating that the number of cadets would be so gradually reduced, by first appointing them second lieutenants on half pay, that they were likely to be soon reduced to 100, and until then, no new cadets were to be admitted.
Sir U. Burgh
asserted that the education of each cadet cost no more than 400
l.
Mr. Bennet
observed, that if the papers on the table were to be relied upon, it was as plain as a pike-staff that the education of each cadet cost 1,775
l.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 20; Against it, 63.
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Bright, H.
Parnell, sir H.
Chetwynd, G.
Portman, E. B.
Calcraft, J.
Ricardo, D.
Harbord, hon. E.
Smith, hon. R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Smith, R.
Hume, J.
Williams, W.
Heron, sir R.
TELLER.
Hutchinson, C.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
James, W.
On the resolution, "That 39,124
l.
s.
d.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he had so many objections to offer to the numerous items of which the extraordinaries were composed, that he scarcely knew where to begin. Although the vote now proposed was only for the small sum of 39,124
l.
s.
d.
l.
869
l.
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
870
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
871
l.
l.
l.
buildings or repairs;
l.
l.
l.
s.;
l.
l.
872
l.
l.
l.
l.
873
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
874
l.
l.
en prince
l.
l.
l.
875
l.
l.
l.
876
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
*
£
s.
He is colonel-commandant of a battalion of artillery
1,003
0
He has a pension also as senior officer of the artillery
456
5
Total annual allowance,
2,462
5
s.
s.
l.
877
Mr. Ward
stated, that the sums for repairs were not for new works, but for works some time begun. He thought that the present arrangement of the estimates, where the items were under separate heads, was better than the plan proposed by the hon. member. He was not surprised that the hon. member wished the removal of the powder establishment at Feversham, &c. as that idea had entered his own imagination three years ago; but, on going down to Feversham, he found that the expense of removal would be greater than that for keeping them in their present state for several years. He defended the field-train on the ground of its being under the command of an old officer of eighty, who had performed meritorious services.
Sir W. Congreve
would state to the House what had been the origin of the establishments at Feversham and Wal-tham-abbey. At the close of the American war, the powder furnished by contractors, or otherwise purchased, was found to be of so bad a quality, that it was determined, by Mr. Pitt and the duke of Richmond, to have these establishments instituted. Not only had the article of gunpowder been greatly increased in value and quality, but the saving to the country had been immense since these establishments were founded. The profit realized in consequence, from 1789 to 1810, had been immense: 750,000
l.
Mr. Barnal
observed that the hon. clerk
878
The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes 53.
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Martin, J.
Barrett, S. M.
Milton, lord
Barnard, lord
Monck, J. B.
Bennet, hon. H.G.
Moore, Peter
Beaumont, W.
Newport, sir J.
Brougham, H.
O'Callaghan, col.
Bright, H.
Ord, W.
Calcraft, J.
Palmer, F.
Chaloner, R.
Parnell, sir H.
Crompton, S.
Pryce, P.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Ramsden, J. C.
Colborne, R.
Ricardo, D.
Concannon, T.
Robinson, sir G.
Denman, T.
Sefton, lord
Frankland, T.
Smith, hon. R.
Griffiths, J. W.
Smith, G.
Grant, J. P.
Taylor, M. A.
Guise, sir W.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Heron, sir R.
Tremayne. J. H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Townshend, lord C.
Hutchinson, C,
Western, C.
James, W.
Whitbread, W.
Johnston, col.
Whitbread, S.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, sir R.
Lennard, T.
Wood, M.
Maberly, J.
TELLER.
Macdonald, J.
Bernal, R.
On the resolution "That 111,837
l.
s.
Mr. Hume
begged to offer a few observations on the estimate now before the committee. The total charge for the Ordnance in 1792 was 34,630
l.
*
l.
*
l.
l.
l.
Vide
879
l.
l.
l.
l.
l
l.
artificers
labourers
l.
l.
l.
l.
880
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
881
l.
Sir J. Newport
agreed with the hon. member in the view which he had taken of the establishment at Ballincollig.
Mr. Ward
denied that the salaries of the officers in the Ordnance department m Dublin were too large, considering the responsibility which they incurred.
The committee divided: For the Amendment, 53; Against it, 92. The resolution was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 22, 1821
TIMBER DUTIES BILL.]
Earl Bathurst.
rose to move that this bill be committed, and went into a detailed explanation of the grounds of the measure. He reminded their lordships that, in consequence of being excluded from the Baltic in the year 1809, the country had been thrown back on its own resources. It became necessary therefore to encourage the importation of timber from our colonies, and the duties were arranged with that view; but it was distinctly understood, that that arrangement was not to be permanent, and notice was given that the whole would be revised. The effect of this notice was, that the persons engaged in the trade took alarm, and made large importations, without any reference whatever to any increased demand. In 1817, the importations from America had been only 136,000 loads. In 1818 these 136,000 loads were, without any new demand, increased to 230,000 loads. This was entirely owing to speculation. In the same year there were also large importations from the Baltic. The quantity from the Baltic imported in 1817 was 79,900 loads, which increased in 1818 to 130,000 loads. The quantity both from the Baltic and America in 1817, was 216,000 loads; and in 1818, 334,000 loads. In 1819, from the effect of the notice, the importations from America rose to 249,000 loads; and, in the same year, the amount from the Baltic was 103,000loads, making the whole importation for that year, 352,000 loads. This was a great excess over the year 1817, in which, only 216,000 loads had
882
l.;
The Earl of Lauderdale,
after expressing his surprise that there should be so thin a House when a commercial measure of the greatest importance was to be discussed proceeded to oppose the bill. It had been proved in the committee that vessels made of American timber would not last one-half the time of those made of Baltic timber. In the committee he had asked a witness this question—"Suppose a house built of Norway fir were valued at 600
l.,
883
l.
Lord Ellenborough
, though he concurred in the objections urged against the bill, would oppose the amendment, because he thought some little benefit might arise from this measure, and was afraid, were the bill thrown out, that the influence of the shipping interest might be sufficient to prevent any other alteration from being made. He certainly expected that ministers would have acted with more firmness in this business. The effect of the bill would be a premium to introduce the dry rot into every building in the kingdom. If he should ever be again appointed on any committee of trade, he would endeavour to do his duty, but he should enter into it without the least hope of being able to accomplish any benefit for the country.
Lord King
strongly deprecated the bill.
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that their lordships were to consider, not whether this bill did all that could be wished, but whether it did not put these matters on a better footing than they were before? For his own part he thought it must improve the trade by reducing the duty on Baltic timber, from 3
l.
s.
l.
s.;
l.
s.
884
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that, after the part which he had taken in former discussions upon this subject, he could not help expressing his extreme regret and surprise at the speech of the noble earl. After all the consideration that this question had undergone; after the assurances so often given by the noble earl, that whenever any arrangements should be adopted for the purpose of effecting an alteration in this system, they should be on a complete and permanent scale; after four or five years of peace had been suffered to elapse, upon that very ground, without any thing being done, their lordships were now informed by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, that they were to pass a hill, founded, indeed, in; an erroneous policy, but one which established a system a little better than what had hitherto been acted on. The noble earl himself had not attempted to justify it, and had not offered one argument to support even his own qualified recommendation of it.
Earl Bathurst
said, that no arrangement existed to prevent government from revising the provisions of this bill at any future time, if it should be deemed expedient.
The amendment was negatived, and the House went into the committee.
PROTEST AGAINST THE TIMBER DUTIES BILL.]
The following Protest was entered on the Journals, by the earl of Lauderdale:
"Dissentient,"
"1st, Because, whilst the speeches in this House and the reports of our committees dis-
885
l.
s.
l.
s.
l
s.;
Proposed duty on Baltic timber per load of 50 cubic feet £
2
15
0
Deduct dirty to be imposed upon
0
10
0
Remains
2
5
0
Freight from Quebec per load
2
10
0
Freight from Memel per load
1
5
0
Difference
1
5
0
886
Deduct difference of freight on American timber
1
5
0
Remains the bounty which, under the purposed regulations, our colonies will enjoy
1
0
0
"Thus, instead of imposing a duty, as in 1812, amounting to 5
s.
l.
"Neither is this all; for the following calculations will show—1st, That the duties imposed on deals from our colonies, when compared with the duties on that article from Russia and Prussia, must be ruinous to the trade of the latter. 2dly, That on a comparison of the duties imposed on deals from our colonies with the duties that will fall to be paid on Norway deals, the difference must effect a complete prohibition of that article from Norway. 3dly, That our love of regulation and restriction has even extended to our imposing duties on Norway deals, which, when compared with the duties on deals from Russia and Prussia, must he ruinous to the Norwegian trade. 4thly, That, contrary to principle, and to all former practice, a bounty is given to the foreign manufacturer of deals, which must annihilate that branch of industry in this country.
1st.—Comparative amount of duties on deal from our colonies, and from Russia and Prussia, converting the deals into loads of timber of 50 cubic feet, and showing the advantage our colonies will have on each load of timber under the present arrangement.
1st. 120 deals, 16 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 8 loads, 40 feet cubic measure; and as 120 deals, 16 feet in length, are taxed at 191., this will amount per load to a duty of £.
2
3
2
120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2
l.;
0
4
0½
Difference of duty per load
1
18
7½
Deduct difference of freight as above betwixt America and the
1
5
0
Remains the real bounty given per load to our colonies on deals of those dimensions
0
13
7½
2dly—120 deals, 21 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 11 loads and 27 feet, cubical measure; and as 120, 21 feet in length, are taxed at 22
l.,
1
18
1
120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2
l.
s.
887
of
0
4
2¼
Difference of duty, per load which forms bounty in favour of our colonies.
1
13
10¾
Deduct difference of freight betwixt America and the Baltic
1
5
0
Remains the real bounty given per load to our colonies on deals
0
8
10¾
2dly,—Comparative amount of duties on deals from our colonies and from Norway, converting the deals into loads of timber of 50 pubic feet, and showing the advantage our colonies will have on each load of timber,: under the present arrangement:—
1st.—120 Norway deals, 12 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad, contain 5 loads, 20 feet cubical measure; and as 120 12 feet deals are taxed at 19
l.,
3
10
4
120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2
l.
0
7
4¾
Difference per load
3
2
11¼
Deduct difference of freight betwixt an American and Norway
1
10
0
Remains the real bounty given to our colonies on deals of these dimensions
1
12
11½
2nd.—120 Norway deals, 8 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad, contain 3 loads and 3 feet cubical measure; and as 120 deals, 8 feet in length, are taxed at 19
l.,
5
5
6¼
120 American deals of the same dimensions are taxed at 2
l.
0
11
1¼
Difference of duty per load
4
14
5¼
Deduct difference of freight betwixt an American and Norway voyage
1
10
0
Remains the real bounty given to our colonies on deals of these dimensions
3
4
5¼
3dly. Comparative amount of duties imposed by this bill on deals from Norway and from Russia, resulting from the circumstance that Norway deals cannot be had so as on an average to exceed 12 feet in length, and 9 inches in breadth; whilst Russia deals are always 11 inches broad, and may easily be had 16, or even 21 feet long.
1st.—120 Norway deals, 12 feet long, 3 inches think, and 9 inches broad, contain 6 loads and 20 feet cubical measure; and as 120 such deals are taxed at 19
l.,
3
10
4
120 Russian deals, 16 feet long, 3
888
inches thick, and 11 inches broad, contain 8 loads, and 40 feet cubical measure; and as 120 such deals are taxed at 19
l.,
2
3
2
Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals will enjoy under this bill over the Norwegian deals of these dimensions.
1
7
2
2dly. —120 Norway deals as above per load:
3
10
4
120 Russian deals 21 feet long, 3 inches thick; and 11 inches broad, contain 11 loads and 27 feet cubical measure; and as 120:such deals' are taxed at 22
l.,
1
18
1
Advantage pet load which the Russian deals will enjoy under this bill over the Norwegian deals of these dimensions
1
12
3
3dly.—120 Norway deals, 8 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad as above, pay per load
5
5
6
120 Russian, 16 foot deals, pay per load as above
2
3
2
Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals will enjoy under this bill, over the Norwegian deals of these dimensions
3
2
4
120 Norway 8-footdeals,as above, pay per load
5
5
6
120 Russia 21-foot deals pay per load
1
18
1
Advantage, per load, which the Russian deals of these dimensions will, under this bill, enjoy over the Norwegian deals of 8-foot dimensions
3
7
5
4thly. —Statement showing that the bounty given to Russian deals by the present bill, must destroy the manufacture of that article in this country.
1st. —Russian timber pays per load
2
3
2
Russian deals, 16 feet long and 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, &c, pay per load
2
3
2
Direct bounty on deals
0
11
10
Further, as the duty on the waste, and on the extra measure, with the low duty on slabs, amounts to 25 per cent, on the duty on the deal, this gives an advantage of
0
10
9
Total bounty in favour of the foreign deal manufacturer per load
1
2
7
2dty. —Russian timber, as above, per load
2
15
7
Russian deals, 21 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 11 inches broad, &c. pay per load
1
13
1
889
Direct bounty
0
16
11
Further duty on waste, above
0
9
6
Total bounty in favour of the foreign deal manufacture per load
1
6
5
"2nd. Because it appears to me that this House will treat with undeserved contempt the decision of their own committee—that it is expedient only to compensate to the Canadian importer of timber, the difference of freight and transport,' as well as the desire expressed by the committee of the Commons House of Parliament 'of adopting, in our intercourse with foreign nations, more liberal principles than those which have hitherto guided us,' if they sanction a bounty in favour of our colonies of nearly 100 per cent, on the value of the raw material, which will be the case if 1
l.
Besides, I must be of opinion that it is a measure highly injurious to the interests of the people of this country; for,, whilst it is undoubtedly proved that American timber is far less durable than that of the Baltic, and that this trade is of little or no advantage, except to what is called the shipping interest, I cannot forget that timber used in building, if it perishes, inflicts upon the people of this country the loss of the materials with which it is worked up, amounting at least to four times its own value; and that the committee of the House of Commons have, in their Report, stated, with great' truth, 'that the policy most advantageous for this country, is to obtain timber of the best quality, and at the lowest price, without reference to the quarter from which it is derived.'
"3d. Because, whilst I applaud the wish expressed by the committee of the House of Commons "of marking to foreign nations our desire, in the arrangement of the timber duties, to adopt more liberal principles than 'those by which our commerce with them has been hitherto governed," I must reprobate that unprecedented and unprincipled love of regulation and restriction exhibited in this bill to such an extent, that duties are laid on deals from Norway—a country that always admitted our manufactures at comparatively low duties—which, when compared with the more moderate duties imposed on deals from Itussia—a country which has recently increased its extravagant duties on our manufactures—can leave no doubt that a bounty of nearly 100 per cent on the value of the commodity is given to the latter.
"4th. Because though I agree in the prevalent opinion that our commercial code displays too much jealousy of foreign industry, and too great a desire to secure by prohibitory duties, to our own industry a monopoly of the home-market; yet I was not aware that the policy of a contrary system, viz., that of securing to foreign industry a monopoly of the home-market, had ever been maintained,
890
l.
s.
d.
"5th. Because, injurious to the country as it must be, to force into use, at an advanced price, timber of an inferior quality subject to premature decay, it appears to me that this is far from being the most serious calamity with which the proposed arrangement threatens this mercantile country.—Since the restoration of peace the tables of this and the other House of Parliament have been crowded with petitions from our merchants and manufacturers; in which, convinced of the great truth, that commerce is an exchange of equal value for equal value, and that it is impossible for goods to be imported into this country, without an equal value of our commodities being exported, they have strenuously enforced the necessity of doing away that restrictive, protective, and prohibitory system which has disgraced our commercial arrangements; anxiously urging, that by gradually adopting this line of conduct, we should not only afford relief to a suffering people, but secure to them important benefits, from the example this alteration of system would hold out to foreign nations.
To me, therefore, it appears the greatest of all calamities to see this House adopt a bill which, in regulating that branch of commerce that has first come under the consideration of parliament, not only prejudices the interest of foreign nations without any material benefit to our colonies, by forcing into use an article of colonial produce they could furnish cheaper and of a superior quality; but, by a partial arrangement of duty, regulates the comparative degree of intercourse We shall enjoy with other countries—thus, at once, unjustly sacrificing to the proprietors of shipping, who can alone derive advantage from it, the interest of the British consumers, and annihilating the reasonable expectations of benefit which our merchants hoped to derive from unrestrained commerce, by setting the example of illiberal preferences that will render it impossible for us to negotiate with foreign countries, with any chance of approximating to that freedom of intercourse which, if it could be established, must redound equally to the advantage of all.
(Signed) "LAUDERDALE."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 23, 1821
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.]
Mr. Dugdale
having presented a petition
891
Mr. Brougham
said, he was anxious to take the opportunity afforded to him by a petition being presented for an alteration in the criminal law, to complain of another alteration in the criminal laws, not made upon the sound and constitutional principles of his hon. and learned friend (sir J. Mackintosh), but upon principles and with feelings which justly created serious alarm in the public mind. He alluded to the inroad made upon that which, if not the exclusive right, had at least been the general practice of his majesty's attorney and solicitor-general—the proceeding officially against all persons guilty of offences against the church or state. He did not mean to contend that, by law, this right was vested solely in the solicitor and attorney-general, for he held that by law any man could proceed against another for a public offence. After the many associations which had existed for the prosecution of felonies, it would be hard to raise a question with respect to their strict legality. But the proceedings of these associations had always been confined to the prosecution of felonies, or of those odious crimes which came more immediately under the cognizance of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, which at the time of its establishment was strongly objected to, on the ground of its impropriety, but with respect to which, he wished to be understood to give no decided opinion. The Society for the Suppression of Vice, however, by confining itself to the object of its institution, and connecting itself with no party, had done less mischief than had been apprehended at the time of its establishment, and had even effected some good. But there was a society now in existence, of a perfectly different nature, which meant to proceed to the prosecution of political offences, to be selected at the discretion of political feeling. The prosecutions were to be conducted by means of a common fund, and no person of respectability could be fixed upon as immediately responsible for the acts of the society. He did not mean to say there were no respectable individuals connected with the association. He knew, indeed, that there were many most respectable persons connected with it, to whom, on the present occasion, he wished to address himself only in the language of expostulation. He believed that many
892
893
FORGERY PUNISHMENT MITIGATION
Sir James Mackintosh
The Solicitor-General
said, it was with great reluctance he opposed the motion of his hon. and learned friend. In doing so, he was not insensible to those feelings of humanity in which the measure had its origin; but he was compelled, in the discharge of his public duty, to give his negative to the bill. It was quite impossible that any party feeling or party view could influence any member on this subject; as it ought to be considered entirely on its own merits, which were, the interests of humanity, so far as those interests were compatible with the security of the public. The House was aware that this bill arose out of the report of a committee which had been appointed during the last session. He stated un-feignedly that he had the highest respect for the great talents, great discernment, and great experience of the members of the committee, than whom there could not be men better calculated for the impor-
894
s.
s.
895
Mr. Buxton.
—Was he convicted of the burglary?
The Solicitor General
.—There were seven cases of larceny charged against him, of four of those he was convicted; he was not convicted of the burglary. It was proved that he had cut down the timber from motives of malice against the proprietor of the land. He had thought it necessary to state the circumstance, not for the purpose of throwing any censure upon the committee, but to free the character of a venerable judge from the odium which might be thought to have been thrown by the report upon his memory.—In adverting to the bill before them, it appeared that the object of it was to take away, for the first offence, the punishment of death in cases of forgery of every description, save those of notes of the Bank of England. It was necessary, therefore, to consider the cases to which the bill applied. It applied to the forgery of wills—a crime easily committed, and by which families might be stript of their entire property. It applied also to the forgery of marriage registers—a crime which went to destroy not merely the property of families, but to affect the legitimacy and character of its members. It also applied to the forgery of deeds of conveyance of property to any amount, and cases of the transfer of stock—cases so very important, and on which depended property to a great amount. He recollected having been employed in one case where the party was charged with having committed forgery respecting the transfer of stock to the amount of 20,000
l.
896
897
898
899
900
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose, and addressed the House to the following purport:
*
Mr. Speaker
; in rising to follow the hon. and learned gentleman, I should not do justice to my own feelings, if I did not express my satisfaction at the fair and candid statement which he has made; and I rejoice that no insurmountable difference as to principle appears to exist between that learned gentleman and my hon. and learned friend, the member for Knaresborough (sir J. Mackintosh). The Solicitor-general has stated, that no efficient substitute for capital punishment has as yet been discovered, and therefore that, as yet, the House is not in a condition to dismiss that species of penalty. Now, sir, I should be guilty of insincerity if I were to contend that transportation was any punishment at all. In fact, it is a privilege, and a privilege open to as many of his majesty's subjects as may qualify themselves for its enjoyment, by the commission of a transportable offence. Indeed, if the present were a time to enter into such a discussion, I would undertake to show, by documents in my possession, that transportation is neither considered as a punishment, nor has the effects of a punishment. But, how does the hon. and learned gentleman assume that there is no other mode of secondary punishment, when we have annual returns from the office of the secretary of state, giving the most flattering account of the success of another species of secondary punishment, namely, the Hulks? I am not prepared to state that that mode of punishment is in a perfect state; on the contrary, I entirely distrust its efficiency. But I am prepared to declare, that imprisonment, with hard labour and occasional solitary confinement, and constant inspection, and rigid discipline, is, in fact, the punishment you require. But, how stands the solicitor-general's argument? "We, the officers of the Crown, the legal and responsible advisers of his majesty, have certainly neglected our duty in not having provided a secondary punishment; and therefore, let those who are in no sense the legal and responsible advisers of
*
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
"Evertere domos totas, optantibus ipsis Dii faciles."
912
à fortiori
913
During the first five years,
During the last five years,
Highway Robbery
31
77—
The number more than doubled.
Burglary
30
108—
The number more than trebled.
Horse-stealing
7
31—
The number more than Quadrupled.
Stealing in Dwelling-houses
4
45—
The number increased more than eleven-fold.
914
First five years during which the Offence was capital.
Last five years during which the Offence was not capital.
Antrim
24
18
Armagh
11
4
Down
15
12
Lowth
4
5
Monaghan
7
3
915
916
917
918
919
*
*
920
921
922
923
924
*
"On showing Mercy in Judgement.
"On showing Mercy
*
†Wilkins, p. 133. ‡Ibid. p. 143.
925
926
927
how
pro tempore.
sub silentio,
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
Mr. Payne
, clerk to the sitting magistrates Guildhall.
Mr. Hobbler
, clerk to the Lord Mayor, 30 years.
Mr. Yardly
, clerk to the Police-Office, Worship-street, 30 years.
Mr. Thompson
, clerk to the Police-Office, White-chapel, since its establishment, 26 years.
Mr. Newman
, city solicitor for 30 years.
936
937
938
939
940
"Whence but from Heaven could men un-skill'd in arts,
In various ages born, in various parts,
Weave such agreeing truths—or how, or why,
Should all conspire to cheat us with a, lie?"
"Weave such agreeing truths—or how, or why,
Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie?
941
942
s.
l.
s.
s.
l.
s.;
l.
s.
d.;
l.
s.;
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.;
l.;
l.
s.;
943
l.;
l.
s.
d.;
s.;
l.
s.;
l.;
s.
d.;
s.
s.
s.
d.
d.
l.;
s.,
d.
s.
l.,
l.,
s.
l.;
s.;
s.,
s.
l.
s.,
l.
s.,
l.
s.,
s.;
d.
d.
l.
d.
s.
s.;
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
s.
944
l.
s.;
l.
s.;
l.;
l.
s.,
s.
l.;
l.;
l.;
l;
l.;
l.;
l.;
s.
l.
s.
s.
d.
d.
s.,
d.
l.
s.,
s.,
s.
s.
l.
s.
s.
s.,
945
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
l.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
l.
946
s.
947
Not
Guilty:
'Guilty,"
Of Manslaughter.
948
949
950
951
952
Mr. Bright
eulogized the eloquence and ability of the exposition given by the hon. member for Weymouth, but stated that he could not concur in the propriety of repealing the law by which forgery was rendered punishable with death. He contended that this crime was the crime of education and trade: and that for the protection of property, in the present state of society, it was necessary to inflict upon those who were guilty of it the severest punishment which could be invented. He went on to maintain that the statements in the report were not borne out by the evidence appended to it; and he exemplified his position by reference to various parts of the testimony, especially to that of sir A. Macdonald. It had been stated that a number of bankers had formed an association for the purpose of prosecuting persons who had committed forgeries, but that the severity of the law had deterred them, in many instances, from proceeding. Not one of the members of this association had, however, been examined before the committee; and yet, defective as the evidence was, they now came forward and asked for a most essential alteration in the law, which they described as unfit for the present constitution of society. He did not mean to defend all the minor enactments of the criminal law; but he took his stand on one of the greatest offences that could be committed against such a community as that in which we lived. If an alteration were made in the state of the law with respect to that offence, it would become necessary to alter the whole of the criminal code, from murder to hedge-breaking. For whom, he would ask, were they to legislate? Were they to legislate for the whole community, or only for individuals. Was a man to tell him that he would prosecute, provided he (Mr. Bright) legislated as
953
954
Mr. J. Smith
said, he should have thought it improper to offer a single remark to the House on the present occasion, after the forcible impression which had been made by the able and eloquent speech of the hon. member for Weymouth—a speech highly creditable to his talents, but still more creditable to his humanity—if it had hot been for the allusion made to himself by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. Now, he would contend that the punishment of death being certain to follow the crime of forgery had, in many instances, occasioned the escape of the offender altogether; because individuals could not bear the idea of prosecuting when the penalty was so severe. With respect to the individual referred to, he was only 16 years of age; and, under all the circumstances of the case, it was felt by those who were interested in bringing him to punishment, that it would be the greatest possible cruelty to prosecute him capitally. There had been established for many years past a society of bankers who united to protect themselves from forgery; and, although a solicitor was appointed who had nothing to do but to prosecute, and to receive his fee for acting professionally, yet it was well known that cases did occur, in the course of which means were taken to prevent the prosecution of individuals charged with forgery. He had known persons the most ignorant, the most helpless, the most artless, who had been betrayed into the commission of this offence. He did not mean to say that they were not guilty of a great crime; but certainly they were not fit objects for capital punishment. There was, he recollected, an individual found guilty of forgery some time ago, and ordered for execution. As there were some peculiarities in his case, he, knowing the humanity of the noble lord at the head of the home department, had taken the liberty of making application to him in behalf of the culprit. This was on the Saturday, and the convict was to have been executed on the Tuesday following. A respite was, however, procured; and he had some conversation with the unfortunate convict. He had been found guilty of uttering several forged bank notes, and for each note he so uttered, he had received five shillings. This poor creature was an Irishman, who came over here to make hay; and he could not convince him that he had committed any
955
Mr. R. Martin
observed, that the petitions on the table afforded abundant proof that the sense of the country was adverse to making forgery a capital crime. In answer to what had fallen from the learned solicitor-general, he would ask that learned gentleman, whether, if he had a ward at that university, where the learned gentleman had obtained so much honour, and if a friend of that ward were to commit a forgery upon him for 50
l.
l.;
l.;
956
Dr. Lushington
did not mean to enter at large into the arguments on which the proposition of his hon. and learned friend for an alteration in the state of the criminal law was founded. The lateness of the hour, and the admirable speech of the hon. member for Weymouth, rendered such a course not only unnecessary but improper. He would, however, make a few observations founded on facts, which he thought would clearly show the necessity of repealing the punishment of death for the crime of forgery, except for the forgery of bank-notes. The solicitor-general had described the forgery of wills as a crime which might visit whole families with ruin, and which, therefore, ought to be prevented by the utmost severity of punishment. But it should be observed that the forging of wills was an exceedingly rare offence. During a connexion of thirteen years with that court before which all disputed wills must necessarily be brought, but three instances of forged wills had occurred. The learned gentleman would perhaps argue, that the rareness of the offence was to be attributed to the severity of the punishment. But let the House mark the fact—in not one of those three instances had there been any prosecution whatsoever. In each of them the individual guilty of the crime had escaped with perfect impunity. As if to render the circumstance more extrordinary—as if the more effectually to controvert the learned gentleman's proposition—it so happened that one of those cases had occurred that very morning, A person had forged a will for the purpose of defrauding a brother, who was heir to a certain property. The offender confessed his crime, and he (Dr. L.) had read the letter, which was, in consequence, written by the party against whom the fraud was meditated. He there said—"I have no inclination to be vindictive. Let me have the property, and I will not prosecute." He believed that in the other cases of this nature the same thing occurred. But forging a will was
957
958
l.
959
l.
Mr. Nolan
thought this was not the time for discussing the state of the police. That subject could be better entered upon when the report of the gaol committee came before the House. It was a grave question, whether that punishment should be withdrawn from the crime of forgery, which for ages had been regarded
960
Mr. Wynn
concurred with his learned friend who spoke last but one, in thinking that the onus lay upon those who wished to maintain the propriety of capital punishments in these cases, to establish it by proof. If any man entertained a doubt whether the penalty of death was absolutely necessary, he was bound to vote for the bill. Nothing short of absolute necessity, the safety of the state, and the preservation of society, could justify its continuance,
Cuncta prius tentanda.
961
Mr. W. Courtenay
expressed himself in favour of going into the committee. It was right that parliament should look to the state of the public mind, which was manifested by the number of petitions that had been presented from time to time. These petitions had already produced some effect. A committee was appointed in the first instance; and though he was against the appointment of that committee, it was not because he objected to the mitigation of the criminal law, but because he thought the object might have been more effectually accomplished by other means. There was not the slightest ground for charging the committee with a predetermination to support the measure in question. The House had appointed the committee in consequence of the numerous petitions presented on the part of the people. That committee now laid before the House the grounds upon which their recommendation was founded, and the petitions on the table pointed out the course recommended by the committee. He could therefore say with confidence that the recommendation of the committee, so far from being contrary to, was in accordance with the wishes and feelings of the people of England. One argument urged against the proposed bill had given him considerable pain, namely, that the punishment of death ought to be continued, because we were deficient in effective secondary punishments. Now, he could not consent to the continuation of capital punishments upon such grounds, if it was contended, that the state of the people of this country was such as to render secondary punishments ineffective, the argument in favour of capital punishments would be a good one; but he maintained that this was not the case.—A little time would enable us so to arrange our prisons as to make secondary punishments effectual in preventing crime. The solicitor-general had observed, and truly, that we had not had much experience of the effects of hard labour upon criminals; but then, let that mode of punishment be tried, and he had no doubt but it would prove effectual. He had not made up his mind upon that part of the measure which regarded the forging of wills and other private instruments. That part of
962
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he was anxious to state to the House, as shortly as possible, the reasons which would influence his vote on the present occasion; and in doing so, he did not consider that he at all involved himself in a refusal to take into consideration those legislative measures proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth for reducing the standard of punishment in criminal cases. He flattered himself that the House, in what it had already done, had given to the country an earnest of its determination to do all that could be practically done upon this subject. In entering upon this subject he did not feel it necessary to follow the hon. member for Weymouth through this new and perfect system of police which was to take charge of men, and conduct them clear of all the snares and temptations of life. That subject, however important in itself, was not involved in the discussion of this evening. The real question narrowed itself into this—ought they to pass this bill for remitting capital punishment in all cases of forgery, save those upon the Bank of England? They were to inquire whether this humane measure was supported by the sound sense of legislative arrangement, or whether it did not arise from that philanthropic spirit which they were all anxious to conform to as much as possible. He could not perceive that Bank of England notes stood upon a principle so different from other securities as to require a special exception in their favour. It appeared to him that they stood upon a footing with all other negociable instruments of a similar character. But it was urged that bank-notes had been made a legal tender. He appealed to the House whether this was the fact? They never had been made a legal tender; on the contrary, no principle had been held more sacred than that it should not be compulsory to receive them. True, it was compulsory upon individuals to take those notes for their own convenience, as they could not exist without them; but the same might be said of country notes, for if those notes did not pass in the country, the whole operations of business must be suspended. If he was right in this point, and if the hon. member gave up the question of wills, then he had the whole question
in
963
pari materie
964
Mr. Wilberforce
said, he would not, trouble the House were it not for this reason, that if the bill did not pass in its present stage, he should be sorry to have omitted this opportunity of giving his testimony in. support of it. He regretted much that many gentlemen who would vote upon the question were not in the House early enough to hear the powerful arguments and persuasive eloquence of the hon. member for Weymouth. His speech, showed that his ideas on the subject were not taken up merely on speculation, but were founded on actual observation, and facts collected with the greatest industry. He was glad to perceive that his noble friend opposed the bill in a spirit which showed that his feelings favoured the principle, though he did not think it prudent at present to agree to any mitigation of the existing punishment. Whatever strength, however, the arguments of his noble friend might have as applied to the merits of the bill, he did not think they ought to prevent the House from going into the committee. This he thought they ought to agree to, were it only for the purpose of giving the measure that full and fair consideration which its importance merited. It ought to be made apparent to the country, that the House had not, until after minute consideration, agreed to a continuance of such painful severities; and for that reason, he
965
Sir James Mackintosh
said, it had been objected to him, that he had not opened his view of the question. His reason for not doing so was, that he had, in 1819 and last year, addressed the House upon the measure, and he did not, on this occasion, wish to fatigue them with a repetition of the same arguments. But that was now charged against him as an offence, which he had done as a matter of courtesy. It was, however, of little consequence what he said upon this question. The subject was one of great magnitude, and it would ill become him to indulge in any personal feelings in discussing it. He should, were it not that he conceived that silence would not become him on such an occasion, most willingly rest his case upon the very luminous and able speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Buxton)—a speech which contained the clearest and most extended view of this great question, and which he felt himself bound to say, was the most powerful appeal that he had ever had the good fortune to hear within the walls of parliament. After such a speech, it was needless for him to enter at length into details, and in order to spare as much as possible the time of the House and his own strength, he would avoid touching upon any thing not immediately connected with the question before them. He would, therefore, abstain from entering into a defence of the committee, satisfied that the character of his hon. and learned friend would be more than sufficient to repel any attack made
966
967
968
969
970
The Attorney-General
said, he had to complain of the manner in which the hon. and learned member had brought forward the present measure. He certainly did expect to have heard him open the subject with something like a general explanation of the principles upon which his bills were founded. As, however, he had not done so, his hon. and learned friend must excuse him if he stated, that he had just left the question where it was before he touched it. That being the case, and considering the lateness of the hour, he should not enter into the merits of the bill. He objected to it, because the punishment of death was effective to prevent private forgeries, and the permission of pleading to the minor offence for forgery of Bank notes had increased that offence. If he required another argument to support
971
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out do stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes; 74. The bill was then committed; and at two in the morning, the House adjourned.
List of the Majority and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Allen, J. H.
Folkestone, lord
Attwood, M.
Frankland, R.
Acland, sir T.
Gladstone, J.
Baring, sir T.
Gordon, R.
Baring, A.
Graham, S,
Barnard, visct.
Grenfell, P.
Barrett, S. M.
Griffiths, J. W.
Becher, W. W.
Gurney, H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Harbord, hon. E.
Benett, J.
Heron, sir R.
Benyon, B.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Birch, J.
Hornby, E.
Brougham, H.
Hume, J.
Bury, visct.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Byng, G.
Handley, H
Belgrave, visct.
Johnson, col.
Bentinck, lord W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Blake, sir F.
Lester, B. L.
Bent, J.
Lennard, T. B.
Baillie, S.
Lawley, F.
Calvert, C.
Langstone, J. H.
Calvert, N.
Macdonald, J.
Chaloner, R.
Money, W. T.
Calcraft, J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Carter, J.
Musgrave, sir P.
Cavendish,
Martin, J.
Cavendish, C.
Martin, R.
Clifton, visct.
Milbank
Clifford, capt.
Milton, visct.
Colborne, N. R.
Monck, J. B.
Concannon, L.
Moore, P.
Cooper, R. B.
Moore, A.
Cripps, J.
Nugent, lord
Calthorpe, hon. F.
O'Callaghan, J.
Courtenay, W.
Ord, W.
Child, W. L.
Palmer, C. F.
Corbett, P.
Phillimore, Dr.
Denison, W. J.
Parnell, sir H.
Denman, T.
Phillips, G. jun.
Duncannon, visct.
Price, R.
Doveton, G.
Pryse, P.
Deerhurst, visct.
Ramsden, J. C.
Dowdeswell, E.
Ricardo, D.
Ellis, hon. G. W. A.
Rowley, sir W.
Ellice, E.
Rumbold, C.
Fitzroy,—
Russell, lord W
972
Russell, lord J.
Rice, S.
TELLERS.
Stopford, lord
Buxton, T. F.
Smith, J.
Lushington, Dr.
Smith, W.
PAIRED-OFF.
Smith, R.
Scarlett, J,
Aubrey, sir J.
Stanley, lord
Anson, hon. G.
Tennyson, C.
Bernal, R.
Tulk, C. A.
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Creevey, T.
Vernon, G.
Davies, T. H.
Wells, J.
Fergusson, sir R. G.
Ward, hon. J. W.
Guise, sir W.
Wilmot, R.
Heathcote, G. J.
Wilberforce, W.
Hill, lord A.
Whitmore, W. W.
Maberly, J.
Wynn, sir W. W.
Newman, R. W.
Wynn, C. W. W.
Powlett, hon. W.
Webbe, E.
Robinson, sir G.
Western, C. C.
Sefton, earl of
Whitbread, S. C.
Smith, S.
Williams, T. P.
Taylor, M. A.
Williams, W.
Tynte, C.
Wilson, sir R.
Tavistock, marq. of,
Wodehouse, E.
Wharton, J.
Wood, M
Whitbread, W. H.
MINORITY.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Hotham, lord
Apsley, lord
Harvey, adml.
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Londonderry, marq. of
Binning, lord
Beckett, rt. hon. J.
Lushington, S. R.
Barry, rt. hon. J. M.
Lowther, J.
Buchanan, J.
Lowther, J. jun.
Bright, H.
Luttrell, T. E.
Bankes, H.
Long, sir C.
Bankes, G.
Lenox, lord
Boughey, sir J. F.
Lewis, W.
Browne, P.
Marjoribanks, sir J.
Bourne, rt. hon. S.
Morland, sir S. B.
Brecknock, lord
Osborne, sir J.
Brownlow, C.
Ommanney, sir F.
Chetwynd, G.
Pole, rt. hon. W. W.
Clive, lord
Phipps, hon. E.
Clive, H.
Pitt, J.
Collett, E. J.
Peirse, H.
Cockburne, sir G.
Paxton, W. G.
Curteis, J. E.
Rae, sir W.
Cheere, E. M.
Robinson, rt. hon. F.
Clerk, sir G.
Russell, J. W.
Drummond, J.
Rogers, E.
Douglas, W. R. K.
Robarts, A.
Downie, R.
Rickford, W.
Egerton, W.
Scott, hon. W.
Eliot, hon. W.
Sotheron, adml.
Fane, J.
Scott, S.
Gifford, sir R.
Somerset, lord G.
Gordon, hon. W.
Stuart-Wortley, J. A.
Greville, hon. sir C.
Tremayne, J. H.
Goulburn, H.
Wemyss, J.
Giddy, D,
Wilson, T.
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Wells, J.
Harding, col.
Wyndharn, W.
Holford, G. P.
Yarmouth, earl of
973
TELLERS.
Jenkinson, hon. C.
Lowther, lord
Copley, sir J.
Lewis, T. F.
Nolan, M.
Manners, lord R.
PAIRED-OFF.
Mountcharles, lord
Percy, hon. capt.
Ancram, lord
Portman, E. B.
Ashurst, W. H.
Ryder, rt. hon. R.
Bathurst, hon. S.
Sheldon, R.
Cocks, S.
Smith, C.
Curtis, sir W.
Strathaven, lord
Dalrymple, A. J.
Warrender, sir G.
Holmes, sir L. S.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 24, 1821
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
The Earl of Harrowby
objected to the arrangement by which four members were to be elected for the county of York. He thought it would be much better to give the two members taken from Grampound to a district of the county, including certain towns, as Leeds, Huddersfield, Wakefield, &c. This would obviate the great inconvenience that would arise in taking the poll at once for the whole county.
The Earl of Liverpool
was of opinion, that if it was not thought fit to create a new borough, the members ought to be added to some place which already possessed the right of election. With regard to the inconvenience of taking a poll for the whole county of York, he should have no objection to a proposition for allowing polls to be taken in different parts of the county. But that could only be done by a separate measure.
The Earl of Harewood
said, that the measure was a departure from every principle by which parliament had been guided in former cases. The county of York was, indeed, completely thrown off its guard with respect to it; for, as the other House had refused to transfer the representation to Yorkshire, no expectation could have been entertained of such an alteration in the bill as that which had been made. As to taking the poll in different parts of the county, that was a scheme to which he objected, chiefly on account of the difficulty of executing it. Who was to be the superintending officer? Would persons be found willing to do the duties of sheriff only for a fortnight? If they did, it was likely they would be electioneering partisans, and therefore not the
974
The House divided: Contents, 39; Not-contents, 12. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 24, 1821
MOTION RESPECTING THE FOUR AND A HALF PER CENT DUTIES.]
Mr. Creevey
rose to make his promised motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Leeward Island duties. He had on a former evening called the attention of the House to this subject. Of its importance no person could express a doubt who felt the necessity of making every just and possible retrenchment. The persons who questioned his law, and opposed his views on this subject, were certain ladies and gentlemen of high rank, who put into their own pockets the fund that should be applied to colonial purposes alone. One would have thought that the guardians of the public purse would have received with satisfaction any suggestion on this head; but when it was considered that many of those guardians themselves received part of this fund, the House would see that he had a difficult task to perform when he attempted to restore it to the purposes to which, in justice, and in law, it ought to have been applied. He would for the present take the case of the island of Barbadoes only. With respect to the law of the case, he would recite the colonial act, dated 12th Sept. 1663, by which the duty of 4½ per cent, on all goods the product of the island, which should be shipped from thence, was granted to his majesty for the purpose of keeping up the honour, and dignity of the government in the Island, and for building and keeping fortifications and other public works in repair. In that act he saw nothing, with respect to pensioners of the Crown; he did not see one single word to authorize the appropriation of those duties to pensions for lords and gentlemen,, and more particularly members of that House, The obvious intention of the act of 1663 was however departed from; and about 40 years after that act had been passed, a
975
l.
976
977
l.
l.
Mr. Goulburn
was not surprised at the hostility which sortie hon. gentlemen felt towards this fund, as they were evidently unacquainted with its real history. Many publications had of late issued from the
978
l.
979
l.
l.
Mr. Bernal
entered into an historical review of the government of the island of Barbadoes, and adverted to the rapacious measures pursued towards the colonists in the reign of Charles 2nd. At that period the earl of Carlisle obtained a proprietary grant of the revenues of the island, and afterwards consigned the interest for a limited period to the earl of Pembroke, from whom it passed to a merchant on the island. The second earl of Carlisle at a subsequent period leased out his interest to lord Kinnoul, who again transferred his right to lord Willoughby; and these successive persons conducted themselves with so much rapacity, that the colonists were under the necessity of claiming the protection of king Charles. They begged permission of that unprincipled monarch to try at law the validity of the letters patent under which the exactions had been carried on; but the king, instead of granting this request, referred the matter to certain lords of his council, of whom the earl of Clarendon was one; and the conduct then pursued was among the grounds of charge adduced in the subsequent impeachment of that earl. This duty of four and a half per cent, was first proposed to the colonial council, by a colonist named Kendall, who had acted without the authority of the people of Barba-
980
Mr. Bennet
said, he was not surprised that the hon. member opposite should endeavour to get rid of the force of the colonial act, by saying that the colonists had subsequently submitted, and acknowledged the error into which they had fallen. They had indeed submitted; but to what? To the encroachment of the strong—to the arbitrary plundering of an oppressive government. He expressed his concurrence in the construction of the acts, as they had been quoted by his hon. friends, and contended that the act of George 1st. threw back the produce of these 4½ per cent, duties to their original design, namely, the maintenance of the local government at Barbadoes. For a long succession of years that appropriation had actually taken place, and it was not until 1796 that a different system grew up, and pensions were assigned from this fund. At first they were comparatively small; lord Auckland and sitGrey Cooper received 1,200
l.
l.
l.
981
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
observed, that with respect to the 4½ per cent, duties, there had been no return of their produce or application laid before the House since the year 1818. These duties had always been credited to the public, and formed part of the public revenue, up to 1778. Until 1796, indeed, some portion of this fund was returned as part of the public revenue; when it disappeared altogether, having been exhausted in pensions granted by his majesty. But, as the individuals to whom those pensions were granted happened to fall, it was surely fair that the surplus should be appropriated to the use of the public. That was the object of his hon. friend, and in this object lie called upon the landed gentlemen to support him.
Sir C, Long
read extracts from two reports of the finance committee on this subject; and from these he inferred, that the committee had recognised the right of the Crown to the 4½ per cent, duties, and that they formed no part of the public revenue. He also noticed that Mr. Burke's bill did not at all interfere with the fund in question, though the attention of parliament had been particularly called to the subject, and contended that the grant to the earl of Kinnoul was just as illegal as any of those subsequently made. In conclusion, he adverted to the anonymous slanders circulated against
982
Mr. Creevey
shortly replied, relying upon the act of 1663, and contending that his case was unshaken by anything said in answer to his motion. He asked for the relinquishment of no pension, but merely that the matter in future should be put upon a clear, fair, and intelligible footing.
The previous question being put, the House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 73. Majority against Mr. Creevey's motion, 21.
List of the Minority.
Bury, lord
Moore, A.
Boughton, sir W. R.
Maxwell, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Martin, J.
Brougham, H.
Maberly, J.
Blake, sir F.
Newport, sir J.
Calvert, C.
Ossulston, lord
Chaloner, R.
Ord, W.
Denison, W. J.
Parnell, sir H.
Ellice, E.
Phillips, G.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Palmer, C. F.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Russell, lord J.
Forbes, C.
Robinson, sir G.
Guise, sir W.
Ramsbottom, J.
Gordon, R.
Robarts, col.
Gurney, H.
Rumbold, C. E.
Heron, sir R.
Ricardo, D.
Harbord, hon. E.
Smith, hon. R.
Hume, J.
Scarlett, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sebright, sir J.
Hornby, E.
Taylor, M. A.
James, W.
Western, C. C.
Lennard, T.
Wilson, sir R.
Lockhart, J. J.
Wilson, T.
Lester, B. L.
Williams, W.
Milton, lord
Webb, col.
Macdonald, J,
TELLERS.
Monck, J. B,
Creevey, T.
Bernal, R.
Mr. Creevey
maintained the correctness of the assertion which he had made, that the 4½ per cent, duties were exhausted in pensions to members of parliament and their connections. He was in possession of the names of members of that House who received pensions to the amount of 13,000
l.
983
OCCASIONAL VOTES BILL.]
Mr. W. Williams
rose to introduce a bill to prevent fraudulent votes being given at the election of members to sit in parliament. That an evil existed in the election of members for particular cities-and boroughs, by individuals giving occasional votes, arising from freeholds under 40
s.
s.
VAGRANT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
Mr. Chetwynd
said, he took the earliest opportunity of obeying the directions of the select committee, appointed a short time since to inquire into the laws respecting Vagrants, for the purpose of bringing forward a measure in conformity with the report of that committee, as to the best means of apprehending, punish-
984
l.
d.
d.
985
s.
s.
Mr. Scarlett
adverted to the absurdity of the present system of the laws, by which vagrants were sent to their places of settlement, to receive precisely the same punishment which might have been inflicted upon them in the first instance. If it was necessary to punish vagrants at all, surely the cheaper and more expeditious mode would be to punish them in the place where the act of vagrancy was committed, instead of sending them from one end of the kingdom to the other at a great public expense. This view of the question was calculated to illustrate the arguments which he had urged on a former occasion with regard to the law of settlement. In fact, to send a pauper to his place of settlement, was in most cases to send him to a place where he had no connexions, and no means of obtaining a livelihood. He hoped, therefore, that his learned friend would propose some measure to limit the discretion of justices in this respect. The mere circumstance of a man being reduced to necessity, was not in itself to be regarded as a crime; it was only against the sturdy, incorrigible vagrant, that the penalties of the law were directed.
Mr. F. Lewis
contended that there was no place in which a vagrant was so likely to abandon his idle habits, and apply himself to useful labour, as that in which the law emphatically styled him to be last settled. There would be difficulty in dealing with a part of the system of the Poor-laws, without considering in what
986
Mr. Lockhart
observed, that this bill did not touch the real question, namely, whether vagrancy was or was not a crime? There were many classes of vagrants known to the law. Beggars, for instance, who solicited charity; others, who did not actually solicit alms, but who carried on some foolish and trifling business; and, a third class, who endeavoured to excite pity, by the exposure of some bodily infirmity. All these came under the operation of the present law. He was of opinion, that vagrancy might be effectually checked, without having recourse to a multiplicity of prosecutions. Suppose a beggar applied for charity; what was the best way of repelling him? Why, give him nothing. If this principle were acted on, men would soon see the necessity of exerting themselves to obtain a livelihood. The vagrant, instead of being passed to his settlement at the public expense, ought to be compelled to proceed thither as well as he could. The effect of a restrictive system, by which each parish could only incur a specific expense, would, he conceived, be beneficial. At present, the poor were taught, not to rely on their own exertions, but on the exertions of others; and the consequence was that they ceased to be saving, industrious, and economical. The bill was that sort of measure which, if carried, would lead the country to believe that they meant-to continue, with some modification, that destructive system which had too long, prevailed.
Mr. Cripps
said, that if the House acceded this session to the measure proposed by Mr. Scarlett, undoubtedly the present bill must go hand in hand with it. But if that measure should not be carried this session, he hoped the House would agree to try an experiment, which, as the measure was limited only to one year, could at any rate produce no very injurious consequences.
Mr. Monck
observed, that, by the laws of this country, no man was permitted to starve and die of want. Some relief, therefore, must be afforded to destitute persons; and though, in a general point of view, it was a matter of indifference to the country, whether that relief were afforded in one place or another, it was by no means a matter of indifference to A. sand B. the two parishes, which was to be bur-thened with the permanent support of
987
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, the subject was full of conflicting difficulties, and the object of the legislature must be to find that alternative, which was liable to the smallest share of objection. The House was scarcely in a situation to discuss this question with advantage, since they had neither the report of the committee, nor the bill before them. He could not but suggest, therefore, that the question would be more advantageously discussed on the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Harbord
wished for an improvement in the system, and for an alteration, of the treatment experienced by vagrants in houses of correction, so as to ensure their being put to hard labour. An hon. member seemed to think, with a view to putting a stop to vagrancy, it was only necessary to refuse the beggar relief. This plan might answer for a society in a state of nature, but was inapplicable to one in our present artificial state; and could not be reconciled with the principles of our religion.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
POOR RELIEF BILL.]
Sir J. Graham
presented a petition in favour of the principle of this bill, from the inhabitants of Marylebone.
Mr. Scarlett
expressed his satisfaction that this populous and respectable parish approved of the bill. It was his intention to modify it in a future stage, so as to prevent any inconvenience being occasioned to local interests.
Mr. Curteis
observed, that the bill had met with the approbation of a large body of the inhabitants of Sussex.
Mr. Mansfield
said, he had been requested by his constituents to express their disapprobation of the bill. They considered it not only highly impolitic but impracticable, at a period, when so great a number of labourers, both in the manufacturing and agricultural districts, were unable to obtain employment.
Mr. Curwen
expressed a hope that the learned gentleman would not press his measure at the present moment; as he was convinced, from the generally dis-
988
Mr. Birch
presented a petition from the parish of St. Mary, Nottingham, against the bill, which they believed would, if carried into effect proveruinous to the country.
Mr. Scarlett
observed, that out of the great multitude of communications which he had received on the subject, very few were opposed to the bill in principle.
Mr. Jenkinson
thought that the learned gentleman deserved the thanks of the country for having brought before the House a measure on this most important subject.
Mr. Calcraft
said, his learned friend deceived himself if be thought the bill met with general approbation. He trusted he would not press it this session, and referred to an official statement he had received from Broadwater in Sussex, showing that the poor-rates could be lowered under a proper administration of the present laws.
Mr. Lawley
said, that in Warwick the opposition to the measure was general.
Mr. Lockhart
could not agree that the rates could be lowered under the present system. He hoped the measure would be discussed, in order that the opinion of ministers might be known. The reduction was often not so great as it appeared. The poor-rates were generally estimated at 8,000,000
l.
l.
Mr. D. Browne
said, that the poor-rates amounted to a sum as great as was necessary for carrying on the purposes of the British government on the accession of the late king. Unless something was done to stop the evil, the entire property of the country would ultimately be taken out of the hands of the ancient proprietors.
Mr. F. Palmer
contended that the rates might be diminished under the existing laws. In Oakingham they were reduced last year 4
s
Mr. Scarlett
said, that if the subject had not frequently been brought under the consideration of parliament and the public, he would have been more ready to accede to the wish of some of his friends to postpone the bill. But as the principle of
989
l.
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. On the order of the day being read,
Mr. Scarlett
, in rising to move the second reading of his bill, commenced by observing, that he wished at the outset to state, that it never was his intention, even when he first proposed the measure, to incumber it with many matters of detail. He was desirous rather to point out to the House the principles upon which he thought the present system of our poor-laws a vicious one, and one which required correction. He had been desirous of putting it in the most simple form, and of calling the attention of the House to what he conceived to be the grand sources of those evils under which we now laboured. He would shortly recapitulate the three great causes of all the various mischiefs and inconveniences which were found to result from our present system of poor-laws. They were to be found, first, in a compulsory and unlimited provision for the poor; secondly, in the administration of that provision, not to support industry, to encourage good conduct, and to be a relief for those who might be disabled by infirmities, but to cherish the vices and the indolence of that class of the poor who were disposed to exist rather on the charity of others, than to depend for their bread upon their own exertions: thirdly (which was the grand and principal source of all those evils, as compared with the others), in the restraint that now existed upon the free exercise of labour. No one was more aware than
990
991
gamut
992
l.
993
maximum
maximum
pro tempore,
maximum,
994
s.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that before the House consented to abrogate the laws of Elizabeth, those laws which Blackstone had described as founded upon the first principles of civilized society, they should look at the artificial state in which, from circumstances, the country was placed. When labour was in many places an unmarketable drug; when corn laws and excise laws prevented the lower orders from obtaining at a low price the necessaries of life; when the poor were many of them absolutely unable to obtain a livelihood, surely they had a right to look for the means of existence, to those who had the power of affording them those means. Let the House beware how they touched that statute of Elizabeth, which was the Magna Charta of the poor, and might be called the palladium of their rights. Men would live; and it was better that they should live by charity than by rapine. The statute of Elizabeth provided that the lame, the blind, and the indigent poor,
995
maximum
maximum
minimum.
996
Mr. F. Lewis
could not refrain from offering a few words on that part of the gallant general's speech in which he seemed to consider the statute of Elizabeth as the Magna Charta of the poor, and the palladium of their rights. That he utterly denied. He denied that the House ought to consider that or any other law on the subject as one which they were not perfectly justified in amending, according to the demand of the time, or their altered view of the circumstances of the case. The basis of the constitution was, the security which it gave to all persons in the enjoyment of whatever property they had honestly come by. If it could be shown that the principle of the poor-laws was subversive of that by which property was protected, then it would be evident that such an antagonist principle ought not to be allowed to prevail. The meaning of the statute of the 43rd of Elizabeth was, to inflict compulsory labour by way of punishment, not to afford labour for the mere purpose of maintenance. It was any thing but in the nature of giving the poor personal property.
Mr. Benett,
of Wilts, observed, that the greatest evil of the poor-laws was, that it rendered the poor man dependent on his superior, and made him so abject a wretch, that he had no object in acquiring property or maintaining a character in society. But, although that was a great evil, yet by its removal there would be danger of inflicting a still greater cruelty on the poor. There could be little doubt that if the existing poor-laws were suddenly repealed, the effect would be general starvation. As to any
maximum
997
Mr. Thomas Courtenay
thought it desirable that the bill should go to a committee, and receive the modifications which the hon. and learned gentleman proposed to introduce into it, with an understanding that when it came out of the committee, it should be discussed by the House. He hoped that the House would then be prepared to come to a decision, as to the principle of the poor-laws. Adverting to the strong protest which the hon. member for Beaumaris had entered against the assertion of the gallant general with respect to the right of the poor to relief, he must say, that he totally disagreed with the member for Beaumaris, and much more nearly agreed with the gallant general. On a future occasion, he should be prepared to contend (if the House would allow him), that the poor, both from the course of our legislation on the subject and from what he might call moral right, bad a fair and reasonable claim before God and man for relief, much more extensively than the member for Beaumaris was disposed to allow.
Lord Milton
said, that for the bill generally he entertained the most friendly feeling. That part of it which went to repeal the law of settlements had his warmest support. That law was productive of great mischief to the poor themselves, as well as to the country at large. At the same time, he could by no means agree with an hon. member, that the basis of the constitution was the protection of the enjoyment of property. The basis of the constitution was the protection of rights; and the rights of the poor ought to be protected as well as those of the rich. He doubted whether the population had increased so much as was supposed, especially in the agricultural districts. But, was the country to be told in the nineteenth century that it would be ruined by an excess of population? Had not all the great men of the last century declared that the population was the strength and wealth of a country? And yet it was now proposed to relieve the burthen which pressed on the capital of the country by destroying that population which, although it fed upon that capital, materially contributed to its increase! It was undoubtedly true that at present the whole population were
998
maximum
The Marquis of Londonderry
repeated his gratitude to the learned gentleman, for having bestowed so much of his time and attention in bringing this important subject under the consideration of parliament. He should be extremely sorry to do any thing that might impede the fullest consideration of the problem; for it it were not immediately solved, still every grave and deliberate examination of the question would ripen the mind of the country, in its progress to that final amelioration of the System, to which he trusted we might ultimately arrive. This important subject had been discussed during two sessions in a committee above stairs, with a degree of candour and patience of which he regretted that the House and the country at large could not have been witnesses. The numerous difficulties which presented themselves to any arrangement on this important subject, could only be got rid of by frequent discussion. In fact, every fresh discussion of it was
999
Mr. Scarlett
said, he should have no objection to go into the committee
instanter,
The bill was then read the second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 25, 1821
FORGERY PUNISHMENT MITIGATION BILL.]
The report of the committee on this bill having been brought up,
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that he intended to move three amendments, which he did not think would excite discussion. The House had declared its opinion, that the severe punishment in cases of forgery ought to be reduced. In the majority on that question were to be found eminent and enlightened merchants and bankers; amongst whom were his hon. friends the members for Taunton and Wendover. In framing the bill originally, he, in deference to the judgments of others, had made some considerable sacrifice of his own opinions. In compliance with the wishes of a considerable portion of the majority of the other night, he was now about to propose some important exceptions. The first exception related to the forging of wills. The next exception related to two species of forgery under the Marriage act; the first relating to the forgery of marriage entries, and the second to the forgery of licences. He concluded by moving the amendments.
Mr. Cripps
said, that as the Bank of England was excepted so, in fairness, ought there to be an exception for the protection of country banks.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, it would be open to any member to propose further exceptions On the third reading.
1000
Mr. Grenfell
saw no reason for excepting the Bank of England; but if there was any reason, it applied as strongly to country banks.
Mr. J. Martin
said, he must oppose the bill in a future stage, unless the punishment for forgery, in all cases, was transportation for life.
Mr. Bennet
said, that transportation, so far from being considered a punishment, was really a bounty upon crime.
Mr. Baring
could see no ground for excepting forgeries on the Bank of England. It was well known that the Bank did not pay their forged notes. The question of their exception was not, therefore, a question between the Bank and the public, but a question as to the very principle upon which the bill rested. This principle was, that mild but certain punishments were better calculated than severe punishments to prevent the commission of crime. Indeed, if that principle were not true, the present bill was good for nothing. The doubts which he felt regarding this bill related to the secondary punishment which it was its object to provide. His hon. friend had said, that transportation was the only secondary punishment which could be inflicted; if that were the case, he should feel himself compelled to vote against the bill, as he was of opinion that transportation even for life was not a punishment at all calculated to prevent a crime to which there were so many temptations as forgery.
Mr. J. Smith
objected to the judges being allowed a discretion in affixing the punishment for forgery. The punishment should be certain. He thought punishment by hard labour would prove the most effectual means of preventing forgery.
Sir J. Mackintosh
also moved as an amendment, that the term of transportation for cases of forgery should be for a period not less than three and not exceeding fourteen years.
Mr. Baring
said, he should be sorry to see the bill pass with this discretionary clause of imprisonment for three years. He should wish the crime of forgery to be punished by the peremptory infliction of fourteen years imprisonment and hard labour. If any case should occur in which that punishment might appear too severe* it would be in the power of the Crown to extend its mercy to the offender;
Dr. Lushington
was of opinion that the punishment for forgery ought never to be
1001
Sir J. Mackintosh
withdrew his amendment, and moved that the words "imprisoned for the term of ten years, to be kept to hard labour," be inserted; which was agreed to; as was also an amendment for excepting Scotland from the operation of the bill.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed.
ARMY EXTRAORDINARIES.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Extraordinaries of the Army were referred, Mr. Arbuthnot moved, "That the sum of One Million be granted for defraying the Extraordinary Expenses of the Army for Great Britain, for the year 1821."
Colonel Davies
thought, that this vote should be accompanied with more exact details of the purposes to which it was applied. He suggested, that a saving might be effected by conveying the spirits direct from the West Indies to the foreign stations, as also the provisions from Ireland. No less a sum than 24,000
l.
Mr. Maberly
remarked upon the manner in which the account was kept, as to the payment of our army in India, that payment being made by advances from the army extraordinaries, which the India Company covenanted to repay. But that covenant was not fulfilled, the advances having been equal to 1,400,000
l.
l.
1002
Mr. Arbuthnot
not said, that the accounts would, it was hoped, be rendered more intelligible by the next session. As to the payment and half-pay of our army in India, he acquiesced in the propriety of some new arrangement upon that subject, and could assure the hon. gentleman that such an arrangement was under the serious consideration of government.
Mr. Baring
called the attention of the committee to the mode in which the public accounts were kept. It was impossible to look at them as they were laid before the House, and understand what the various establishments to which they related cost the country. It was necessary that more general information should be furnished, and in a mode very different from the vague manner in which it was now laid before them.
Sir J. Yorke
animadverted upon the grant of 8,000
l.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that the sum of 8,000
l.
Mr. Hume
was extremely happy to hear, that, at last, his majesty's government had determined to reduce the extravagant and useless establishment of Heligoland. He had, in his observations on the Ordnance Estimates, shown, that that small island had, for the last year, cost the country upwards of 11,000
l.
l.
l.
1003
l.
1004
l.
l.
l.
l.
1005
l.
l
l
s
l.
l.
l.
1006
l.
l.
l.
l.
militia
1007
l.
l.
l.
l.
1008
l.
l.
l.
l.
1009
l.
l.
l.
l.
1010
l.
Mr. Goulburn
denied that this government paid the expenses of the foreign commissioners. With regard to the item charged on account of Buonaparte, the house of that individual had been complained of as being so utterly out of repair, as to admit the rain. As it was found that the old building was not worth repairing, it was decided that a new residence should be built. The sum charged in the item adverted to was for the additional furniture supplied on this occasion. With respect to the salaries of the private secretaries of civil governors, he agreed that it was absurd to charge them in the army extraordinaries, but it was a practice which had long prevailed, and was found convenient, because the secretaries were paid by the paymaster-general of the army. As to the refusal of a private secretary to the governor of New South Wales, he was inclined to believe that no such application as that stated by the hon. gentleman was made by sir C. Brisbane. He did, indeed, apply for a brigade-major, and the application was refused, because government saw no reason for adding another staff-officer to the establishment of New South Wales.
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that there was no ground whatever for supposing that the expenses of the foreign commissioners at St, Helena were not paid by their own governments. At this moment, he believed, two of them had been withdrawn.
Lord Palmerston
said, that the reason of the charge for the inspectors of army clothing appearing in the extraordinaries was, that it had been the intention of government to dispense with them,, and the charge had consequently been comitted
1011
Mr. Bennet
objected to the amount of the army extraordinaries as exorbitant. He did not see why the debt to Mr. Commissary Mackenzie should be put among them. He thought the expenses of the colonies altogether too great, especially those of the Cape of Good Hope and New South Wales. He could not agree to vote the sum demanded for conveying convicts to the latter place, more particularly as the solicitor-general had said, in 1821, what he (Mr. B.) had been telling the House during the last five years, that it was not a place of punishment. Pie would propose a reduction of 100,000
l.
Mr. Hume
consented to withdraw his amendment, and the committee divided: for Mr. Bennet's amendment 32. Against it 84.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, H. G.
Johnson, col.
Boughey, sir J.
Lushington, Dr.
Brougham, H.
Martin, John
Bury, lord
Maberly, jun.
Cavendish, H.
Milbank, J.
Calvert, N.
Milton, lord
Concannon, L.
Moore, P.
Crompton, S.
Monck, J. B.
Chaloner, R.
Palmer, C. F.
Farrand, R.
Pryse, Pryse
Forbes, C.
Rice, S.
Gipps, G.
Robarts, A.W.
Griffith, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Harbord, E.
Smith, W.
Heron, sir R.
Webb, col.
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLER.
Hume, J.
Davies, col.
Mr. Arbuthnot
next moved, "That 401,569
l.
l
Mr. Gipps
complained of the very general manner in which the sums were stated in the estimate.
Mr. Maberly
said, he had long been of opinion, that there should be one great military depot in the kingdom, which
1012
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
defended the existing arrangements, and contended that considerable reductions had been effected.
Mr. Hume
considered this vote one of great importance, both by its magnitude and from the peculiar nature of the department. The hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly) had stated the general extravagance of the storekeeper's department but he had not stated half its extent. It had been one of the most profuse and wasteful departments under the present profuse system. He had for successive years endeavoured to convince the House of the necessity of reducing or abolishing it; and, in justice to the hon. secretary (Mr. Arbuthnot), he must state that the necessity had been felt by him and acted upon, as the department of storekeeper-general had been, in the course of the last year, joined to that of the commissariat under the Treasury, and Mr. Trotter, the storekeeper-general, and several others of the establishment had been removed on pensions and half-pay. This department was for the purchase of military stores, for their keeping and issue as the services of war required; and, although during the war, the establishment under Mr. Trotter had increased to an uncalled-for extent, he did not include that period in the statements he had prepared and formerly stated of that department. From the peace up to March 1820, the total amount value of stores contracted for by the storekeeper was 312,834
l.
l.
1013
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1014
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
observed, that 800 clerks had been dismissed, and that the number now employed were indispensable for the purpose of carding on the business of the Commissariat office. The experiment of a greater reduction had been made in a former year, but was of necessity abandoned. He defended the pensions which had been granted to Mr. Herries and Mr. Trotter, as due to them, and more especially to the former, in acknowledgment of their great public services.
Mr. Bennet
considered that the public services of Mr. Herries had been abundaatly paid, without the pension in question.
Colonel Davies
compared the present estimates with those of 1819, and commented on their excess,. With a view to the reduction of that excess, he moved, as an amendment, to reduce the proposed vote by 4,238
l.
The committee divided: for the Amendment, 40; Against it, 89.
1015
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Maberly, J. jun.
Becher, W. W.
Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.,
Milton, lord
Bernal, R.
Milbank, J.
Bernard, lord
Moore, P.
Bright, H.
Monck, J. B.
Bury, lord
Newman, R. W.
Calvert N.
O'Callaghan, col.
Carter, J.
Palmer, F.
Chaloner, R.
Pryse, P.
Chetwynd, G.
Ricardo, D.
Concannon, L.
Rice, S.
Denman, T,
Robarts, A.
Guise, sir W.
Smith, J.
Harbord, hon. H.
Stanley, lord
Heron, sir R,
Tennyson, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tynte, K. K.
Hume, J.
Webb, col.
Johnson, col.
Whitbread, S.
Langston, J.
TELLER.
Lusbington, Dr.
Davies, col.
Maberly, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 28, 1821
PETITION FROM NEWFOUNDLAND FOR REFORM IN THE COURTS OF JUSTICE.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of St. John's, Newfoundland, of an important nature. He was satisfied that the British legislature would be disposed to listen to the complaints from any colony, however unimportant. The colony of Newfoundland was not one of those—it was a colony of great extent and importance, with a population of upwards of 100,000 persons. The petition complained of the manner in which justice was administered in certain courts, and of the severe and extraordinary mode of punishment resorted to by those courts in cases of contempt. The petitioners prayed for the redress of this abuse, and also for the establishment of a local legislature in the island. The courts in question were called Surrogate courts; the judges were principally composed of officers of the navy. Punishment for contempt was, he admitted, resorted to by courts of justice in England; but he believed the use of the lash in such cases was altogether unknown in this country; it was, however, the ordinary mode of punishment adopted in Newfoundland. In order to put before the House the manner in which that distant, defenceless, and unrepresented island was treated by those Surrogate courts, he would state one instance—a man of the name of Lander-
1016
Sir J. Newport
said, he knew many merchants at Newfoundland well qualified to form a local assembly.
Sir I. Coffin
said, he was many years ago in Newfoundland, and never saw any law there but the cat-o'-nine tails. He was a surrogate himself, but he never ordered more than a dozen lashes.
Mr. Goulburn
admitted that the mode of administering justice in the colony was one that should not exist. The causes of complaint were almost always between the merchants and the fishermen, the only two classes in fact in the colony. The government finding it impossible to select justices of the peace likely to act impartially, were obliged to appoint naval officers, who were men of honour and understanding. He did not defend severe punishment in cases of cop tempt, but he
1017
Dr. Lushington
reprobated the system of inflicting corporal punishment for contempt of court. The practice was as unjustifiable as it was cruel and severe. The chief justice in his charge to the jury, said, that the punishment of this man was unjust and uncalled for; and the inhabitants of the colony were of the same opinion.
Mr. W. Smith
said, it was almost impossible for a poor man in Newfoundland to obtain redress for the most enormous cruelty. No free man ought to suffer the arbitrary punishments inflicted by those surrogates.
Mr. Marryat
said, that the existing system with respect to the whole of our colonies required revision. At St. Lucie, several slaves had been punished for running away, by the loss of their ears. In another case, a planter who had taken a run-away slave, after beating him, tied him to a stake, with the intention of returning to complete his punishment. Death, however, relieved the poor wretch from further suffering. A prosecution was instituted against the planter, but failed, because, by the law of Spain, a master was allowed to inflict 200 lashes on a run-away slave, and it could not be proved that the planter had inflicted more than that number.
Mr. Wilberforce
deprecated the system of punishment prevailing in many of our colonies; but at the same time contended that the Spanish laws in many instances were admirably humane.
Sir R. Wilson
asked, whether the infliction of torture was sanctioned in those British colonies where the Dutch laws were still in force?
Mr. Goulburn
replied, that orders had been sent to all the colonies, directing that no punishment not used in England should be inflicted.
Ordered to lie on the table.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the Miscellaneous Estimates were referred, Mr. Arbuthnot moved, "That 137,500
l.
Colonel Davies
said, he considered this not so much a financial as a constitutional question, because the present system went
1018
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
contended that the salaries of barrack-masters were by no means upon too large a scale, and assured the committee that not one had been appointed until the comptroller of the department had represented that a barrack-master was necessary to take care of stores which had been collected. After the peace no new barrack-masters had been chosen, until all those on the reduced list capable of serving had been provided for. He could most unequivocally state, that not one man had been appointed to an office of the king from private views, or improper influence. He was not surprised that the sum for
1019
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
could not refrain from once more referring the committee to the golden year of 1792, when there were only 43 barracks capable of accommodating 21,000 men; and when the whole expense of barrack-masters and assistants was 4,552
l.
l.
l.
1020
l.,
l.
l.
Sir R. Heron
protested against the unconstitutional increase of barracks in a time of profound peace.
Mr. Bright
said, he would never give his assent to so extravagant a grant. The country was much indebted to his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) for his persevering exertions to reduce the expenditure of the country; and though nothing had been struck off from the estimates this session, he felt confident that the labours of his hon. friend would have an effect upon the conduct of ministers in the next. It was lamentable to see the public money voted away night after night in that House, when the country gentlemen, who ought to protect the interests of their tenants, labouring, as they were, under such accumulated distresses, were absent from the House, and the ministerial benches were filled with gentlemen who came down to vote for their own salaries. If the session terminated without retrenchment, he would advise the country gentlemen to look to themselves; for they would no longer meet with the support of their constituents, if they did not compel ministers to reduce the extravagant expenditure of the country. Above all, he deprecated the barrack system, which was calculated to make this country a military nation. We were not naturally a military people, nor could we be made so by art. Our navy was our natural protection, and it was the interest of this country to support our navy, instead of setting up as a rival to the barbarous Russian, by extending our military establishments.
Mr. Williams
said, that if the system now pursued were carried to its extreme, it would become necessary to establish barracks in every village. Taxation must be reduced, and no stand could be better taken than against this vote.
Mr. Harbord
declared himself decidedly
1021
The Committee divided: For the Amendment, 29t; Against it, 53.
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Langston, J. H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Moore, P.
Bright, H.
Maberly, J.
Barham, J. F.
Martin, J.
Boughey, sir J.
Newport, sir J.
Calvert, N.
Newman, R. W.
Creevey, T.
Parnell, sir H.
Colbourne, R.
portman, T. B.
Denman, T.
Rice, S.
Evans, W.
Smith, hon. R.
Fergusson, sir R.
Smith, John
Grattan, J.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Griffiths, J. W.
Williams, W.
Hume, J.
TELLER.
Heron, sir R.
Davies, T. H.
Harbord, hon. E.
On the resolution, "That 280,000
l.
Mr. Bennet
objected to the grant. Among the items which formed that amount, was one of 43,000
l.,
l.
1022
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was impossible that all the expenses of the civil government in each year could be foreseen, so as to enable ministers to lay estimates before the House; and it would have been the incurring of a hazardous responsibility for them to have applied to such expenses any part of the sums voted for other purposes. Whenever a specific charge was brought against them, they would be prepared to enter on their defence.
Mr. Hume
maintained that the House ought not to sanction a vote for the payment of any of the expenses of carrying on the Queen's trial, nor even for any of the contingencies, until they knew what they might comprehend. He wished to know whether the late king had made a will; because if he had not, his property should belong to the public, and some of it might be applied to the payment of the expenses incidental to that disgusting prosecution. The hon. member then went into other items of the contingencies, and maintained that they could not be classed under that head of expenditure which the chancellor of the exchequer had said could not be foreseen; for there were several of them which must have been known beforehand. Among these he objected to the charges incurred under the Alien act, that un-English law. The expenses of the Insolvent court ought also to have been more fully detailed. He maintained that the non-production of estimates for these, and many other items, the nature of which was well known beforehand, was, a breach of that confidence which had been reposed in ministers. He next adverted to the expenses of our foreign ambassadors, which, he maintained, were much too large. A great saving might be effected by curtailing the expenses of our public purse. On the present occasion Embassies to the courts of minor powers, bethought the House would do well to The next item upon which he should have to observe was one of 6,241
l.
l.
l.
1023
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Brougham
agreed with his hon. friend in the general principle which he had laid down with respect to the civil contingencies. His majesty's ministers were certainly bound, whenever they foresaw the amount of the Sums to be expended, to put them in the form of an estimate for the House, and to give an Opportunity of their being previously discussed; With respect to governor Maxwell, his hon. friend seemed to suppose that the verdict was given on the merits of the case against governor Maxwell, and that twelve honest men had on those merits decided against him; but the presumption upon the
primâJacie
1024
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
agreed, that it would be better to avoid as much as possible leaving sums of money to be granted under heads of service to which they did not belong. He was willing to admit that there were many charges in the present estimates, which might have been more appropriately placed, and which would for the future be so disposed of.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the Amendment, 77; Against it, 106. Majority, 29.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Lennard, T. B.
Anson, hon. G.
Lushington, Dr.
Astell, W.
Lester, B. L.
Bernal, R.
Maberly, J.
Boughey, sir J. F.
Macdonald, J.
Barham, J. F.
Martin, J.
Benett, J.
Milbank, M.
Barrett, S. M.
Milton, visct.
Benyon, Benj.
Moore, Peter
Birch, Jos.
Newman, R. W.
Brougham, H.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Bright, H.
Bury, viscount
Palmer, C. F.
Chaloner, R.
Parnell, sir H.
Carter, J.
Powlett, hon. W.
Cavendish, H.
Pryse, P.
Concannon, L.
Portman, E. B.
Crespigny, sir W. De
Plumber, John
Crompton, S.
Robarts, A.
Creevey, Thos.
Robarts, G.
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.
Rowley, sir W.
Corbett, Panton
Rumbold, C. E.
Davies, T. H.
Rice, T. S.
Denman, T.
Rickford, W.
Duncannon, visct.
Smith, hon. R.
Evans, Wm.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Smith, J.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Smith, R.
Gordon, R.
Taylor, M. A.
Grattan, J.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Grant, J. P.
Tremayne, J. H.
Griffiths, J. W.
Tennyson, C.
Guise, sir W.
Wharton, John
Heron, sir R.
Whitbread, S. C.
Harbord, hon. E.
Williams, W.
Hill, lord A.
Wood, ald.
Hume, Joseph
Wilson, Thomas
Hutchinson, hn. C. H.
Whitmore, W. W.
Johnson, col.
TELLER.
Jervoise, G. P.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS.]
Mr. Hume
put a question to the chancellor of the exchequer relative to the manner in
1025
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that every office under government selected the paper in which it advertised. There was no order from the Treasury to exclude advertisements from any particular paper.
Mr. Hume
said, that if such were the case, it was a strange coincidence that all the public offices should have combined to exclude their advertisements from one particular paper.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 30, 1821
DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY, AND IN THE APPELLANT JURISDICTION.]
Mr. M. A. Taylor
*
*
1026
1027
*
*
1028
1029
1030
*
*
1031
l.
1032
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
*
*
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
——Si quid novisti rectius istis,
Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that although parliament sometimes pledged itself as to the course it would take in a subsequent session, it should never do so without great caution; and he thought they
1038
The Attorney-General
wished to say a few words in reply to the reflections which his hon. friend had cast upon the learned lord who presided in the Court of Chancery. His hon. friend had said, that there were the same arrears in cases of bankruptcy and original causes, at present, as there had been before the creation of the Vice-chancellor's court. Now this was by no means the fact, as there were no original causes and no cases of bankruptcy, at this moment, in arrear. There had been an increase of appeals to the lord chancellor, but that was to be attributed to the desire which every man felt to have his case decided by the great talents and learning of that learned lord. No decisions had been, or would hereafter, be more respected than those of the learned judge who now presided in the Court of Chancery,
Mr. Lockhart
said, that the delay, if such it might be called, arose out of the mechanism of the court. It was a most severe hardship upon every small legatee, in case of dispute, to be obliged to file a bill in chancery, which perhaps cost him more than his legacy; or to abandon his claim altogether. Justice was thus denied, and dishonesty promoted. The mere statement of such a grievance ought to induce the House to pledge itself to inquire.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
contended, that it might be dangerous, at this late period of the session, for the House to pledge itself to inquire. The course of argument adopted by the last speaker, rather
1039
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the House was called upon to pledge itself to inquiry, more especially after what had just been said by the learned member, who Wondered that the enormous arrears now complained of had not been still greater, recollecting the vast increase of property. It was admitted on all hands that an abler chancellor could not be found; and as all agreed on his merits, surely a better opportunity could not be chosen than the present for commencing the investigation.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that one-half of the appeals now before the Lords were of four years standing. This being the case, he would appeal to the House, whether the system pursued by the Court of Chancery was not ruinous and vexatious? All that he asked was an assurance, that, at a proper period, the subject should be taken in to consideration.
The previous question being put, "That the question be now put," the House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes 56. Majority against Mr. Taylor's motion, 4.
PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT—CREDITORS OF Mr. CHRISTIE BURTON.]
Mr. Stuart-Wortley
rose to submit a motion, the object of which was, to indemnify the Creditors of Mr. Christie Burton, member for Beverley in the last parliament, for loss occasioned to them by an order of that House, in support of its privileges. The House would recollect that Mr. Burton was confined in the Fleet for debt at the time of his election, and that he was shortly after set at liberty, in consequence of an application by letter to the Speaker. The creditors commenced an action against the warden of the Fleet for an escape, and that act was declared
1040
l.
l.
Mr. Wynn
saw no reason whatever why Mr. Burton's creditors did not again arrest him, except that having on the former occasion had him for six years in custody, they thought it better now to risk an application to parliament than to proceed by a second arrest, after experiencing the inefficacy of the first. He was utterly at a loss to see what doubt could be raised upon the words of the act of James 1st. There could be no doubt that the creditors had their remedy still against Mr. Burton. With respect to the intention of the hon. member to render ineligible persons in execution for debt, he thought the qualification already required was a sufficient general control. That was, however, too grave a question, to be incidentally discussed. If such had been the law, the House could have
1041
Mr. S. Wortley
maintained, that the act of James 1st confined the liability of being taken under a new writ to persons who were taken in execution subsequently to their election. In all the cases previous to that time, the persons declared to be entitled to privilege, had been arrested subsequently to their election. Mr. Burton had the means, if he chose, of paying his debts, for he was a man of considerable property. As to his six years confinement, it was merely nominal, for at the time of his supposed imprisonment, he had himself seen that gentleman at Doncaster races.
Mr. Baring
agreed that there was abundant reason for not granting any compensation to the individuals in question. He confessed, however, that he saw no difficulty in dealing with this privilege, as it was called, in such a way as would preserve what was valuable in it to the House, and at the same time prevent it from becoming a source of fraud between individuals. The present case was not the first of the kind; for some years ago an individual had succeeded in making his way out of the King's-bench through that House, and had afterwards quitted the kingdom. He thought there would be no difficulty in enacting, that if any member should plead privilege in exemption of arrest, within a given time after his election, his seat should become
ipso facto
The motion was negatived.
IRISH TREASURY BILLS.]
Mr. Maberly
rose to bring forward his promised motion with regard to the interest paid upon Irish Treasury-bills, compared to that upon Exchequer bills. The Treasury bills in Ireland were to raise money for the public uses, in the same manner as the Exchequer bills; but they were not sold in open market in Ireland, as the Exchequer bills were in this country; and were issued, he presumed, by special favour as the Bank of Ireland thought proper. In 1815, the unfunded debt of Ireland was about 2,500,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1042
d.
l.
s.
d.
d.
l.
s.
d.
d.
d.
l.
s.
d.
d.
l.
s.
d.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was but fair that Ireland should be placed in as advantageous a situation as this country, with respect to loans, and it certainly was not in a better. Upon the repeal of the war taxes in 1816 government was under the necessity of making a loan from the Bank of Ireland, the capital of which had since been reduced from five to one million, while the interest had been reduced from five to four per cent, and if the remaining one million were now to be paid off, a loss would be incurred upon the exchange of at least two per cent, by which, of course, the public would suffer, although the means of paying it off might be borrowed at 3 per cent. By this proceeding also it would be recollected that one million must be taken from the circulation of England to be transferred to Ireland. The interest upon the unfunded debt had been reduced from five to three per cent, which reduction had produced a saving to the country of no less than 600,000
l.
Mr. Maberly
said, that if a wise policy were pursued, there would be no necessity for the Banks of Ireland or England holding the Treasury bills in question, at a rate of interest different from that;, at which the merchants of London were paid. If there was a man who could say conscientiously that the public ought to pay
1043
l.
The House divided: 64. Ayes, 31; Noes, 64.
List of the Minority.
Baring, A.
Maberly, J.
Bury, lord
Moore, P.
Becher, W. W.
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Newport, sir J.
Chaloner, R.
Philips, G.
Colborne, R.
Philips, J.
Calvert, N.
Robinson, sir G.
Davies, col.
Smith, J.
Evans, W.
Smith, W.
Gordon, R.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Grattan, J.
Scarlett, J.
Hornby, E.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hume, J.
Wood, alderman
James, W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Lockhart, J. J.
TELLERS.
Milton, lord
Grant, J. P.
Monck, J. B.
Maberly, J.
GRAMFOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
Lord Milton
, in rising to move that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendments in this bill, thought it necessary to say a few words, in order to guard himself from being supposed to prefer the present state of the bill to the state in which it was when it left that House. He thought it would have been much better had the franchise been transferred to Leeds; but, considering that the main object of the bill was not so much the substitution of any particular place, as the disfranchisement of Grampound, he should be sorry to propose any proceeding that might lead to the loss of the bill altogether. He hoped, however, that on some future occasion a measure might be adopted better calculated to repair the defects in our representative system, and to preserve the balance which ought to be maintained between the various interests of the country. The present was the fourth bill of a similar character, which increased the weight of the landed interest in that House. Now, with all his natural partiality for the landed interest, he was decidedly of opinion that the House ought not to legislate in a way which might give to any individual interest an undue preponderance.
Mr. Wynn
said, he regretted the alterations made in the bill. As the Lords had agreed to the disfranchisement of Grampound, be thought it would have been
1044
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, that the House of Lords had placed them in a more cruel situation than they had ever before stood in. The question originally was, whether the elective franchise should be extended to the county of York, or given to the town of Leeds. That House had solemnly decided in favour of the latter proposition. The Lords had, however, entirely changed the bill. They said, "You shall not have two burgesses, but you shall have two knights of the shire." Now, he would ask whether, in a case affecting the rights of the Commons, the Lords ought to have made a change of such magnitude, without the most serious consideration. He would contend that by the alteration made in this bill the peers had added greatly to their influence. He would say that a greater misfortune could not happen to the county of York than the having four representatives in parliament. Looking, however, to the bill, he could not give it his sanction, for the mere purpose of securing the principle on which it was founded. It was a measure which satisfied nobody, not even those who were most favourable to reform. Their better course would be to reject this bill, to agree to a second for the disfranchisement of Grampound, and afterwards to consider to what place the elective franchise should; be granted.
The Marquis of Londonderry
admitted* that this was a case of considerable difficulty. For his own part, he did not think
1045
Lord J. Russell
said, the question was, whether or not the bill, as amended, was so ill adapted to its object, that it would be well to reject it. The object was first to reform the borough of Grampound, and then to transfer the right of returning two representatives to another place. It had been decided that the borough was corrupt, and that the elective franchise should be transferred to some other place, and to this the Lords had agreed. The Commons had proposed to give the franchise to the borough of Leeds, the Lords decided that it should be transferred to the large county of York. Now, though he wished that Leeds should return two members to parliament, he was still of opinion that more members ought to be given to the county of York. He was therefore content that the bill as amended should pass; but in a future session, he proposed to call the attention of the House to the claims of large towns to send members to that House.
1046
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.]
Mr. Brougham
rose to call the attention of the House once more to a society, the existence and nature of which he had occasion upon a former evening to bring under its notice. If he was then disposed to view with alarm what he saw In this association, he viewed with still greater anxiety the proceedings that had since been avowed by it. He held in his hand a letter which had been distributed among all the members, and which purported to be a copy of another letter, a circular, that this self-constituted body of prosecutors had thought proper to issue—to whom did the House think? To the magistrates of England. It came from "The Bridge-street Committee." The "Bridge-street Committee" (as if they were, of course, well known to all the kingdom), had erected themselves into a body, and issued circulars
only
1047
noli prosequi.
1048
1049
nolle prosequi
1050
Mr. Scarlett
begged leave to say a few words with respect to the illegality of this association. The motives of the gentlemen were probably such that no one would wish to treat them harshly; but their proceedings were contrary to the law of the land. In individual cases, the party aggrieved was allowed to be the prosecutor by the law of England, but where the public was the party, the prosecutor was the government itself, and the attorney-general was the recognised agent of that government. The effect of this society's labours was, in fact, to libel the attorney-general. They implied that that officer had not been sufficiently vigilant, and that the society therefore undertook to remedy his defect of duty. Now, what would be said of a private gentleman, who should go about the country, indicting offences, committed, not against his interests, but against the interests of the public? What an extraordinary thing this would be—a sort of perambulating attorney-general. This association undertook prosecutions, however, on a similar scale. Where the attorney-general was concerned, the proceeding was regular: where the party aggrieved prosecuted the defendant knew his prosecutor. On the contrary, in the cases in which the Constitutional Association interfered, the prosecutors were unknown; no names were avowed, and some of them might be upon that very special jury which would have to try the offence charged against the defendant. There was no person who had considered the question in a legal or constitutional point of view, who could not concur in condemning such an association.
Mr. Warre
expressed his suprise, that this Association having been pronounced illegal by what he considered the highest law authority in that House, no member of his majesty's government had offered a word of explanation on the subject.
The Marquis of Londonderry
questioned the propriety of any discussion as to what the attorney-general ought or ought not to do, in the absence of that learned gentleman. Without entering into the legality or constitutionality of the
1051
Sir J. Sebright
concurred in the opinions which had been given respecting the Association, which has taken upon itself the task of teaching magistrates their duty. He, for one, would dispense with the instruction of a body, which he considered illegal and unconstitutional.
Mr. Brougham
said, that the insinuation of the noble marquis was unfounded in fact, for he had distinctly stated that an association of two or more persons to indict or prosecute might be legal where there was a lack of diligence in the proper quarter: but what he objected to was the system of prosecution going on day after day, until the liberty of the press was reduced to a mere shadow. Such prosecutions, and the associations for carrying them on, were different from those for prosecuting felons; for in the former case party feelings would be created; but who could suppose that a party would be made in the prosecution of felons?
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed that there was an association for the suppression of vice, the object of which was to prosecute all offences against decency and morality, and he had not heard any objection to it; nor did he conceive why an objection should be urged against this association, because it had for its object the prosecution and suppression of disloyalty and sedition.
Mr. Scarlett
considered that there was no analogy whatever between the cases. He thought the self-called Constitutional Association a gross and severe attack on his majesty's government.
The Solicitor-General
said, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that the Constitutional Association should have been called illegal. He would take it upon himself to say that in that society there was nothing illegal, or at all contrary
1052
nolle prosequi
nolle prosequi
ex-officio
Lord Milton
said, that no judge or court could, or ought to give any opinion as to the legality or illegality of a prosecution on which they might be called to determine. With the association in question they had nothing to do. They had only to decide upon the point of law, without at all considering who were the prosecutors.
Mr. Wynn
said, he objected to any public prosecutions by irresponsible persons,
1053
The committee of supply was deferred, and the House adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 31, 1821
INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT.]
Mr. Bennet
rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring in a bill for better securing the independence of parliament; and, in submitting his proposition to the House, it gave him great satisfaction to reflect that he was introducing no novelty to its consideration. In the plan which he should propose for their adoption, he had followed closely the path of their ancestors, and had put his foot, wherever it was possible, in the very track in which they had trodden. In looking into the subject, the first question that suggested itself was, what, in the language and spirit of the constitution, was meant by the term "House of Commons." He found, by looking at the best authorities, that it ought to be the living image of the people of England—a body whose object it was to represent the opinions, express the feelings, and guard the interests of the nation at large. Such being the purposes for which this body existed, it became necessary to consider next the manner in which it was constituted. It would be difficult to conceive a plan more prejudicial to the integrity of parliament, than that which would attach a large body of members to the Crown, by the ties of office. He was not so wild as to say that the leading members of government ought not to fill seats in that House; but this he would say, that the best mode which could be adopted for the destruc-
1054
1055
1056
minimum
l.,
1057
l.
l.
1058
l.
l.
l.
l.
1059
1060
l.
l.
1061
*
Mr. Robinson
said, he was aware that it was an unpopular course to resist any plausible proposition for reducing the influence of the Crown, but it would be a most unworthy feeling if he suffered himself to be deterred, by any such considerations, from speaking his sentiments plainly and explicitly on the present occasion. From the way in which his hon. friend had argued the question, he was relieved from the necessity of answering him at any great length, for his hon. friend had admitted that it would not be desirable totally to remove placemen from the House of Commons. His hon. friend, therefore, had, in fact, reduced the question to a question of degree. It was not necessary for him to argue in general, that in all governments there must be a rea-
*
1062
1063
1064
1065
Colonel Davies
said, that so far from the influence of the Crown being less now than it was formerly, he thought no man could lay his hand on his heart and deny that it was greater than at any former period. If those who sat in that House really represented the people, then the motion would be unnecessary; for then, if members acted improperly, they would speedily be removed by those whose suffrages had sent them there. He was not one of those who contended that the Crown ought to possess no influence in that House, or that the House ought to be swayed by every breath of popular opinion. Still, he was decidedly opposed to its possessing such means of influencing its decisions as were now given to it. But it was said that fewer placemen, were at present in the House than had sat there at any former period in modern times. He denied the fact. He would assert that there were more members in the House now who were connected with the Crown than sat there in 1808: as he calculated that at present there were not fewer than 80 or 90 who were directly or indirectly under the influence of the Crown. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that in 1740, there were not fewer than 200 members in that House, who were connected in some way or other with the government. But in that number the naval and military officers who had seats were included, to whom he did not object. He animadverted on the extensive patronage at present enjoyed by the Crown, and insisted that it was the duty of the House to do every thing in their power to curtail the enormous influence now exercised. It had been said,
1066
The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 76; Majority, 24.
Lift of the Minority.
Benett, John
James, W.
Bernal, R.
Johnson, colonel
Boughey, sir J.
Liushington, Dr.
Boughton, sir W. E. R.
Martin, John
Milton, visct.
Bright, H.
Monk, J. B.
Byng, G.
Newman, R. W.
Burdett, sir F.
Ossulston, lord
Chaloner, Robt.
Palmer, col.
Chetwynd, G.
Palmer, C. F.
Creevey, Thos.
Phillips, G.
Denman, T.
Rickford, Wm.
Ebrington, lord
Rice, T. S.
Evans, Wm.
Ricardo, D.
Folkestone, lord
Robinson, sir G.
Gaskell, B.
Russell, lord J.
Gordon, R.
Scudamore, R. P.
Grant, J. P.
Smith, R.
Grattan, J.
Smith, W.
Graham, S.
Tavistock, marq.
Griffiths, J. W;
Tennyson, C.
Guise, sir W.
Tynte, C. K.
Harbord, hon. E.
Warre, J. A.
Hamilton, lord A.
Webb, E.
Heron, sir R.
Western, C. C.
Hornby, hon. E.
TELLERS.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Davies, colonel.
ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
The report of the Committee on the Ordnance Estimates was brought up. On the resolution, "That 43,071
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that no item the estimates displayed more clearly the profusion of ministers than that now under consideration. In 1796 the establishment cost the country 18,827
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
Mr. Ward
said, that the increased amount of the item was to be ascribed to the great increase in the accounts, arising from the addition, of the Ordnance estimates of Ireland, the half-pay, the colonial accounts, &c, It was impossible even
1067
The House divided: For the Amendment, 72; Against it, 93. Majority 21.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Bernal, R.
Milton, visc.
Benyon, J.
Macdonald, J.
Barrett, S. R.
Monck, J. B.
Beaumont, T. W.
Maberly, W. L.
Byng, G.
Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Newman, R. W.
Bury, lord
Newport, sir J.
Bright, H.
Ord, W.
Boughey, sir J.
Palmer, C. F.
Boughton, sir W. R.
Philips, G. jun.
Birch, T.
Phillips, G.
Benett, J.
Robarts, A.
Calcraft, J.
Ricardo, D.
Creevey, T.
Rumbold, E.
Chaloner, R.
Russell, lord W.
Coffin, sir I.
Scarlett, J.
Davies, col.
Smith, W.
Denman, T.
Smith, hon. R.
Dundas, hon. T.
Smith, R.
Ebrington, lord
Smyth, J. H.
Fergusson, sir R.
Sefton, lord
Grenfell, P.
Townshend, lord, C
Grattan, J.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Grant, J. P.
Tennyson, C.
Gipps, G.
Tynte, C.K.
Harbord, hon. E.
Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C
Tavistock, lord
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Wood, M.
Haldimand, W.
Wyvill, M.
Hurst, H.
Webb, col.
Hamilton, lord A.
Western, J. C.
James, W.
Warre, J.
Johnstone, col.
Wilson, sir R.
King, sir J. D.
TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr.
Hume, J.
Lockhart, W. E.
Gordon, R.
Maberly, J.
On the resolution for granting 56,000
l.
l.
Mr. Denman
trusted his hon. friend would press his amendment to a division, were it only to shew the country that at least some of their representatives were determined to do their duty.
The House divided: For the Amendment, 68; Against it, 94.
List of the Minority.
Allen, J. H.
Bernal, Ralph
Benyon, Benj.
Byng, Geo.
1068
Birch, Josh.
Maberly, W. L.
Barrett, S. M.
Martin, John
Bury, viscount
Mackintosh, sir J.
Bright, H.
Monck, J. B.
Boughton, sir W. R.
Maxwell, J.
Bastard, C. P.
Newman, R. W.
Benett, John
Newport, sir J.
Boughey, sir J.
Ord, W.
Concannon, L.
Palmer, C. F.
Chaloner, Robt.
Phillips, G. jun.
Calcraft, J.
Rogers, Ed.
Coffin, sir I.
Russell, lord W.
Dundas, hon. T.
Robarts, A.
Duncannon, visct.
Rice, T. S.
Evans, W.
Rumbold, Chas.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Scarlett, J.
Fane, John
Smith, hon. R.
Gordon, R.
Smith, Robt.
Grant, J. P.
Smith, J.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Smith, W.
Haldimand, W.
Smyth, J. H.
Hume, Jos.
Tennyson, C.
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Townshend, lord C.
Hurst, R.
Tierney, rt. hon. G,
Heron, sir Robt.
Wilson, sir R.
Hobhouse J. C.
Wood, ald.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Warre, J. A.
Wyvill, M.
Johnson, col:
Webbe, E.
James, W.
Western, C. C.
King, sir J. D.
TELLERS.
Lockart, J. J.
Denman, Thomas
Lennard, T. B.
Gipps, George.
Milton, visct.
Amendments to several of the resolutions were also moved by Mr. Hume, and negatived without a division. On the resolution for granting 137,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
contended, that the expense of the barrack establishment might be diminished one half. There was 18,000
l.
The House divided: For the Amendment, 61; Against it, 104.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 1, 1821
MAXWELL'S SLAVE REMOVAL BILL.]
Mr. J. P. Grant,
on moving the second reading of this bill, said the application was made from motives of humanity. He yielded to no man in wishing emancipation to the negroes. If he thought the effect
1069
Mr. Goulburn
felt it his duty to oppose the bill, on the broad ground that, under no circumstances, the removal of slaves from insular to continental possessions ought to be countenanced. Parliament could not pass the present bill in favour of Mr. Maxwell, and refuse similar applications on the part of other proprietors; and many persons were waiting for the result of the present proceeding, and who regarded the application of Mr. Maxwell as a sort of forlorn hope. Should it succeed, the doors of parliament would be surrounded with persons urging similar claims. Besides, to grant such exemptions would be equally impolitic and unjust. It would be highly dangerous to transport slaves from insular possessions, to which they were attached, and on which the British navy could be easily brought to operate in case of any insurrectionary movements; and, with respect to the slaves themselves, to tear them away from the place of their birth—from a country where the arts of social life had advanced, to remote and uncivilized regions would be highly oppressive. Under all the circumstances, he felt it his duty to move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
1070
Mr. Calcraft
was for sending the bill to a committee, where objections, if any existed, would be urged against it.
Dr. Phillimore
considered the bill unjust and oppressive, because it was a measure for the transportation of 329 persons from a dry and healthy climate to a new country.
Mr. Wilberforce
opposed the bill, its object being to remove 329 human beings from the place of their nativity. To tear people from a good dry soil to the swamps of Demerara, was an act to which he never would become a party. Besides, their food would be changed, and their work augmented, Now, every one knew how different were the conditions of Antigua and Demerara; in fact, no greater difference could be conceived than existed between these colonies. In Antigua, such was the progress of improvement, that the coloured people voted at elections, and were allowed to give testimony in civil as well as in criminal cases; but in Demerara they were slaves in every sense of the term. What compensation, then, could be given these 329 negroes for removing them from a place where, by their industry, they could purchase their manumission and become useful members of society, to a quarter where a dungeon would be their abode, and where, with a stinted food, they would be compelled to additional labour? Again, in Antigua a great portion of the population, enjoyed the blessings of Christianity. Were these 329 persons to be reduced to such a deteriorated condition, in order that the plantation of an individual might be made to yield a heavier crop? Whatever the humanity of Mr. Maxwell might be, sure he was, that the House would give its opposition to such a claim.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that if the principle of the bill was good, it should be generalised. The question was, whether the learned mover was prepared to put the proposition on its general footing. If they opened all the fertile lands of the British possessions on the continent to the negroes of persons in the situation of Mr. Maxwell, they sealed the depopulation of the West India Islands. The stream of emigration once opened, must continue to flow in; and the question was, would it be advisable to change the degree of advancement and civilization which existed among the negroes in the islands, for that which was likely to be offered on the continent? He thought not; and as he
1071
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that those who were unacquainted with the subject, must have supposed that, as the law stood, Mr. Max well was obliged to keep his slaves in the; island of Antigua; else to what purpose speak of the cruelty of tearing men from their connexions, of the supposed excellence of the laws of the society, or the moral and religious state of the island? The same statements were also contained in: a paper, which came, he believed, from its eloquence, from a learned friend of his (Mr. Stephen), no longer a member of the House. But how did these
ardentia verba
1072
Sir R. Wilson
expressed his surprise that it should be attempted to make this enlightened country incur the disgrace of extending slavery on the continent of South America, while the principles of liberty were rapidly advancing in that quarter of the world.
Mr. Baring
said, that gentlemen were under a misconception, if they supposed that the rejection of this measure would contribute to the happiness of the slaves in Antigua, as, on the contrary, that rejection would serve to involve them, in inevitable misery. He would be among the, last to support such a bill, if he thought its adoption would interfere with the happiness of the negroes. The bill was evidently grounded upon the principle that prompted this country occasionally, to take measures for getting rid of its surplus population through the medium of emigration; and he begged the House to consider, that if no vent were allowed for the surplus population in a particular colony, that surplus was but too likely to be slighted. For the same reason, then, that almost every parish in England was crying out for the means of removing its surplus population, he called upon the House to agree to this bill, particularly for the sake of the blacks themselves.
Mr. Peel
strenuously resisted the measure. Viewing it merely as a matter of mercantile speculation, it gave the possessor of these slaves an unfair advantage. But if it was objectionable as a precedent, he thought it still more objectionable in regard to its consequences. It did not appear that the slaves could not be maintained on other estates in the island; and if so, they ought not to be subjected to the grievous suffering of being separated
1073
Mr. Barham
shortly supported the second reading. He wished Mr. Maxwell to have the opportunity of proving his facts; if he did not establish them, then would be the time for throwing out the measure.
Sir I. Coffin
believed, from what he knew of the situation, that the slaves would rather have their throats cut than be removed to Demerara.
The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 98. The second reading was then put off for three months.
THE BUDGET.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, to which the annual Accounts of the Revenue, and the Disposition of Grants were referred,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose. He said, that the House having now discharged its functions by voting the Supplies, which ministers had found it their duty to ask for the service of the present year, and the estimates having been printed, and for some time past in the hands of the members, he now felt it his duty to submit to the committee a statement of the Ways and Means by which he proposed that the expense of those supplies should be met. The House were well aware, that for particular reasons, he could have been happy to defer entering on the subject to a future day. But, as he could not postpone the annual statement which it was customary for the chancellor of the exchequer to make without rendering his conduct liable to a serious misconstruction, he had not thought it right to interpose any delay, as he considered that nothing short of the most imperious necessity would justify him in taking such a course, or in suffering the task of bringing it forward, to devolve upon any of his hon. friends near him, although he was sensible that the duty might be discharged by them in a manner more satisfactory to the committee. Unwilling to intrude upon them, he took upon himself the performance of the duty, and would endeavour as clearly, but at the same time as shortly as possible, to bring the Ways and Means for the present year before the House.
1074
l.:
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1075
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1076
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1077
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1078
l.
l.
SUPPLY.
1820.
1821.
9,443,243
Army
£.8,750,000
6,586,695
Navy
6,176,700
1,199,650
Ordnance
1,195,100
2,444,100
Miscellaneous
1,900,000
19,673,688
18,021,800
18,021,800
1,000,000
Interest on Exchequer Bills
1,000,000
410,000
Sinking Fund on do.
290,000
21,083,688
19,311,800
19,311,800
1,771,888
By Reduction of Unfunded Debt, viz.
9,000,000
Irish Treasury Bills
500,000
Bills for Public Works
206,400
706,400
30,083,688
20,018,200
WAYS AND MEANS.
Granted for 1820.
Estimate for 1821.
3,000,000
Annual Taxes
4,000,000
2,500,000
(Excise Duties) Tea Duties
1,500,000
240,000
200,000
260,000
Old Stores
163,400
Surplus of Pecuniary Indemnity payable by the French Government
500,000
198,000
Exchequer Bills for Public Works repaid
125,000
Surplus of Ways and Means, 1820
81,630
6,570,036
Sinking Fund Loan, viz.
12,000,000
Great Britain
12,500,000
Ireland
500,0001
13,000,000
Bank of Ireland, Increase of Capital 500,000 Irish Currency being in British Currency
461,539
12,000,000
5,000 000 Loan
7,000,000 Funding Exchequer Bills
Exchequer Bills
30,198,000
£20,031,569
1079
l.
1080
quoad
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1081
—
Sums applicable to the
Total Sums received.
Purchase of stock.
Sinking Fund Loans.
Great Britain.
Year ending 5th Jan. 1821
4,101,024
12,400,000
16,501,024
1822
4,160,202
12,000,000
16,160,202
Ireland (B. C.)
Year ending 5th Jan. 1821
645,865
645,865
1822
491,294
174,462
665,756
United Kingdom.
Year ending 5th Jan. 1821
4,746,889
12,400,000
17,146,889
1822
4,651,496
12,l74,162
16,825,958
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1082
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.
1083
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1084
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1085
1086
l.
l.
1087
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Maberly
said, that the observations which he should now offer would refer, in a peculiar degree, to the supply for the year, as he could not see that there was any great objection to the general nature of the Ways and Means. In the early part of the session he had stated, that a saving might be made to a very considerable extent, under the head of "Supply," and he was sorry to see that so small a saving appeared to have been made. He would endeavour to point out what the real state of the country was at the present moment, and what he conceived would have been its state if judicious measures had been
1088
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1089
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1090
l
l.
1091
Mr. Astell
did not wish to interrupt the general satisfaction which the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer had produced; but when he talked of certain balances claimed by the East India Company, as being of a doubtful nature he could not allow that which appeared to him to be an evident breach of faith to pass unnoticed. That balances were due to the Company by the government had never been denied till this hour. It was fresh in the recollection of the House that the Company had given up their island of St. Helena to government for the purpose of keeping Buonaparte in safe custody. This was done with an understanding that the detention of that individual should not cost the Company any thing. But what was the fact? It had cost them annually between 2 and 300,000
l.
l.
Mr. Calcraft
did not participate in the general satisfaction which had been alluded to by the last speaker. With such a code of revenue laws as we possessed, it would indeed be matter of surprise if the taxes were not collected. But, after all, the total of the statement of the right hon. gentleman appeared to be, that if we took away a fund appropriated for the payment of the national creditor, we should have, 6,000,000
l.
1092
Sir J. Newport
was of opinion that what had occurred with respect to the revenue of Ireland would ultimately happen to the revenue of England. He argued, that taxation, augmented beyond a certain extent, must produce, not an increased, but a diminished revenue; a position which he exemplified by referring to a variety of articles which, having been taxed too high in Ireland, produced much less to the revenue than they had previously done.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that the chancellor of the exchequer always gave a most flattering account of the state of the country. Last session he had declared that the funds which would be applicable to the expenditure of the present year would be much greater than what he had now stated them to be. He had stated that the addition to the sinking fund would have been 1,700,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1093
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l?
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1094
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1095
l.
1096
Mr. Lockhart
said, that the chancellor, of the exchequer had spoken of the magnanimity with which the people bore their burthens. The agricultural portion of the community had, indeed, exhibited magnanimity; but what magnanimity had been displayed by the stockholder, who was getting double what he gave? The magnanimity and the patience were all
1097
Sir H. Parnell
said, that instead of the new taxes producing 3,000,000
l.
l
Mr. Hume
adverted to the report of the Finance Committee of 1817, by which it was recommended that these estimates should never for the future exceed 17,550,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Ellice
thought it was very absurd to go through the farce of borrowing a certain sum from the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, or, in other words, taking away part of the sinking fund, when the same object might be answered by cancelling so much of the
1098
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, that 200,000
l.
Mr. Bernal
felt it his duty to oppose this immoral and unprofitable tax.
Mr. Bennet
said, that if this vice of the people was to be taxed, he saw no reason why the example of the bishop of Winchester should not be followed, and a tax be imposed upon the stews and brothels of the metropolis. He cared not for the money, but he did for the character and morality of the people.
Mr. Cripps
defended the lottery, as a less objectional mode of taxation than many taxes which already existed. If the tax were withdrawn, there could be no doubt that the same or a greater amount of money would be expended by the people in gambling of another description.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that any gentleman who had been at Paris and passed through the Palais Royal, might have seen gaming, and other still more immoral practices carried on, from all of which a revenue was derived to the government; and the same arguments for continuing the lottery would be equally applicable to them.
Mr. Gipps
opposed the system of lotteries. If the practice were once admitted to be bad, he saw no reason why it should be continued.
The committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 65.
ILL-TREATMENT OF HORSES BILL.]
The House having, on the motion Of Mr. R. Martin, gone into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Colborne
objected to the measure as wholly unnecessary. It would have the effect of punishing servants, whilst it would leave untouched the conduct of owners of horses, who were often cruel in matching them to perform great distances, in very short periods of time. He could not but think that the House was too prone to legislation upon subjects which did not require it.
Mr. Alderman C. Smith
thought the principle of the bill a good one, but lie did not see why its enactments should be confined to horses. He thought that asses should also be protected from the cruelty to which they were so often exposed, and would move that the word "asses" should be inserted.
1099
Mr. Monck
considered the bill altogether unnecessary. It arose out of that spirit of legislation which was too prevalent in the present day. If a bill for the protection of horses and asses should pass, he should not be surprised to find some other member proposing a bill for the protection of dogs [a member here said "and cats"]. He thought it better that such matters should not be made the subject of legislation.
Mr. Alderman Wood
reminded the committee, that there were acts in force for the protection of all animals within the bills of mortality. He should wish this bill to go farther, and protect all animals.
Mr. Warre
thought the present law defective, inasmuch as whatever might be the brutality, yet malice must be proved in order to punish the offender.
Lord Binning
suggested, that the cruelty of an owner to his animals should equally be included in the bill.
Mr. Scarlett
thought the subject not a fit one for legislation, and that gentlemen might as well bring in a bill against hunting the hare.
Mr. Ricardo
said, that when so many barbarities prevailed in fishing and hunting, and other species of amusement, it was idle to legislate without including all possible cases.
Mr. Bernal
hoped no sentiment of ridicule would operate on the mover of this bill, to prevent his persevering.
The Attorney-General
objected to the bill as a new principle in the criminal law.
The House divided: For the Amendment, 31; Against it, 34. The report was ordered to be received on Tuesday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 4, 1821
FORGERY PUNISHMENT MITIGATION
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that from the objections which had been made to this measure, he felt it necessary to submit a few observations to the House. He should endeavour to state, as briefly as possible, the changes which this bill proposed to enact—the principles upon which those
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
The Attorney General
said, that so far
1105
1106
1107
1108
Mr. Denman
said, if he was not convinced of the injurious tendency of the measure now under consideration by the acute and ingenious speech of his learned friend the attorney-general, it did not proceed from his not having paid due attention to all the arguments which he had urged in opposition to it. He had carefully canvassed every part of the measure; and he could declare, with the most clear conscience, that in his mind, every objection which had been raised against the bill had been completely removed in the course of the different discussions to which it had given rise. Unless he had been satisfied of the safety, expediency, and he would almost say necessity of the measure, no feeling of friendship nor sentiment of partiality should have induced him to support it. The attorney-general had said, "Here is an admission made—here is a concession granted; even the advocates of the bill are compelled to abandon the ground on which it originally rested." Now he would state that he did not abandon any portion of the measure, except from absolute necessity. He took all he could obtain, and he took it thankfully; but he regretted that he could not procure the whole of what he desired. He acted from a principle of expediency, because he should be sorry if, in consequence of opposition, the success of the measure, as it at present stood, were put in peril. Therefore he gave up points from which otherwise he would not recede. The attorney-general had asserted that it was a constant principle of the English law to decree the highest possible punishment to any class of crime, the most flagrant instances of which could alone justify the infliction of that punishment. He protested against this, doctrine. He could find no such principle in the common law of England—although it might be perceived in the conflicting and contradictory enactments of the legislature, founded on temporary circumstances. It had been argued, that severity of punishment prevented crime, because it struck a salutary terror into the minds of bad men. He, however, thought otherwise: it appeared to him that excessive punishment struck terror into the minds, not of offenders, but of those who were injured, and whom it prevented from prosecuting. Those who saw the necessity of an alteration, in the law did not act
1109
1110
Mr. Dent
observed, that the bill was considered an experiment. Now the term experiment implied a doubt of success, and in this case a failure would be productive of much greater evils than those which the measure was intended to remedy.
Mr. Wilmot
said, he would bore opposed the bill if the anomalous distinction between forgery on the Bank of England and forgery on country banks and private individuals had not been removed. Adverting to the punishment of transportation, he observed that every body allowed that it was practically inoperative. It was an additional reason with him, therefore, in voting for this bill, that it would compel the legislature to look out for some secondary punishment more effectual. He thought nothing so likely to deter from crime as the punishment of hard labour for a term of years, combined with as plain and moderate food as was consistent with the support of life.
Mr. Marryat
thought the exceptions in the bill were subversive of all fairness and justice; seeing that, they negotiable securities of the Bank land on a different footing from any private or country banker.
Mr. John Smith
believed that the severity of punishment had been one great cause of the increase of crime; because it restrained people from prosecuting. It would be very difficult, however, to show why the Bank of England should be protected in preference to other bankers. He thought, on the contrary, that the Bank had almost less pretence to such an exclusive advantage than any other set of individuals. The notes of the country banks were better executed and less easily imitated than those of the Bank of England.
Mr. Pearse
thought it would be great advantage if the seller of forged notes could be punished by the operation of this bill. He was not for severely punish-
1111
Mr. Mills
thought that this bill was forward at a most inauspicious time. The persons who had been long accustomed to forge would not be idle; but would go on, and profit of the interval that must elapse before any of these provisions could be finally enacted by parliament.
Mr. Lockhart
opposed the exceptions in favour of the Bank, and dwelt on the increased risks to which they would subject the country bankers and others.
Mr. Baring
believed that the crime of forgery was carried on to a greater extent in this country than in all the rest of civilized Europe. There must be therefore something wrong in the present law. It had been contended that the punishment of death was not safely to be dispensed with. In Holland, however—a country where the people were very conversant with all matters that regarded the security of their private interests, and the interest of the state—the crime of forgery was not punished with death; in Hamburgh it was not so punishable; in the French commercial code death was not the punishment attached to it. In assimilating the law of this kingdom to the law of the greater portion of the civilized world, the House consequently need not apprehend that inundation of forgeries which had been denounced as the immediate effect of such a measure. The punishment at present decreed by our law was either transportation or death. Transportation in many cases, however, so far from being an effective punishment, was an event much desired, and as to the punishment of death, it had been proved by experience that the dread of it would never effectually operate to deter from the commission of the crime. Desperate men who were reduced to such an extremity, were very willing to put their lives to hazard. Yet these very men might look at the punishment of six or ten years' hard labour, as one which they must sink under. As to the bill, he could
1112
Mr. Hart Davis
would oppose the bill, unless a distinction were made between bills of exchange and bankers checks. The latter were more easily forged, and therefore to that offence the capital punishment should still attach.
Mr. T. Wilson
stated the object of the merchants and bankers in presenting a petition. The petitioners conceived that mercantile property was entitled to the same protection as the bank of England.
Mr. Harbord
said, he would vote, for the third reading, protesting, however, against the exceptions which had been introduced.
Mr. R. Martin
contended that all forgers, if asked in a body, whether they would rather have the punishment of death with all its chances of escape, than the certainty of hard labour for ten years to be the law, would answer in the affirmative. He had lately been in a coffee-house where a person had been pointed out to him as one who had prosecuted a friend for forgery. The friend had been hanged, and this person was regarded by every one with execration. He knew many who had prosecuted for forgery, and who would lament it to the day of their death. In Ireland the forging of a will was not a capital felony, and it did not occur more frequently there than in England.
The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes 111. The bill was then read a third time.
List of the Majority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Clifton, visct.
Allen, J. H.
Coffin, sir I.
Bent, John
Concannon, L.
Burrell, sir C.
Crespigny, sir W. D.
Benett, John
Crompton, Sam.
Belgrave, visct.
Calvert, N.
Bentinck, lord W.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Blair, J. H.
Cherry, G. H.
Burrell, Walter
Crawley, Sam.
Barham, J. F.
Child, W. L.
Barham, J. V. jun.
Cripps, Jos.
Baring, H.
Courtenay, W.
Barnard, visct.
Davies, T. H.
Becher, W. W.
Denman, T.
Benyon, Benj.
Denison, W. J.
Bernal, Ralph
Dundas, hon. T.
Byng, Geo.
Duncannon, visct.
Baring, Alex.
Deerhurst, visct.
Chaloner, Robt.
Ebrington, visct.
Calcraft, John
Evans, W.
Calvert, C.
Ellison, C.
Carter, J.
Fitzroy, lord J.
1113
Folkestone, lord
Palmer, C. F.
Fleming, J.
Parnell, sir H.
Forbes, C.
Price, R.
Gordon, R.
Ricardo, David
Grattan, John
Rice, J. S.
Graham, Sandford
Robarts, G.
Grain, J. P.
Robinson, sir G.
Grenfell, P.
Rowley, sir W.
Griffiths, J. W.
Rumbold, C.
Gaskell, B.
Russell, lord J.
Gladstone, John
Russell, lord W.
Haldimand, W.
Smith, J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Smith, Wm.
Harbord, hon. E.
Smith, R.
Heron, sir R.
Scarlett, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Stopford, lord
Hume, Jos.
Sebright, sir J.
Hurst, R.
Taylor, M. A.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hare, R.
Tennyson, C.
Hamilton, sir H. D.
Warre, J. A.
Knox, hon. T.
Western, C. C.
Lennard, T. B.
Whitbread, W. H.
Lushington, S.
Whitbread, S. C.
Littleton, Ed.
Williams, W.
Legh, J. H.
Wilson, sir R.
Maberly, W. L.
Wyvill, M.
Macdonald, Jas.
Wynn, C. W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Ward, hon. J. W.
Maxwell, J.
Wellesley, Rd.
Milbank, M.
Westhenra, hon. H.
Milton, visct.
Wortley, J. S.
Monck, J. B.
Whitmore, W. W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Wilmot, R.
Martin, John
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
TELLERS.
Nugent, lord
Buxton, T. F.
Old, W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Ossulston, lord
Mr. Cripps
then moved to except out of the bill "any promissory note, bill of exchange, or order for the payment of money drawn by, or upon, or made payable by any banker or bankers."
Mr. Baring
said the clause proposed would include every bill in commercial transactions. If the House admitted this clause, the bill might as well be thrown out altogether.
Dr. Lushington
said, he was desired to mention to the House that a banking-house of the greatest eminence had lost 10,000
l.
The House divided: For the Amendment 109. Against it 102. On the question, "that the bill do pas," the marquis
1114
Mr. Brougham
said, he heartily agreed in the principle of the House, he hoped it would be received elsewhere with that attention which was due to a measure which bead undergone so much consideration. He regretted that the noble lord had made that stage of the bill the cause of division and debate.
Sir J. Mackintosh
strongly objected to this manœuvre of the noble lord, observing that many of the friends of the bill had quitted the House, in the persuasion that no further opposition was intended. Since he had sat in parliament he said he had never known so unworthy a manœuvre practised. Sir James ended by moving "that the House do now adjourn," and after a warm discussion, in which Mr. Brougham, lord John Russell, and lord Londonderry took part, the two former-representing the proceeding as a parliamentary stratagem; a division took place on the question. "That the Bill do pass." Ayes 115. Noes 121. The Bill was consequently lost.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 6, 1821
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION—MR. DOLBY'S PETITION.]
Dr. Lushington
rose to present a petition from Thomas Dolby, bookseller, in the Strand. The petitioner began by complaining, that after being established in busines for 13 years, and never having been subjected to any prosecution, he had been lately twice exposed to it, by a self-denominated "Constitutional Association." That after having escaped the vigilance of the attorney-general and the secretary of state for the home department, whom he Considered to be the only persons appointed by law and the constitution to take cognizance of the offence of libel, he had fallen into the clutches of an association which had constituted itself an auxiliary to those two officers of the Crown. He said that the alleged libel, for which an indictment had been preferred against him, was contained in an obscure periodical publication, which he had discontinued before the prosecution was commenced. He stated, that after a true bill had been found against him upon such indictment, he was held to bail fop his appearance, thereto, and for his good behaviour in the
1115
1116
1117
1118
Sir M. Cholmeley
said that he should be deficient in duty, as well as in manliness, if, as his name was among the subscribers to the Constitutional Association, he did not stand forward to state the reasons that induced him to belong to it. When he first came to town to attend his duty in parliament, he had been greatly shocked in passing, through the streets to see offensive placards on the walls, and gross caricatures in the shops. He observed that sedition and blasphemy were increasing daily, and he was of course anxious to put a stop to their progress. He remembered that when he was a young man, if a person wanted to see a bad caricature, he could not do so without going into the shop; but now they were thrust upon the notice of the passengers; and no man could go through the streets without having his eyes insulted by the most offensive placards and comparisons of an odious kind between the highest personage and the greatest of tyrants. He had even seen a representation of a bull with a woman on its back, which woman was meant for a royal personage. When it was at first proposed to him to belong to this association, he had particularly, asked whether it had any political view, and he was answered that it was not intended to prosecute libels upon any political party but generally to put down disloyalty. Being assured that such only was its object, he had promised to attend the meetings but on account of his frequent presence in parliament, and the late hours to which the House had sat, he was able to do so, and could not therefore hold himself responsible for what had been done in his absence.
Mr. Denman
gave the hon. baronet full credit for all his assertions. He was
1119
Sir M. Cholmeley
said, he had made no allusion whatever to the learned member.
Mr. Denman
certainly thought the hon. baronet referred to some caricature connected with an observation he (Mr. D.) had made in another place, in which he had introduced the name of Nero.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN TOBAGO.]
Lord Nugent
rose to move for a committee to inquire into certain abuses in the Administration of Justice in the island of Tobago. He said, that towards the end of the last session, Mr. Capper, who had been attorney general of the island, had stated certain facts that appeared to him to amount to flagrant denials of justice, and indeed to great personal cruelty. Mr. Capper having been appointed early in 1819, went out to Tobago, but soon found that he must either make himself a party to the unjust practices prevailing, must subject himself to a life of disquiet and mortification, or must relinquish his appointment. He preferred the latter, and returning at great personal inconvenience, he laid the whole case before the Colonial department. Lord Bathurst communicated with the authorities of the island on the subject; he received a report denying the charges, and imputing unworthy motives to Mr. Capper; and upon that report his lord-
1120
de lunatico inquirendo.
1121
1122
1123
Mr. W. Smith
rose to second the motion. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Pigott, he should merely observe, that men of good intentions were often warped in their conduct by the influence of the prejudices and habits of the associations into which they were thrown. What, he would ask, must be the state of society in a place where such oppression was suffered to exist? What remedy could be devised in order to produce a better state of things? The fair remedy would be to make a trial, whether justice could not be administered in the island by those over whom prejudice could have very little influence, and circumstances none whatsoever. Why could not justice be administered by persons who should make a circuit of the island, like the judges of England? Why were the interests of justice supposed to be safer in the hands of our judges than in those of the local magistracy? Because the former could not be influenced by local feelings, and in all probability formed but few local acquaintances. In the West Indies, more particularly in the small islands, the case was directly the reverse. They had heard much of- the respectability of the House of Assembly at Tobago; but he believed that, with the exception of the chief-justice and one other individual, the 22 or 23 members of whom it was composed were agents and attorneys. If this were so, then these 22 or 23 persons formed a society amongst themselves; and a man, whether he were rich or poor, stood a very bad chance of succeeding when he set up the justice of his case against the prejudices of those individuals. It was morally impossible to establish an efficient local jurisdiction in the small islands, if the existing system were continued.
Mr. Goulburn
said, he would not follow the noble lord into the details of his state-
1124
Mr. Barham
regretted that his noble friend had not confined himself to the precise object of his motion, instead of deviating into general assertions and statements. It was his intention to submit an amendment, in order to make the motion commensurate with the charges. After defending the planters from the loose and unwarranted accusations which were continually made against them, he moved, by way of amendment, "That this House will, early in the next session, appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Administration of Justice in the West-India Colonies."
Sir J. Mackintosh
was desirous that the present proceeding should be remedial hot criminatory. The questions for the House to determine were, first, was there a case for any inquiry at all; secondly, if that question were answered in the affirmative what ought to be the time and place of
1125
Mr. Marryat
denied that the administration of justice could not be impartial in the small West-India islands. He had lived in one of them ten years, and had twice had occasion to go into a, court of justice. One of his accusations was brought Against the president of the island, another against one of he judges. In both cases he had obtained verdicts, which could not have been given had the system been such as had been described. The proposition for a sort of ambulatory or sailing commission to administer justice in all the West-India islands, he thought very objectionable. He should hot object to a commission being sent but to inquire into the administration of justice in Tobago, but the appointment of a select committee would certainly meet with his opposition.
Mr. Wilberforce
thought, from the facts which had been stated, the presumption was, that acts of gross impropriety had occurred, and was therefore of opinion that inquiry ought to take place. This was due even to the individuals who were implicated. The inquiry would, he thought, be better prosecuted in this country, and he therefore hoped the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend would be agreed to.
Lord Nugent
consented to withdraw his motion, and moved, instead thereof, "That this House will, early in the next session, appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Administration of Justice in the Island of Tobago."
The House divided: Ayes, 66;iNoes, 105.
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CTARENCE.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had a communication to make to the House from his royal highness the duke, of Clarence, which had obtained the sanction on of his majesty. Before he made it,
1126
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the duke of Clarence had (being at that time about to go abroad) declined accepting the grant of 6,000
l.
Mr. Hume
begged to ask whether, this being a new parliament, a specific message from the Crown ought not to have been sent down upon the subject? He thought it ought also to be ascertained, whether his late majesty had not left property behind him, out of which the duke of Clarence migh be provided for, without saddling the consolidated fund with a charge which it was unable to bear?
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the subject would be better discussed when the question came before the committee. The grant proposed some years ago to the princess of Wales of 50,000
l.
l.
The motion was agreed to.
AMERICAN LOYALISTS.]
Mr. W. Courtenay
rose to bring forward his motion on this subject. The hon. member entered into a variety of arguments to show that the loyalists, who had been ruined in their property in consequence of their allegiance to their sovereign, were entitled to particular consideration. There was, he contended, a broad distinction between those who had lost their property in consequence of their loyalty, and those
1127
Sir Scope Moreland
contended, that the misfortunes of the individuals alluded to arising as they did out of their inviolate allegiance, entitled them to the peculiar consideration of the House.
Mr. Buring
said, that if the claims of the loyalists were good for anything, the claims of the merchant creditors were equally so. There were three descriptions of loyalists: 1st, The landed proprietors; 2nd, Persons resident in America, who had claims in America, but against whom the courts of justice had been closed. 3rd, Merchants who were in a similar situation. After the struggle in America had terminated the House had made compensation to the first class. No compensation was made to the others; because the British government thought that the difficulties in the claims of those persons would have been removed. After much negociation, a commission was opened at Philadelphia on the subject, and there the question was mooted, whether those claimants were entitled to redress. The majority of the commissioners decided in favour of their claims, but the Americans, contrary to good faith, broke up the commission, and thus the matter ended. Under the advice of lord Liverpool, their claims were subsequently entertained by the American government, and a fund of 600,000
l.
Mr. Wynn
said, that from the best Consideration be was able to give the case of those persons, he thought their claims were founded policy and justice.
Mr. Money
Contended, that the persons whose claims were before the Houses were, after their long sufferings, entitled to the sympathy and Consideration of parliament.
1128
Mr. Wilberforce
said he had, nearly forty years ago, supported the claim of these same persons. He had then thought that to refuse their claim would be unjust. Had the promise been made by parliament? Undoubtedly it had. Were they loyalists? They really and truly were. Their claim could not, therefore, consistently with the good faith of parliament, be rejected
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
opposed the motion, contending, that it was to the American government, and not to this Country, that these loyalist sought to appeal. By the act of 1783, they had received as much compensation as the circumstances of the country could afford.
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that the promises held forth in the proclamations of our generals were binding on this country; and denied that the inability to make compensation could be urged with effect, when larger compensations were allowed to persons whose claims were not so strong.
The House divided: Ayes, 77 Noes, 60.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 7, 1821
IONIAN ISLANDS.—CONDUCT OF SIR
Mr. Hume
said, that he was aware of the situation in which he was about to place himself, by submitting to the consideration of the House a subject involving several points of importance, not only to individuals, but also to the public at large. As he had no personal acquaintance whatsoever with sir T. Maitland, he trusted that the House would give him credit when he stated that the observations which he had to make upon the conduct of that individual were such as were extorted from him by a sense of public duty, and the events which had occurred in the Ionian Islands since he had acted there as lord commissioner. He could have wished that ministers had been present at this discussion [loud cries of "Hear"!] because some of the comments which he should have to make upon the conduct of sir T. Maitland seemed also to apply to the noble secretary of state for the colonial department (lord Bathttrst.) He was given to understand that all communications which had been made; from the Ionian Islands to England had been made through the office of lord Bathurst; and if that were the case, at if the facts
1129
1130
1131
1132
amende honorable,
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
espionage.
1139
l.
l.
l.,
l.
Mr. Goulburn
begged leave to say, with respect to the treaty of Paris, on which the present constitution of the Ionian
1140
in toto
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
Mr. Bennet
said, that his hon. friend had truly described the constitution given to the Ionian islands as a mere mockery, a trick, a juggle. It was high sounding and pompous, indeed; something to the ear; a little to the eyes; but in fact—in substance—nothing. It was something like those constitutions which, for the last twenty years, the French government had been in the frequent habit of promulgating; but, whatever were their specious pretensions, in the one case, the power of the emperor, and in the other the exorbitant power of the lord high commissioner, effectually abrogated them. As for the lord high commissioner, he had so fashioned the constitution which he had given to these people, that while there was some appearance preserved of his Own measures being liable to parliamentary cognizance, he, in fact, behind the scenes, was the head, the master Punchinello, who worked the puppets within just as he pleased, and directed all their movements. The hon. gentleman had said, that this government worked well. He begged the House to consider whether it did or no. Let them look at the case of Battaglia, for instance. This person and his ancestors had held a property, derived from the church, ever since the year 1387. A captain of marines made a report of this circumstance; a Venetian law forbade the alienation of church property, and the property was declared to be forfeited to the church. Upon such a principle, all those church lands, lying in every part of this kingdom, which had been seized by Harry the eighth, and parcelled out among innumerable persons, would be at this day equally insecure. It had been objected to his hon. friend that the charges he had brought forward were not of a sufficiently specific nature. This did appear a singular objection, for certainly he had never heard charges more minute or fuller of particulars. In what did these consist? There was the case, in the first place, of Martinengo. He did not believe that such a thing was ever heard of in this country as a man's being brought to trial upon 6uch a charge. But the hon. gentleman considered the punishment as not a severe one. What! twelve years' imprisonment no severe punishment to a man 66 years of age? The hon. gentleman contended that it was necessary to invest the lord high commissioner with absolute power for the protection of and benefit of the people. Would the House
1146
Mr. Evans
said, he would defy any man to say what the crime of Martinengo was from the manner in which the charge against him had been stated. With respect to the powers given to a colonel of marines over the houses of religious worship, he considered it unjust, impolitic, and calculated to excite the jealousy and discontent of the people. The power of sir T. Maitland over the islands was to great for any man to be entrusted with it was not defined, it was not limited. Every friend to the Ionians should vote for inquiry, because in that case the causes of discontent might be ascertained. Nay, every friend of sir T. Maitland ought to call for investigation; because, without investigation, it would be impossible for him to escape censure.
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, he was confident the conduct of sir T. Maitland required explanation only; but as the motion went to impute misconduct to him, he could not support it. The constitution upon which he acted had been laid upon the table of the House, and had not called for any comment. Whether it was wise to leave the Venetian laws for the government of these islands was one thing, but it was another to blame sir T. M. for having acted under them. In the case of Martinengo, it was no part of sir Thomas's duty to reform the law. The laws in existence were those of Venice. The property confiscated was applied to building churches. Persons whose property
1147
Mr. Brougham
said, he did not mean to make any charge against sir T. Maitland. His conduct was not the subject in question: but he had seen enough of the Ionian isles, to convince him that the subjects of that country lived under a dispensation of law, which, he thanked God, no other part of the empire lived under. With respect to the case of Martinengo, he would only beg the attention of the House to the kind of law which was administered in those islands. Of the charge brought; against him, it would be impossible for the most acute man in that House to conjecture, from the manner in which it was stated in the document before him; it stated that the prisoner, in the name of the senate, was charged with crimes and offences against the state, as principal; actor in the same. Crimes and offences against the state might mean every thing or nothing. He contended, that on the face of the indictment there was no charge made against the accused, against which he could be prepared to defend himself. It might be very well that the lord chief commissioner should be invested with the power of the doge of Venice; and, by way of making the thing more palatable to the people and more respectable in the eyes of the British parliament, it might be well to have added to that the powers of the inquisitors of Venice: but, at all events, it was but right that the existence of such things should be known to that House in order that it might redress them.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that though he saw no ground for impeaching sir T. Maitland's conduct, he should vote for an inquiry into the system. If he were sir Thomas, he would be the first to call for an inquiry. It would be better for the inhabitants to be under an arbitrary government, than under one organised like the present.
Mr. Money
thought the friends of sir T. Maitland had reason to complain that the most trifling circumstances connected with his conduct had been magnified into Crimes. Much good might result from a revision of the laws; but sir T. Maitland had acted only as the agent of those laws.
The Marquis of Londonderry
rose to —a few remarks in answer to the
1148
Mr. Lennard
considered the situation of the inhabitants of the Ionian islands peculiarly unfortunate. They were entitled to a free constitution by the treaty of Paris; but nothing had been resorted to but the mockery of a constitution.
Sir I. Coffin
said, he had known sir T. Maitland 35 years, and a more able and gallant officer did not exist.
Mr. Hume
observed, in reply, that he must, notwithstanding all he had heard, still consider sir T. Maitland as culpable in a high degree, inasmuch as he had had the power of preventing the occurrence of those unfortunate scenes which had taken place in the islands. It had been mentioned, that during the course of sir T. Maitland's public services this was the first time that any complaint or reflection had been made against him. That he denied; and it was well known to the hon.
1149
The House then divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 97.
List of the Minority.
Bury, lord
Monck, J. B.
Buxton, F.
Moore, P.
Davies, col.
Newport, sir J.
Denman, T.
Palmer, C. F.
Evans, T.
Rice, S.
Folkestone, lord
Robinson, sir G.
Grattan, J.
Rumbold, E.
Guise, sir W.
Russell, lord J.
Gurney, H.
Smith, John
Harbord, hon. E.
Tennyson, C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Whitbread, S. C.
Lennard, T. B.
TELLERS.
Maberly, J.
Hume, J.
Maxwell, M.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Milbank, J.
1150
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 8, 1821
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE.]
On the order of the day for taking into consideration the resolution of 16th April 1818, granting the duke of Clarence an annuity of 6,000
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it would be recollected, that in 1818 a proposition for increasing the provision allowed to different branches of the royal family received the sanction of the House. It arose from the Prince Regent deeming, necessary to bring under the consideration of parliament the situation, of certain, branches of the royal family then on the point of contracting marriage. In laying before the House, in 1818, the necessity of making an addition to the allowances of the royal family, it was his duty to suggest, that in. the failure of heirs to the duke of York, the country must naturally look to the succession to the Crown being kept up by the younger branches of the royal family, and that, therefore, it was proper for them to contract marriages with individuals of suitable rank. Here the noble marquis apologized for having commenced his statement before the House was in committee. He then moved, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. Monck
referred to what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchequer on a former evening. The right hon. gentleman had said, that, the country could not afford, to pay the debt claimed by the American loyalists, who asked for thing more than what was strictly just Now if, they could not afford to pay a debt of strict justice, the House would not, he hoped, be hasty in doing an act, not of justice, but of mere grace, bounty, and national generosity. But, independently of this, alterations had occurred with respect to the value of our currency which rendered, the present time peculiarly ill-suited for a grant of this nature, It was during Mr. Fox's administration that the present allowance was made. At that time 6,000
l.
l.
1151
The House having gone into the committee,
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that with respect to what took place in 1818, he would briefly observe that, from certain circumstances, that which parliament then meant to effect was not realized; and in consequence the present grant was called for. It was true that the allowances of the royal family were settled in 1806; but those allowances referred, not to the married, but to the unmarried state of the parties. Now, though lord Grenville's administration increased the allowance to the royal family when they were not married, it did not follow that a farther increase ought to be withheld when their situation was essentially altered. The scale of provision submitted to the House in 1818, did not meet the feelings of parliament, and that general scale underwent a considerable reduction. The situation of the duke of Clarence stood on special grounds; but, though it was contemplated to give to him a larger sum than to the other members of the royal family, the House manifested an unwillingness to place him in a better situation than that in which his royal brothers stood. Still he was perfectly sure that the feelings of the House were entirely in favour of the minor grant; and when he wished to withdraw the report, a right hon. gentleman expressed a desire that it should be brought up, in order that the House might express its sense of this
1152
l.
l.
1153
Mr. Hume
thought the noble lord ought to divide his proposition into two parts. To the first part, the House would perhaps agree; but the second involved a question of arrears, which he conceived ought not to be granted.
The Marquis of Londonderry
objected to the suggestion of the hon. member, which went to destroy the spirit in which his proposition was conceived.
Mr. Hume
said, that if the noble lord would be content to give the duke of Clarence no more than his brothers possessed, he was ready to go so far with him. The noble lord had called on the House not to place the duke on a worse footing than the younger branches of the royal family. He, for one, was ready to place his royal highness on an equality with his brothers. The late duke of Kent and the duke of Cambridge had each 18,000
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1154
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1155
l.
l.
l,
1156
l.
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that in adverting to the 2,500
l.
1157
l.
l.
l.
l.;
1158
jure coronœ,
Mr. Williams
said, that what he has understood was, that the grant of 2,500
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that what he meant to observe was, that parliament, in granting to the royal family incomes upon former occasions, had not taken any notice of their accidental or professional emoluments.
1159
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the part of the proposition to which he most objected, was the payment of the arrears, of which he would not consent to vote a shilling. If the duke wanted the sum voted him in 1818, why did he not accept it? If he did not want it, why was parliament now to be called upon to pay it from that period? Adverting to the property of his late majesty, he observed, that as that property had fallen to the king
jure coronœ,
l.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the estates of his late majesty, as he had not disposed of them by a valid instrument, had certainly devolved to the king
jure coronœ.
l.
Mr. Bright
had no objection to granting the additional 6,000
l.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that having supported the grant of 6,000
l.
1160
l.
l.
Mr. Forbes
contended that the private conduct of any of the princes of the blood royal ought not to become the subject of discussion when any grant was proposed for the maintenance of their royal dignity. He thought that on the present occasion there had been a good deal of inconsistency on both sides. A former grant to the duke and duchess of Cumberland had been objected to on grounds which he considered unfair and ungenerous. He thought it was unfair and illiberal to allow scandalous rumours to weigh with them on such occasions. From every thing which had come to his knowledge on this subject, nothing could be more praiseworthy than the conduct of the duchess of Cumberland. He had understood the noble lord to state, that the proposed grant was for the purpose I of placing the duke of Clarence upon a foot-
1161
l.
l.
Yorke
l.
"He that will not when he may,
"When he will, he shall have nay."
Mr. Harbord
felt himself bound to support the grant of 6,000
l.
l.
1162
Lord Milton
regretted that upon a question of this importance a specific message from the Crown had not been brought down. The grant under discussion had been voted, three parliaments ago. If this was made a precedent, no one knew to what consequences it would lead. He was ready to vote for the 6,000
l.
Sir R. Wilson
thought, that though the duke of Clarence had no legal claim to the grant, he had an equitable one. It would, he thought, be an inconsistency in the House, to act upon the refusal of his royal highness on a former occasion, and would have the appearance of a vindictive feeling, which it would not become the House to entertain. As to the arrears, he thought that as it was now more than twelve months since the return of his royal highness to this country, the arrears ought to be allowed for that time at least.
Sir F. Blake
expressed his entire concurrence in the proposed grant of 6,000
l.
Mr. Brougham
said, that having three years ago assented to the grant of 6,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
then withdrew his amendment for reducing the grant to 3,500
l.
1163
List of the Minority.
Baring, sir T.
King, sir J. D.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lester, B. L.
Benet, J.
Martin, J.
Bernat, R.
Milton, lord
Birch, R.
Newman, R. W.
Bright, H.
Nugent, lord
Brougham, H.
Palmer, C. F.
Bury, lord
Parnell, sir H.
Chaloner, R.
Portman, T. B.
Denman, T.
Powlett, hon. E.
Dundas, hon. T.
Rice, S.
Evans, T.
Robarts, A. W.
Fane, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Farrand, R.
Rumbold, R.
Forbes, C.
Smith, W.
Fleming, J.
Smith, J.
Gipps, G.
Tennyson, C.
Gordon, R.
Webb, col.
Grattan, J.
Williams, W.
Gaskell, B.
TELLER.
Harbord, hon. E.
Hume, Joseph
Hobhouse, J. C.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 13, 1821
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.]
The House having gone, into a committee of supply, to which the Miscellaneous Estimates were referred, Mr. Arbuthnot moved, "That 69,415
l.
Mr. Hume
observed, that it would be much more intelligible if, instead of the balance, the whole expense of the departments in question were stated, and stated separately. The expense of those departments had considerably increased within a few years. In 1796 the whole expense of the Treasury establishment was 26,943
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l;
l.
l.
1164
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
could see no objection to a separate statement of the expense of each department. The vote was in its present form, because the fee fund paid the expenses of the departments in question as far as it went, and it was only for the deficiency that application was made to parliament. He would say a few words on the salaries of the secretaries of the Treasury and the clerks. By the finance reports of 1797, it appeared, that in the last year of the American war, the emoluments of the secretaries of the Treasury were 5,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
1165
l.
Sir E. Knatchbull
adverted to the great difference in the value of money at the present period, and at the period when the salaries of the public officers in the Treasury were fixed. He wished to know whether that consideration entered into the plan of revision which the hon. gentleman had alluded to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that though the circumstance adverted to was of great importance, yet that any intention of making a change in the salaries, in consequence of the change in the value of money, ought to be preceded by a considerable notice. The object in which the Treasury were now engaged was, in considering how the business of the public departments might be best conducted with a view to simplification and economy.
l.
Mr. Arbuthnot
observed, that the expense of this item had become enormous,
1166
Mr. Hume
was satisfied that he department was more open to reduction than that of parliamentary printing, as well as stationery. Early in the next session he meant to show, from incontrovertible evidence, that the charge of stationery was absolutely usurious. Both the printing and the stationery expenses might be easily reduced at least 50 per cent. The printing of the 58th volume of their Journals cost the country 3,946
l.
l.
l.,
l.
The resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 14, 1821
BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH'S EXAMINATION QUESTIONS.]
Lord King
rose to call the attention of the House to a case in which the rights of the rectors of the church of England were directly involved, and which also affected the rights of the great body of the clergy. He held in his hand the petition of the rev. Henry William Neville, rector of Blatherwick, a gentleman who had had recourse to this mode of seeking redress with great reluctance, and who would not have brought his complaint before their lordships if he could have obtained redress in any other manner. The petitioner held two livings in the diocese of Peterborough, to, one of which it was necessary he should present a curate. The rev. John Green was accordingly presented. He came forward with proper testimonials of character and ability. He had already signed the 39 articles, and was ready to be examined and to subscribe them again. This, however, was not sufficient to satisfy the right rev. prelate opposite (the bishop of Peterborough), who insisted upon answers to 87 questions previously framed and printed, and on refusal to answer them, signified his
1167
1168
1169
The Bishop of Peterborough
said:—
* Dr. Herbert Marsh. From the original edition printed for Rivingtons.
1170
1171
1172
1173
à fortiori
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
The Archbishop of Canterbury
stated, that the application made by the petitioner to him, was not in the form of an appeal, but merely a letter inquiring whether the bishop could be justified is the conduct he pursued or not? Some unavoidable delay had taken place in giving an answer; and when given, the answer was, that the 48th canon empowered and directed the bishop to examine all applicants for admission into his diocese.
Lord Calthorpe
respected the character and talents of the right rev. prelate; but was of opinion, that the conduct be had pursued was calculated to disturb the peace of the Church, and to endanger the ascendancy of the Protestant Establishment, by the revival of controversial points.
The Earl of Harrowby
did not see any practical object which could be gained by the reception of the present petition. It was inconsistent with the charity of Christians to suppose that the church intended do exclude Calvinists; but he did not see how parliament could now be appealed to.
Earl Grey
thought their lordships had the power of applying a remedy in a case of this kind, and that redress could sometimes be obtained from no other quarter. The mode of examination aodpted by the right rev. prelate appeared to him to be extremely dangerous to the peace of the Church.
The Marquis of Lansdown
admitted the expediency of empowering the right reverend bench to examine persons applying for admission in their dioceses. But though he admitted the right, be must my it might be abused, and for the purpose of asserting the right of the House to interfere, he would vote in favour of the motion, that the Petition be laid upon the table.
The motion was then put, and negatived.
1181
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 14, 1821
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION—PETITION OF EDWARD KING.]
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that he had been intrusted with a petition from an individual who considered himself aggrieved by the Association of which the House had recently heard so much. It was from a person of the name of King, against whom an indictment had been preferred by this Constitutional Association, supported before the grand jury by the evidence of only one witness, Horatio Orton. Indignant at the attempt that had thus been made to render him amenable to the laws, when the indictment was thrown out, Mr. King published his case in the newspapers. This step had induced Mr. Orton to make an affidavit, which the petitioner asserted contained direct falsehoods. He did not know that in a legal point of view, the offence was of that extent; but assuredly in a moral sense Orton had been guilty, if the petitioner were believed, of the crime of perjury. It was said that Orton had inquired of King who was the publisher of the pamphlet on which the prosecution was founded, when he must have known at the time that it was Dolby, because an indictment was preferred against Dolby on the 17th May, and his name as the publisher was on the back of the first part of the work, bought by Orton on 16th May. It seemed quite clear that some person or persons had suborned Orton to what appeared to the petitioner very like perjury. One point was undeniable, viz. that King had committed no crime whatever. When it was inquired for, he had not the objectionable publication in his possession. This was on the 16th of May; consequently, the individual sent out by the Association endeavoured to entrap an innocent man in the commission of a crime. The object of the petitioner was, that some means might be devised by which he should be able to get at the real names of the committee which induced Orton to go to the shop of Mr. King. The case was one of a most atrocious nature; it was an attempt to ruin an industrious man by bringing him into a court of justice for a work of which He was not only not the publisher, but which he had not even in his shop. The individuals forming this association seemed resolved to make crimes if they could not find them ready Made to their hands. The Society for the Suppression of Vice
1182
l.
l.
l.
corpus delicti
corpus delicti;
The petition was read, and ordered to be printed.
SCOTCH BURGHS.]
Lord A. Hamilton,
on presenting the Report of the Committee on the state of the Scotch Burghs, which he was called upon to do as the chairman of that committee, took occasion to observe, that he dissented from the Report, and disapproved of the conduct of the committee, because they had not sufficiently investigated the subject. It was due to himself, ay well as to other members of the committee who concurred with him in sentiment, to make this declaration. This Report was drawn up by others in his unavoidable absence from town, although upon his departure he promised to have a report prepared. He found fault, indeed, not so much with what the committee had done as with what
1183
Lord Binning
sate, he had no objection to the production of the Minutes. As to the Report it was drawn up in the noble lord's absence, no doubt; but, from the long sitting of the committee, his return could not conveniently be waited for. The committee did not think it necessary to go into the extent of investigation required by the noble lord; but in the report now presented, suggestions were contained, which, if acted upon, would, he had no doubt, remedy all the evils complained of by the petitioners.
Mr. Abercromby
concurred in what had fallen from lord A. Hamilton, and contended, that the usual courtesy of a committee towards its chairman had been violated.
Sir. R. Fergusson
said, that, having withdrawn from the committee, he felt it his duty to state the reason which had induced him to do so. The House would recollect that a committee had sat in 1819, to consider the state of the Scotch burghs. Ministers, who wished to keep abuses from the public eye, found that committee about to do rather too much; and when, in 1820, the same subject was again brought forward, they declined renewing the committee of 1819, and substituted one chiefly composed of their own official friends. He did not mean to say that the gentlemen so appointed had not acted conscientiously; but he must say that he found them on all occasions the protectors of abuses.
Mr. K. Douglas
denied that the committee had failed to discharge their duty. If the measures they recommended were carried into effect, every practical inconvenience would, he was satisfied, be removed.
Mr. Hume
said, that the complaint of his noble friend, that he had not been treated with common courtesy, was well-founded. The eight allegations contained in the complaint of the petitioners had all been affirmed, yet they were all lightly treated by the committee. After the labours of three years, no practical benefit would result from them, because a majority of the committee had set themselves against every attempt at, amelioration.
The report was ordered to be printed.
1184
AGRICULTURAL HORSE TAX.]
Mr. Curwen,
in rising to call the attention of the House to this important subject, said, that the object which he had in view was one most material to the interests of Agriculture. The tax had always been unjust in principle, and oppressive in practice. Formerly, he had felt it to be his duty to propose some substitute to supply the deficiency which the repeal of the tax in question would occasion in the revenue. But things were now in a different state. The right hon. gentleman had since had abundant opportunities of obviating the evil. Not only must the right hon. gentleman have been aware of the extent of the existing agricultural distress, but he must have well known what had passed in the committee appointed to investigate the causes of that agricultural distress which every one acknowledged to be unprecedented in extent. The result of the inquiries of that committee had. been, that although there existed a variety of opinions in it on other parts of the subject, on that of the agricultural distress, and of the necessity of affording speedy relief to that distress, the committee came to an unanimous resolution, that the distress of the country was fully proved. With such a resolution, what would be the impression on the country if it should turn out that parliament throughout the whole session had abstained from taking a single earthly step to afford the relief acknowledged to be indispensable. To the vote of that night, therefore, the country would look, that they might estimate what they might expect from parliament; for, it: Was evident, that if the report of the committee were to be made in the present session, it was too late to found any measure upon it. He put it, therefore, to the House, what answer they would make to their constituents, if they were asked why they did not adopt the proposition which he was about to submit to them? Would it be becoming in them to say, that because they found they could not give all, they therefore refused to give any thing? It was with him a matter of no doubt, that there never could be any prosperity in this country, while agriculture remained in a distressed state. The chancellor of the exchequer had, during the last two months, been repeatedly intreated to reconsider his estimates. He (My. C.) was persuaded that if the session were now to recommence, the majority would declare that those estimates ought to be reduced.
1185
1186
Mr. Gooch
said, that if ever there was an unjust and oppressive tax, it was the present. He most strongly recommended the repeal. It was a coarse but true saying, that "you could not have more of a cat than its skin;" and the agriculturists were, in fact, unable to pay the tax. If we could not increase our means, we must diminish our expenditure. He thought the hon. member for Aberdeen, by his indefatigable industry and valuable exertions, had done great service to the country.
Mr. Davenport
thought this tax the most oppressive and inexpedient that the ingenuity of man ever suggested; always excepting the tax on salt.
Mr. Coke
declared that it was quite delightful to hear on this occasion the language which was held by the gentlemen opposite. The compliment paid by the chairman of the agricultural committee to the hon. member for Aberdeen, must be highly gratifying to him. For himself, he would say that since he first came into parliament, he did not remember any gentleman to whom the country was so much indebted as to his hon. friend (Mr. Hume), whose exertions had been as important as they were unremitting.
Mr. Cripps
said, it was impossible that immediate relief could be given to the agriculturists, unless the House was prepared to enact that corn should be raised at once to a certain price. He really believed that labourers in general were much better paid when wheat was at a higher price than they were at present. The great object, however, was to keep prices as much as possible on a level, and to prevent fluctuations. The repeal of this tax would be received by the agriculturists as a boon.
Mr. Baring
said, he was one of these who had used their best endeavours to enforce retrenchment and economy upon ministers during the late grants, but un-
1187
Sir W. W. Wynn
supported the motion, and urged the importance of relieving the landed interest.
Mr. Benett,
of Wiltshire, considered the tax to be an impost on the implements of labour, and most unjustand oppressive. He wondered how those could support such a tax who were in favour of cheap bread and opposed to a Corn bill. Measures must be taken for the relief of the agricultural interest: He hoped the honesty of the House would always make them anxious to keep faith with the public creditor; but there was a vulgar adage—" We cannot rob a naked man of a shirt."
Mr. W. Burrell
supported the motion, not from a feeling that it would afford relief, but because it was an unjust tax, and operated rated more severely upon the holders of bad than of good lands. He had supported? ministers during the war, for the had been said by ministersw, "Only
1188
Lord Milton
expressed his great satisfaction at the speech of the hon. gentleman who had spoken last. He would go still further, and call on the whole country to stop the career of taxation. He put it to his hon. friend the member for Taunton, whether for the sake of increasing the fictitious value of stock, the grinding taxation which encroached on the capital that formed the foundation of credit, ought to be endured? He put it to his powerful mind, whether it would not be better to leave in the pockets of the people what increased and fructified with them, than, by taking all away, to ruin them and annihilate the revenue? There were other taxes which ought at the same time to be taken off from the manufacturing interests. The noble lord here begged leave to read, in 1821, an extract from the royal speech in 1721, recommending the taking off taxes from the raw material. He agreed that agriculture was the bases but what was the value of the base, if the shaft of manufactures and the capital of commerce were destroyed? Would they bring this happy land, where manufactures and commerce had spread all the arts, refinements, and elegancies of life, and scattered over the face of the country, rich and populous cities, into the condition of agricultural Poland? Other taxes ought to be repealed as Well as the tax on horses, but especially the tax-oft foreign wool. The four million sinking fund might as well be employed in raising the price of land, as the fictitious; value of stock. If this motion should be successful he would move an instruction to the committee to receive a clause for re-
1189
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the present question involved not only the repeal of 500,000
l.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that a more unsatisfactory statement he had never heard from any minister. That the public credit ought to be supported, was a proposition which no one denied; but the question was as to the best means of supporting
1190
Mr. Huskisson
said, that if all the propositions made by gentlemen opposite were acceded to, the financial system of the country would be completely broken down. He was fully aware of the difficulties under which the agricultural interest was labouring, and could he believe that the repeal of this tax would
1191
s.
d.
l.
Sir C. Burrell
opposed the tax, on the ground that it was oppressive and unjust.
Mr. Maberly
thought the chancellor of the exchequer had no right to call upon the country gentlemen to support him in this tax, especially as he had broken the promise of economy which he had made to them at the time that he imposed it.
1192
Mr. Brougham
said, that this was a tax' that fell unequally in all cases, and most unequally upon those lands which were least able to bear it. He was asked to give a substitute for it, supposing it to be repealed. This he was not bound to give; and he could assure ministers that the only substitute which they should have for it with his consent should be parsimony and economy.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 15, 1821
VAGRANT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
The report of this bill being brought up,
Mr. Courtenay
hoped it was not proposed to revive any of the obnoxious old law with respect to whipping for Vagrancy, adding, that it was apprehended this bill would interfere with the 59th of the late king, with respect to the removal of paupers to their respective parishes.
Mr. Chetwynd
replied in the negative to the first observation of the hon. member, expressing his decided disapprobation of a practice which too often subjected paupers to harsh treatment for mere destitution. The main object of this bill was to prevent the removal of vagrants, which was calculated to have cost the country for some time back no less than 100,000
l.
1193
IRISH REVENUE INQUIRY BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Sir J. Newport
said, that the abuses in the collection of the Irish revenue were of so extensive a nature, that they could only be reached by a parliamentary commission. It was a melancholy fact, that the receipts of the exchequer had diminished in the exact proportion as the burthens of the people had been increased. One of the effects of this excessive taxation was, to increase an evil under which Ireland had long laboured—he alluded to the absence of its gentry. He strongly recommended the adoption of the bill, in the full confidence that the commission would be composed of such persons as would give weight to their appointment, and appreciate the great responsibility of the trust reposed in them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
entirely agreed in the importance of the measure, and in the necessity of appointing such individuals to fill the commission, as would discharge their duty with zeal, integrity, and fearless independence.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that much depended upon the selection of the persons appointed as commissioners. He feared that some new burthen must be imposed upon the country to provide salaries for these commissioners, but he trusted that no member of parliament, unless he already held an official situation, would be appointed. The influence of places and situations of emolument; in that House was already much too extensive, and they ought to be extremely cautious in creating new offices for members of their own body.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed the clause for appointing the commission, and enacting that it should be executed by the following persons:—the right hon. T. Wallace, Mr. Frankland Lewis, colonel Herries, Mr. W. J. Lushington, and Mr. J. Berens. He did not mean to propose any specific remuneration at present to the commissioners, but merely to assign a sum for their expenditure. He thought it, however, right to state, that Mr. Wallace, and colonel
1194
Mr. Hume
was not aware why five, commissioners were necessary; but of this he was sure, that if the vice-president off the Board of Trade (Mr. Wallace), had any business to perform in his office here he could be ill spared for the duty of the commission in Ireland. Colonel Herries was in the same predicament: bow could, he be spared, while he held the office of auditor of the civil list? But he principally rose to object to the appointment, of any member to this commission, unless; he stood pledged not to receive any salary. He bad the highest opinion of the ability, and integrity of his hon. friend near him, (Mr. F. Lewis); but he must nevertheless say, that this office of commissioner, with a salary attached, to it, would be looked, upon as nothing less than a bribe, held out by government for the parliamentary support of the individual.
Mr. F. Lewis
begged permission to say that his humble efforts had ever been, and would still continue to be, at the; public service. He had never shrunk from giving them on every occasion, unostentatiously and disinterestedly to the public, whenever they were thought acceptable. Wherever and whenever he was thought to be of any use in promoting the public service, the country might always have his feeble efforts in any situation, and in any manner, in which they were thought worthy of acceptance; and he might add, that he should be always found just as willing as any hon. member who heard him, to render his services, such as they were, gratuitously. But, waving the, individual question for a moment, he would ask his hon. friends near him, whether they were prepared to advocate the, general principle of gratuitous service; for, unless they were, he could not suffer himself to be selected as an individual exception; and he here begged to be understood as speaking with reference to the general principle. Was it for a moment to be assumed and given out to the world, that, if a man faithfully discharged important duties, and received a fair, remuneration for his labours, his opinions must be considered as so warped by that recompense, that they ought to be looked upon as formed under an under an undue influence Rather than suffer his own, opinions to be so warped, he would be swallowed up by
1195
Mr. Wallace
said, that he bad declined any emolument as a commissioner, on the
1196
Mr. Calcraft
said, that the right hon. gentleman had talked with solemnity of the duty he was about to undertake, and the obloquy which he might have to in-cur in the performance of that duty, as if he were about to enter an enemy's country, instead of undertaking, in fine weather, an agreeable sail in a steam packet, to the most hospitable country on the face of the earth. The right hon. member, however, disclaimed taking any merit to himself for not requiring an additional salary; that was so far well, for he had already a salary from the public as vice-president of the board of trade. This, office he always thought had some duties attached to it; but now it seemed there were no duties attached to it of any importance, as the performance of them did not make it necessary that the right hon. gentleman should be resident in this country. Now, as to his hon. friend (Mr. F. Lewis), he would say a few words. His hon. friend had stated, that the enjoyment of office should not have that effect upon him which it was well known practically to have on all others. He said, he would perform its duties in a fearless and independent manner; but could he do so, and hope to meet with the approbation of his friends opposite? There was an instance lately of the exertion of such independence, and the consequence of it, in a vote for the repeal of the Malt tax. If he could allow of any exception to the principle, it could not occur in an instance more favourable than that of the appointment of his hon. friend. He knew him, to be an able, industrious, and independent roan; but be had never seen him in office.
1197
Mr. Robinson
said, he could appeal to many hon. members who knew that the vice-president of the board of trade had very extensive, important, and difficult duties to perform. Although it was true that by an arrangement between himself and his right hon. friend the duties of the office might be facilitated in his absence, by throwing more than the usual share of business on himself, who remained; yet it did not follow that those duties could ordinarily be performed by one person. With respect to the duties to be discharged under this bill, they were of a description which most materially affected the trade and commerce of this country. He would maintain that it was quite impossible for the trade and commerce of England and Ireland not to derive great advantage from the due exertion of the powers which the commissioners would be invested with. With respect to his hon. friend opposite (Mr. F. Lewis), he thought that the way in which he had expressed himself, showed incontestably that he was actuated by the most honourable feeling. The commissioners, he was satisfied, were about to undertake labours of no ordinary nature; and in performing those labours, in cleansing the Augean stable which it was their duty to put to rights, the only pleasure which his hon. friends could receive from the task, was in the consciousness of the advantages derivable from their exertions to the public.
Lord A. Hamilton
was of opinion that a member of that House ought not to be selected to fill an office of this kind. He should oppose the appointment of his hon. friend, solely on account of the principle which such an appointment tended to overturn. The question did not merely apply to them as members of that House; it was one which also concerned their constituents and 'the public in general, They had long acknowledged a wise principle in matters of this description; and that principle they ought to follow. To show the extreme sensibility with which appointments of this nature were viewed in that House, he need only refer to the example of his learned friend (Mr. Brougham), who offered, if he were constituted a commissioner under the educa-
1198
Mr. Brougham
rose for the purpose setting his noble friend right. His noble friend had stated truly, that he (Mr. B.) had offered to act as a commissioner under that commission; but he did so on the express condition of holding the situation without any salary. With respect to his having declared that he would, if he were appointed, retire from parliament, his noble friend was not equally correct. He did not state that he would leave parliament; what he said was, that should it be necessary for him to relinquish his seat in that House, in order to perform the duties of a commissioner, he wished, even in that case, to have the refusal of the situation. He did not say that he had made up his mind to retire from parliament. He would now state his reasons for being adverse to the appointment of his hon. friend. Certainly, no man could be better adapted for the office, from his habits, talents, and integrity, than his hon. friend. Looking, then, at the principle alone, he would say that this appointment went, not directly, but indirectly, to increase the influence of the Crown. It proceeded in a manner that went almost substantively to increase that influence. He admitted that his hon. friend could not be so influenced; but they were proceeding on a broad principle; and although his hon. friend would act as became an independent man, yet there were others who might be influenced under similar circumstances.
Mr. Grenfell
stated that heal ways object-to the extension of the influence or the Crown, but he did not think this a case which involved that principle; and argued, that as the situation was not, removeable at the pleasure of the Crown, but only to be terminated by the voice of the House, he felt it his duty to for the appointment.
Dr. Phillimore
contended, that, ever there was a case when parliament ought to appoint a commissioner from its own body, this was one. The practice was one handed down from bur ancestors, and as to the hon. member, he was preeminently qualified for the appointment.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he would vote against the appointment of his hon. friend, on the mere ground of principle unconnected with any personal consideration.
Mr. Creevey
said, that much time had been; Wasted in panegyrics on his hon.
1199
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that it was impossible but that the influence of the Crown must be increased, not only by the nomination to any place, but by the expectation, to which the knowledge that the power of making such a nomination existed, must necessarily give birth. On every account it was highly desirable to take care, that if the influence of the Crown in that House could not be diminished, at feast it should not be increased.
Sir J. Newport
said, that if the appointment were to a permanent office, or if the Crown could remove at pleasure, he should certainly object to the nomination of a member of that House; but as that was not the case, and as it appeared to him to be highly desirable that there should be in the bosom of the House individuals capable, from personal observation, of explaining the nature of the proceedings to which the commission would resort in their inquiries, he saw no objection to the appointment.
Mr. Maberly
was convinced that three commissioners would be quite sufficient.
1200
Mr. Denman
contended, that commissions for the reform of abuses, would themselves become the greatest abuses, if ministers were allowed to appoint the commissioners. By a clause in the bill, any vacancies which might occur in the commission were to be filled up not by parliament, but by the Crown. Our ancestors had in vain opposed the influence of the Crown in that House, if such a proposition were acceded to.
Mr. Hutchinson
was quite aware of the importance of the measure, but objected to any increase of the influence of the Crown in that House.
Mr. Maberly
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Bright, H.
Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Benyon, B.
Lockhart, J. J.
Baillie, col. J.
Monck, J. B.
Benett, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Brougham, H.
Newman, T.
Baring, H.
Parnell, sir H.
Bernal, R.
Ricando, D.
Calcraft, J.
Robertson, A.
Concannon, L.
Scarlett, J.
Creevey, T.
Smith, M.
Denman, T.
Wood, ald.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Wharton, J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Wilson, sir R.
Grattan, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLER.
Hume, J.
Maberly, J.
The other clauses were agreed to. And the House resumed.
IRISH ESTIMATES.]
The House having gone into a committee of supply to which the Irish Estimates were referred.
Mr. Grant,
in moving that 20,000
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he was happy to have the testimony of the right hon. secretary as to the impolicy of the grants for the
1201
l.;
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Grant
admitted that the object for which the schools alluded to had been established, had completely failed.
After some further conversation, the several resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 18, 1821
HUSBANDARY HORSES DUTIES REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Curwen
rose to move the reading of the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on this Bill. He was happy to inform the House, that ministers did not intend to give any further opposition to the bill. He hoped the discussions which had taken place would show to ministers the necessity of coming
1202
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that whatever objection he might entertain to the repeal of this or of any other tax at a period of such pressing necessity, still he felt that he was bound in duty to give up his own sentiments in deference to what he believed to be the decided opinion of the House. After the discussion and division which took place on a former evening, he had endeavoured to learn the sentiments of those who were most deeply interested in this measure; and he had no doubt, from what he had heard, that the sense of the country was in favour of the repeal. This being the case, he would not attempt to set up his individual opinion against a general feeling. He sincerely hoped that the measure would produce all those beneficial results which the hon. mover anticipated from it; and if it did, he should not regret having given up the tax, although he felt at present that they were making a very great sacrifice to the general interests of the country by so doing.
Mr. Birch
observed, that in the late discussions on the expenditure of the country, it was stated, in objection to motions for retrenchment, that ministers had brought, down their estimates as low as they could: he wished therefore to know if it was intended to substitute for the repealed tax any newimpost; as, if this were the case, it would only he the removal of a burden from one part of the people to put it on the shoulders of others.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had no hesitation in avowing, that if he had been present on a former night, he would have stated the strong objections which he felt to the repeal of this tax. But, after what had occurred, looking to the amount of the tax, and taking into consideration the extreme depreciation of the agricultural interest, he conceived that he was called on to withdraw his opposition. It was a measure of sympathy, and would not, he was afraid, be attended with such beneficial results as were expected. The House having expressed its opinion on this
1203
Mr. Baring
expressed a hope, that after the repeal of this tax, the agriculturists would not turn round to claim other concessions, and to say that nothing had been given up to them. Hon. members who supported this repeal ought to have shown their disposition to relieve the general distress of the country, by supporting the various propositions of the hon. member for Aberdeen, for reducing the establishments. It was only by economy and retrenchment, that that distress could be relieved. The chancellor of the exchequer had brought his defeat upon himself, by boasting of the state of the finances. It was his holding out the idea of a real sinking fund of 4,000,000
l.
Mr. S. Wortley
said, he did not think himself liable to the charge of inconsistency which had been made against those who voted for the estimates and not for the tax. The hon. member for Aberdeen made his propositions to the House founded upon his own statements, which were contradicted by ministers. Now here were two parties whose statements were opposed to each other; and he (Mr. W.) and his friends had been in the habit of giving their confidence to ministers. This he
1204
Lord Milton
observed, that if some of the hon. gentlemen who sat round his hon. colleague, and who allowed that the hon. member for Aberdeen had done a deal or good by his persevering investigations, had helped him to do more good, if, instead of merely panegyrising that hon. member at the close of the session, they had aided him by their votes in its progress—they might so have reduced the public expenditure as to give his hon. friend, the member for Taunton, no ground for saying that it was imprudent to deduct nearly half a million from the public revenue. He, however, by no means argeed with his hon. friend, that the repeal was an imprudent measure; for he was persuaded, that, the half million might easily be made up by economy. He was persuaded, that to a large portion of the agriculturists the repeal of this tax would be a very great boon. The way in which the repeal had been carried, would be an argument, on-the introduction of any future measure of partial reform, to show that the landed interest in that House did not peculiarly require to be reinforced. He appealed to the justice of the House, therefore, to show, in another session the same protection to the manufacturing that they had afforded to the landed interest. That the country would be grateful for this proceeding, on the part of the House, he was sure; but their gratitude ought to be shown to his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, and those who supported the abolition, and not to those who, if they could, would have continued the tax.
Mr. Peel
felt himself compelled to dissent from the tone of congratulation, on this event, which seemed to be so general in the House. He must say, that he regretted the repeal of the tax, because he was persuaded that it ought to be the object of all the interests in the country to maintain the public credit. The interest, neither of the one class nor of the other, would, in his opinion, be consulted, by a measure tending, as this certainly did, in some degree, to impair the public credit.
After some farther conversation, the bill was ordered to be committed on Wednesday.
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE.]
On the order of the day for receiving the report of the committee On this grant,
1205
Mr. Hume
said, that his object was, to have this provision divided into two parts; first, the yearly allowance proposed to be made of 6,000
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
1206
l.
l.
l.:
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that this sum of 2,500
l.
l.
Sir Isaac Coffin
said, he would support the grant upon this principle —that he was personally indebted to his royal highness for almost every thing he possessed. He had lived with his royal highness in peace and in war. Since the time of Charles 2nd, there was none of the royal family
1207
Mr. Curwen
said, that every gentleman in the country was obliged to give up a part of his income, and it was not too much to ask the royal family to share in the burthens of the country. He thought the whole proceeding irregular; as it ought to have been preceded by a message from the Crown.
Mr. Lockhart
said, that time had already made an additional grant for the duke of Clarence. Could any gentleman deny that 20,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Monck
saw no reason whatever, in the present state of the country, for such a grant. He would not only oppose the arrears, but the 6,000
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he would not press his amendment in the present stage. The report was brought up and read.
On the motion, that it be now read a second time, Mr. Curwen moved, as an amendment, "That it be read a second time on this day three months."
Mr. J. Martin
said, he owed a duty to the royal family, but he owed a duty to the country also; and he thought it a more sacred obligation to consult the privations and distresses of the people, than to vote superfluities to any branch of the royal family.
Mr. Becher
objected to the payment of the arrears, though he was willing to vote for the grant of 6,000
l.
Mr. Abercromby
said, that as he was disposed to agree to, the vote for 6,000
l.
Mr. Ricardo
would vote for the 6,000
l.
1208
Lord Milton
would agree in the vote which would raise the income of the duke of Clarence to a level with that of his royal brothers, but he would not agree permanently to any one of them, as he thought, within a few months, they must come under the consideration of parliament, from the change in the value of the currency.
The House divided: For the original question, 144; For the Amendment, 18.
List of the Minority.
Becher, W. W.
Monk, J. B.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Moore, P.
Bright, H.
Palmer, C. F.
Bury, lord
Sykes, D.
Creevey, T.
Townshend, lord C.
Fergusson, sir R.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, M.
Honywood, W. P.
TELLERS.
James, W
Curwen, J. C.
Langston, J. H.
Martin, J.
Lockhart, J. J.
Mr. Hume
then moved, to leave out "6,000
l.,
l.
l.
Mr. Ellice
thought it would be far better openly to take away from the Crown the power of granting pensions, than by a side-wind to force claimants upon it. He must oppose the amendment.
Mr. Bernal
said, that his hon. friend did not propose to add to the pension list, but declared, that as a guardian of the public interests, he could not further burthen the consolidated fund. He left the Crown to do as it pleased; but he would not farther oppress the country.
Mr. P. Moore
said, the vote came in a crooked, underhand, and unparliamentary manner. It ought to have been brought before the House by a message from the Crown. It was by no means a matter of course to revive an old grant of a former session. Parliament had already provided for the royal family in a liberal and elegant manner.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that the grant of 2,500
l.
1209
Mr. Creevey
said, that the amendment went to lessen, by 2,500
l,
Mr. Denman
said, that in his opinion the duke of Clarence ought not to receive the arrears, though he ought injuturo to be placed on the same footing with his brothers. He would, however, object to the grant, because there was no message from the Crown on the subject. He had searched the Journals, and could find no trace of any proceeding on the subject: whatever passed then must have passed in the committee. It was, he conceived, impossible for the House to act upon any thing that might have taken place in a former parliament, save as far as the proceedings appeared upon the face of the Journals.
The Speaker
said, that the learned gentleman was mistaken with respect to what had appeared on the face of the Journals. The report was brought up, and after some discussion agreed to. There was another point which it was necessary for him to set right, in order that he might convince the House that he was not guilty of any negligence or breach of his duty, in suffering an innovation on the established rules of parliament. The state of the proceeding was this—a message came down from the Crown, the House said that they would take it into consideration, they did so, a resolution was agreed to, but no bill was brought in. In a subsequent parliament, that resolution was acted on without a fresh message from the Crown, but still at its recommendation. He saw nothing irregular in that course of proceeding, nor was it unprecedented. In 1814, the allowance granted to the princess of Wales, was reduced from 50 to 35,000
l.
l.
Mr. Maxwell
said, that in this case, as in all others in which the younger branches of the royal family were concerned, it was impossible to exclude from consideration those laws by which parliament restricted their marriages, and to forget that by them they had greatly augmented the expense of maintaining them, in ad-
1210
The question being put, "That 6,000
l.
List of the Minority.
Becher, W.
Langston, J. H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Lockhart, J. J.
Benyon, B.
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Birch, J.
Moore, P.
Bury, lord
Noel, sir G.
Curwen, J. C.
Palmer, C. F.
Denison, W.
Ricardo, D.
Denman, T.
Rickford, Wm.
Fergusson, sir R.
Sykes, D.
Griffiths, J. H.
Townshend, lord C.
Guise, sir W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, M.
Hollywood, W. P.
TELLERS.
Haldimand, W.
Hume, J.
James, W.
Creevey, T.
Mr. Bernal
then proposed another amendment, by leaving out from the words, "5th day of April 1818," and inserting "1821" instead thereof.
The Marquis of Londonderry
thought that the only objection which deserved the name of an argument, arose from its being imputed to him that he had treated this subject merely as a question of arrears—a view of it which he bad always disclaimed. From the first moment when the subject was brought under notice, he had denied that it was a question of arrears, but stated that it was a case in which parliament was to decide what it was fit and proper to give. Parliament, however, had always been in the habit of exercising an equitable discretion with respect to the
1211
Lord Milton
said, he could not consider the question in any other light than as a grant of arrears, and as such he felt the strongest objection to it. He was also of opinion that the proceedings in this case had not been so regular as they ought to have been. The House at present was without any knowledge of the wishes of the Crown on this subject. They could not with propriety be referred back to a
1212
Mr. Curwen
said, he should like to know what had been done with the residue of the late king's money, as he saw no reason, if the duke of Clarence were in debt, that his debts should not be paid out of that fund.
Mr. Abercromby
observed, that the measures proposed in parliament with respect to the members of the royal family were generally of an unhappy character; but he knew of no instance in which less judgment had been shown than in the present. He had abstained from voting on many proposals for retrenchment made in the course of the session, because they turned mostly on mere matters of fact, on which he was not competent to decide, and on which, if he decided erroneously, he might do great injustice. But as this was a retrospective measure, he should not hesitate to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Williams
said, he could not subscribe to the argument, that a member of the royal family would be entitled to claim the arrears of a grant which had been refused for 20 years. If the Queen had chosen to retire into a private station, and to remain there for 10 or 20 years, he, for one, would not have consented to let her have the benefit of any grant which was intended for the support of her dignity in public life. Upon the same principle, if the duke of Clarence had refused to maintain the dignity of his station, he could not permit him to receive arrears of a grant which was made to enable him to do so.
Sir J. Graham
said, his royal highness had been anxious in 1818 to receive the money voted, but he was advised not to do so, by those who knew more of such matters than himself. If the House granted the arrears, the country would pay less than it would otherwise have done, by all the interest.
Mr. Denman
thought that the two cases, of her majesty when princess of Wales, and the duchess of Cumberland, were no precedents at all. The House was now called upon to act on the recommendation contained in a resolution of a former parliament. He could not conceive why the noble marquis had chosen to introduce the name of the Queen into this debate, unless for the purpose of forming a splendid contrast. If the House had acted towards her majesty as it was now proposed to act with respect to the duke
1213
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Alderman Wood
thought it fit the country should know, that although ministers had promised to provide her majesty with a house, with carriages, and with a service of plate, yet when she was paid the first instalment of the grant voted by parliament, 4,000
l.
l.
l.
The House divided: For the Amendment, 81; Against it, 131. The original resolution was then agreed to.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Fleming, John
Baring, H.
Gordon, R.
Becher, W. W.
Grattan, John
Benyon, B,
Griffith, J. W.
Bury, visct.
Guise, sir W.
Boughton, sir C.
Gurney, H.
Bennett, John
Gipps, G.
Butterworth, J.
Gaskell, Ben.
Colburne, N. R.
Harbord, hon. E.
Curwen, J. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Creevey, T.
Honywood, J. P.
Cooper, R. B.
Hume, J.
Cherry, G. H.
Haldimand, W,
Crawley, S.
James, W.
Doveton, G.
Keck, G. A. L.
Denison, W. J.
Lennard, T. B.
Denman, T.
Lockhart, J. J.
Dundas, T.
Lister, B. L.
Drake, W. T.
Langston, J. H.
Dugdale, D. S.
Macdonald, Jas.
Duncannon, visct.
Martin, J.
Ebrington, visct.
Milbank, M.
Evans, Wm.
Milton, vict.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Monck, J. B.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Moore, P.
Fitzgerald, lord
Maxwell, J.
Folkestone, lord
Noel, sir G.
Forbes, C.
Ord, W.
Fane, John
Palmer, C. F.
1214
Ricardo, D.
Tavistock, marq of
Robinson, sir G.
Townshend, lord C.
Rumbold, C.
Webbe, Ed.
Rice, T. S.
Wester, C. C.
Rickford, W.
Wharton, J.
Smith, G.
Whitbread, S.
Smith, S.
Wood, alderman
Smith, A.
Wells, John
Smith, J.
Williams, W.
Smith, W.
TELLERS.
Sefton, earl of
Bernal, R.
Sykes, D.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Sebright, sir J.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 19, 1821
IRISH STATIONARY.]
The Earl of Darnley,
on rising to make his promised motion respecting the supply of Stationery to the government offices in Ireland, said, that he rose to perform a duty in some respects painful, as he should be obliged to make some personal observations on alluding to the papers before the House. Of the individual to whom those papers referred he knew nothing. That individual was, at the present moment, lord mayor of Dublin; it would, therefore, become a part of his official duty to receive his majesty, if he should carry his intention of visiting Ireland into effect; and in doing so, he had no doubt that his majesty would experience a very warm and a very Irish reception. It was, however, a matter of regret to him, that the person with whose conduct the present question was connected, had always been a warm partizan of principles which he had as constantly opposed, he meant that of hostility to the catholics. But whatever his feelings might be, he was resolved to do his duty; and if the task he had to perform appeared in any respect invidious, the fault was not in him, but in those by whose conduct he was compelled to undertake it. The noble earl then went into the detail of, the charges contained in the following resolutions, with the moving of which he concluded:
1215
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
1216
l..
s.
d.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
Lord Sidmouth
said, that the frauds which had been discovered were committed by a person named Fox, who was in the service of alderman King, but who had derived no advantage from them himself, and that there had been neglect on the part of the persons who now came forward to complain in not detecting the mal-practices sooner. The man by whom the practices had been committed had been originally employed by Mr. Wood-mason, who formerly supplied the articles, and continued by Mr. King. But
1217
The Marquis of Lansdown
expressed his satisfaction that the investigation was going forward. It appeared, notwithstanding the argument of the noble lord, that the public was a loser in a definite degree, but to what extent was not yet known. Judging from the papers in his hand and the accounts he had received, the inference seemed to be that double price was charged, and in some instances, more than that upon the articles provided by the alderman. The negligence of the officer could not be pleaded in excuse for the commission of fraud, and it was incumbent on the government to punish abuses, especially when they were connected with power.
The Earl of Limerick
thought that the case was one of great suspicion, especially when he was told that the person who committed the fraud derived no benefit from it, and that the alderman was ignorant of what was done.
The previous question was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 20, 1821
BURNING OF HINDOO WIDOWS.]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
rose to move for Copies or Extracts of all Communications from India, respecting the Burning of Females on the Funeral Piles of their Husbands. In introducing this question, he disclaimed all intention of casting reproach upon any body; for he was aware that a feeling of delicacy upon the superstition of the natives alone restrained the British authori-
1218
1219
1220
Mr. Bathurst
doubted the expediency of European interference. It was admitted that great exertions had been made by the governors in India to put down the dreadful practice in question. One effect of those exertions, however, had been to invite breaches of the native law; and it was a melancholy fact, that in consequence of that circumstance the interference of the Indian governors had led to an increase of the number of victims. If any mode were to be adopted for confining the natives to the letter of their own laws, it could be carried into effect only by causing a European officer to superintend those dreadful executions, which would be to give a sanction to them on our part. He therefore doubted the policy of any direct interference. It was a strong fact, that the practice was not at present allowed either in Madras or Calcutta; the consequence of which was, that the destined victims were taken to be sacrificed out of the boundaries of those towns. He was persuaded that the gradual dissemination of knowledge among the natives was more calculated to produce a beneficial effect on this subject than any forcible interference on our part.
Mr. Wilberforce
willingly admitted that the government of India had made great efforts to abolish the dreadful practice. Undoubtedly he was an enemy to compulsory proceedings; but provided the prejudices of the Hindoos were not insulted, he was convinced that no people in the world would more willingly listen to instructions in religion and manners. It had been proposed to institute a college at Calcutta, for the purpose of educating and preparing missionaries, to be sent among the Hindoos. Indeed, by proper attention to certain essential points, he had no doubt that the conversion of these people might be effected. It was a mistake to suppose that this practice of immolation was in general voluntary. There were very few cases in which it was so. A reluctant consent was extort-
1221
Mr. Hume
said, that about the years 1793, 1794, and 1795, several regulations were made on the subject which had a most beneficial effect. The impression on his mind was, that in Benares, where most of the burnings took place, the practice had almost disappeared. If the treatment of asses and mules were a fit subject for parliamentary consideration, surely the treatment of thousands of human beings was so. Many of those unhappy individuals were sacrificed to the interest of the parties connected with them. The heirs of their husbands' property induced the brahmins to persuade them that they would go to heaven by making this sacrifice, in order that that property might come unburdened into their hands. In his opinion, the government of India might counteract the evil by strong regulations, and among others, by charging a thousand or two of rupees for a licence to perform the sacrifice.
Mr. Canning
observed, that whatever difference of opinion there might exist on other points of this interesting subject, there were two on which all must agree—first, that it would be in the highest degree gratifying to the feelings of the House, if the inhuman practice in question could be completely put down; secondly, that it would be extremely inexpedient that any attempt should be made to put it down by coercion. It was with a reference to both those considerations that parliament ought to act; and hon. gentlemen ought especially to bear in mind, that of all the exercises of human authority and discretion, the most delicate and difficult was such an interference on the part of a superior power with an inferior, as, while on the one hand it should be effectual, on the other hand it should be divested of that harshness of character which too frequently belonged even to the appearance of control. He apprehended that the effect of any manifestation of a direct interference of authority, would be not so much to stimulate a government which evidently required no stimulus, as to alarm the natives, and, perhaps, even to render necessary
1222
STATE OF EUROPE.]
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that his object, in making the present motion, was, to support the cause of liberty all over Europe—that liberty which was seriously threatened by the conduct of the allied sovereigns. Indeed, he thought that the present state of Europe was most awful. He would refer back, but not in detail, to those events which had, in his view of the subject, been carried on for years, for the purpose of subverting liberty, and which had produced that confusion and dismay which now existed in many parts of the continent. If the allied sovereigns pursued the conduct lately pursued by them, and if the noble marquis opposite went on supporting them as he had done, instead of opposing their proceedings, then he would say that the noble marquis and his colleagues, were
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
The Marquis of Londonderry
hoped the horn gentleman would not consider him wanting in respect, if he declined to follow him in his general attack upon the foreign and domestic policy of the government of this country for the last thirty years. He should consider the motion and the statement which accompanied it, as a protest against the policy pursued by the government in its domestic and foreign relations. With respect to himself, the hon. gentleman attributed to him a station of more importance in those transactions than properly belonged to him. He for a great part of the period which the views of the hon. gentleman embraced was not in a station which could enable him to influence the policy of the country. It certainly might be a satisfaction to the hon. gentleman to put upon record his protest, but more he could not do, because it was utterly impossible for the House to come to any conclusion upon the various topics touched on. The hon. gentleman ascribed to the government something like a disposition to encourage tyranny. He would only say, that whilst he considered the policy of government in a very different point of view from the hon. gentleman, he was yet as sincere a friend to rational liberty as the hon. gentleman or any other man. That House were the natural guardians of the liberties of England, not the regulators of the policy or conduct of other countries. However anxious this country might be to see the principles of liberty diffused, they surely could not wish to see the government take up every state paper issued by other governments to censure and disapprove of it. He protested against the mode of review adopted by the hon. member; and as the hon. member had protested against the system of government in this country, the House could not do better than leave the subject with protest against protest.
Sir. R. Wilson
said, the noble lord forgot that the manifestoes and documents alluded to were accompanied with arms, with invasion and occupation, with bloodshed and oppression. The allied powers stood condemned, not by documents, but by acts. They showed their love of independence by invading independent nations. They testified their love of liberty by proscribing a whole nation of the damnable heresy of a constitutional creed. They consigned to punishment in
1228
After a short reply, the House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 117.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Maberly, W. L.
Allen, J. H.
Macdonald, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Martin, J.
Bury, lord
Monck, J. B.
Birch, Jos.
Moore, Ab.
Carter, J.
Ord, W.
Calcraft, J.
Ossulston, lord
Duncannon, visct.
Palmer, C. F.
Folkestone, visct.
Rice, T. S.
Griffiths, J. W.
Scarlett, J.
Haldimand, W.
Sykes, D.
Harbord, hon. E.
Whitbread, W.
Hume, Jos.
Whitbread, S. C.
Honywood, W. P.
TELLERS.
James, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Maberly, J.
Wilson, sir R.
POOR RELIEF BILL.]
On the order of the day for the further consideration of" the report of this bill,
Mr. Calcraft
said, he could not see the grounds on which any one of the propositions contained in this bill ought to meet with the approbation of the House. Fie was of opinion, that the evils said to result from the Poor-laws were greatly exaggerated. Being a friend to the principle of those laws, he was necessarily a friend to an unrestricted and compulsory
1229
1230
Mr. Lockhart
denied that the poor had been represented as a demoralised people. The argument was, that the existing laws had a tendency to make them so.
Mr. F. Lewis
agreed in the great objects of the bill before the House, but regretted that he could not support its provisions. The present system, if continued, would in time destroy the foundations of our national prosperity. He traced the increase of the poor-rates from the year 1748, when they amounted only to 690,000
l.,
The debate was then; upon the motion of sir R. Wilson, adjourned till to-morrow.
1231
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 21, 1821
CRIMINAL LAWS.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of the Privately Stealing in Dwelling-house bill being read,
The Marquis of Lansdown
stated, that it was his intention to move also the second reading of the bill for mitigating the punishment annexed to the commission of robbery upon rivers, which was founded on the same principle. The object of the two bills was, to take away the penalty of death from the offences to which they referred, and to substitute transportation for life, or imprisonment and hard labour. The provisions of the bill relating to robbery on navigable rivers was extended in the committee to robberies committed on canals, and he thought no difference of opinion could arise as to the propriety of extending the same protection to property in both cases. In proposing an alteration of this nature, it was to be observed that the change would extend no further than the particular subjects specified in the enactments. It did not, therefore, affect the general system of our laws. The fact was, that our criminal code had grown up, unlike the codes of other countries, which were founded upon one general system; it consisted of particular laws, which were urged by temporary and local circumstances, and the consequence was, that the penalty of death had accumulated in a degree unparalleled. The government, he contended, must find it inconvenient and inexpedient to maintain those severe penalties in cases where they were opposed, not only to public opinion, but to the opinion of those whose property they were intended to protect, as well as to those of the judges and juries by whom they were ultimately to be administered. Their lordships would find, that in the general opinion of this country, the laws which the present bills were intended to mitigate were too severe; and it could be proved, that instead of deterring from crime, the effect of their operation was, to increase it, by the impunity which the reluctance of individuals to prosecute held out to offenders. It might appear, on the first view, that the removal of these severe penalties would have the effect of encouraging crime, but their lordships would find, with regard to certain crimes made capital under the excise laws, that in the opinion of the solicitor of the ex-
1232
s.
The Lord Chancellor
admitted, that if the tendency of these bills was, to prevent crime, they ought to be adopted; but the House would do well to hesitate before they adopted that opinion. He would admit, that when first he held a situation connected with the administration of criminal law, he entertained an opinion that the code ought to be rendered more lenient; but after the experience of many years he took a different view, and entertained a different opinion. He would admit that if a man entered a house without breaking in or breaking out, and stole to the amount of 40
s.
1233
The Earl of Carnarvon
maintained that while the laws were continued in their present severity, they could not answer the ends of public justice. He had himself abstained from prosecuting in one instance for that reason.
Lord Sidmouth
observed, that the very fact of the increase of crime in late years, was drawn from the increase of prosecutions; and unless the advocates of these bills could show, that while crime was increasing prosecutions were stationary, the principle on which their advocacy was founded must fall to the ground. The great incentive to crime consisted, not in the uncertainty of prosecution, but in the chance of escaping capital punishment, and the insufficiency of secondary punishments. He could state cases in which the increase of punishment had diminished the offence, and particularly with respect to the commission of robberies upon rivers; which since the capital punishment was annexed, had almost ceased. Feeling the importance of protecting the property of his fellow subjects, he dared not agree to the motion, which would operate as an encouragement to crime.
Lord Calthorpe
supported the bills, as they went to remove inconsistencies in the law, and did not reflect upon those concerned in the administration of it.
Lord King
thought, that the disproportion in the convictions stated by the noble viscount was an argument in favour of the bill. The late increase of crime was admitted upon all hands; but he lamented that there was a disposition to prevent
1234
The House divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 27: Majority, 10.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 21, 1821
AFFAIRS OF SICILY.]
Lord W. Bentinck
rose to bring forward his motion respecting the Affairs of Sicily. In presenting himself for the first time to the notice of the House after being so many years a member, he trusted they would readily believe him, when he declared the extreme reluctance he felt on the present occasion. He might have easily found more competent persons to have brought forward this question: he could have put them in possession of all the information which he had upon the subject; but he was not equally aware that he could transfer to them, even humble as it was, that weight and authority which, from particular circumstances, he must be supposed to have acquired in the history of these transactions. Still more impossible would it have been for him to infuse into a stranger, that cordial attachment and affection towards a people, which he cherished in his own bosom for the cooperation they had afforded him, and the benefit which had been reaped from their conduct. He who had had an opportunity of seeing the progressive improvement of Sicily, and had had the mortification of seeing all the best rights and privileges of the people taken away; their prospects blasted, and themselves, after the promises held out to them, placed in a worse situation than they were in before the-British had been among them—he who had seen all these things, must be supposed to feel deeply upon such an occasion. He had no personal vanity to gratify; his sole object was, to complain, that liberty had not been practically granted to a people to whom it was promised—a promise in which he conceived the honour of the country was involved, and the due fulfilment of which was loudly required by the people, though in a manner in no degree inconsistent with the principles or declarations of the parties concurring in the Holy Alliance; The late manifesto of the allied monarchs at Laybach declared their determination not to countenance any form of constitution not legally established. The liberty required
1235
1236
vox et prœterea nihil.
a la Romeo,
1237
1238
1239
maximum
1240
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that in rising to trouble the house with such observations as appeared to be necessary for the purpose of answering the argument of the noble lord, he was happy to have it in his power to compliment him on the calm, intelligent, and candid manner in. Which he had introduced this subject. He was ready to admit that no individual, connected as the noble lord had been with these transactions could have brought forward a question, of this description with more propriety or moderation. But while he paid his homage to the noble lord on these considerations, he must remark that the' noble lord had chosen rather a late period for making his statement. He now called on the House to come to the conclusion that the conduct of the court of Naples towards its Sicilian subjects was so reprehensible that this country ought to interfere. The noble lord had stated that lie approved of the instructions sent out to sir. W. A' Court: yet it appeared that it was on these very instructions that he founded his complaint. The circumstances to which he alluded took place so far back as 1816; and certainly the conduct of this government was not altered by any thing that had since occurred. Now, if the alterations then made in the constitution of Sicily were of such a description as called for the interference of this country, it was at that period, when the circumstances had recently occurred, that parliament should have been called on to vindicate the national honour. It was a little too late to come to parliament now, in order to criminate the court of Naples on account of circumstances that happened five years ago; more particularly when they were told that Sicily was about to undergo another organization, but of what nature he was ignorant. He certainly did not know the nature of the contemplated change, but it was supposed that it would partake of the character which the noble lord so highly prized, that of a separate and independent nation. It was to possess a government wholly distinguishable from the government of the kingdom of Naples.
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, the complaint alleged against the noble marquis and his colleagues was shortly and simply this—that the British government, in its conduct to Sicily, had deviated from that principle which was laid down in the noble lord's own despatch, and had not performed those obligations which they had voluntarily undertaken to discharge. The noble lord had expatiated upon the delay which had taken place in the bringing forward the present motion. But did the noble mover, did any man in Europe know the pledge which had been given by the British government to preserve the ancient rights and privleges of Sicily, before the papers on the table were printed? He should have thought it impossible that instructions should not have been sent out to the noble lord at the time of the evacuation of Sicily. The House had heard, however, what were the facts. From the noble marquis's despatch, it appeared that there had been some previous communication between the two governments. He talked there "of the king of Naples' assurances." These assurances most have been made in 'answer to some representations on the part of this country. Where were they? Where were the instructions from which those representations must have been drawn up? Where was the note of sir W. A'Court, written in;1814? In 1814, this government had not adopted a dread of every thing like popular rights, a terror of public
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 69.
List of the Minority.
Birch, Josh.
Monck, J. B.
Cavendish, hon. H.
Martin, J.
Clifford, W. J.
Milton, lord
Calthrope, hon. F.G.
Newman, T.
De Crespigny, sir W.
Newport, sir J.
Dickinson, W.
Palmer, C. F.
Dundas, T.
Robarts, col.
Ricardo, D.
Griffiths, J. W.
Rumbold, J.
Grattan, J.
Scarlett, J.
Grenfell, P.
Sykes, D.
Hume, J.
Smith, R.
Hamilton, lord A.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Harbord, hon. Ed,
Whitbread, S. C.
Hurst, R.
Webb, col.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
Wood, ald.
Mackintosh, sir J.
TELLERS.
Maberly, J. jun.
Bentinck, lord W.
Maxwell, J.
Abercromby, hon. J.
DECLARATION OF THE ALLIED SOVEREIGNS AT LAYBACH.]
Mr. Stuart Wortley
rose, to call the attention of the House to the circular despatch which had lately been issued from the Congress at Laybach. He thought the principles advanced in that paper were dangerous to the liberties of this country as well as the rest of Europe. He was of opinion that this country ought to take some means of letting Europe know that the doctrines advanced in that document were not consonant with those on which the government of this country acted. He believed the strongly expressed disapprobation of that House, with respect to the principles advanced in the despatch from Laybach, would not fail to produce an effect on the Continent. At the breaking up of the Congress of Laybach, a circular despatch was addressed to the different cabinets of Europe, by the ministers of the allied powers who composed the Congress. This despatch, after stating that the allies had assembled at Troppau and Laybach for the purpose of taking certain steps against the proceedings which had occurred at Naples, proceeded to declare the views of the allied sovereigns with respect to any future reforms that might be effected in the government of any state of Europe. He would beg the House to attend to the following passage in the despatch:—"Useful or necessary changes in legislation, and in the administration of states, ought only to emanate from the free will, the intelligent and well-weighed conviction of those whom God had ren-
1255
1256
The Marquis of Londonderry
, although he agreed with the general reasoning of the hon. gentleman did not think that the documents moved for could, consistently with the general practice of parliament, be produced. There was no principle more clearly founded in parliamentary wisdom than that it was inexpedient to call for a public document, unless it tended to some practical result. The present case was one of a less pressing nature than that which was under the consideration of the House at the beginning of the session. It was a document of a general character addressed to the whole of Europe, and less requiring parliamentary interposition than the declaration from Troppau, because the latter was immediately directed to this country, and assumed that the government concurred in the principles professed by the allied sovereigns. The House was less provoked to interfere in the present case, either from the nature of the document, or by the circumstances under which it was published. The declaration from Troppau was issued in connexion with a practical course of conduct then acted on with regard to different states. No principle could be more calculated to interrupt national tranquillity than to assume that a paper bearing on its face the evidence that it was nothing more than a general exposition of principles ought to provoke a counter-declaration on the part of this government. If we were to engage in a perpetual conflict of state paper against state paper, the councils of Europe would be resolved into a debating society, and all the links by which different countries were connected would be broken. Almost immediately after the publication of the despatch from Laybach, the government of this country took the opportunity of stating, in opposition to what the allied sovereigns pretended was the law of nations, what it considered the law of nations really to be. The laying of the documents called for upon the table of the House, would detract from the weight that would attend the former declaration of government. He did not scruple to declare his disapprobation of the principles advocated in the documents which had been brought under the notice of the House. He could not recognize the principle that one state was entitled to interfere with another, because
1257
1258
Sir J. Mackintosh
observed, that the arguments of the noble lord would tend to contract the privileges of the House. The noble lord said, that it was contrary to the rule of their proceedings to ask for information, unless the member asking was prepared to found some proceeding upon the information when obtained. This reasoning was not only irreconcilable with the practice of parliament, but with common sense. There might be many cases in which it would be impossible to know what course it would be necessary to take until the information was before the House. He did not find fault, however, with the general tendency of the noble lord's observations. He rejoiced to hear the condemnation which the noble lord had passed upon the principles contained in the declarations of the sovereigns. He was no admirer of revolutions as such, but he was an admirer of those who created a system of order out of a system of abuse. He could not admit that a revolution was the greatest of all evils. The greatest of evils was to be a perpetual slave. The production of the papers was not desired, with a view to criminate ministers, but was called for on the ground that they contained principles materially affecting the security of Europe and of this country in particular. Austria, in acting on these principles was now in possession of a larger portion of territory than she could have acquired after a long war. What effect had the protest of this country against the principles of the allies had? The allies had published a paper in which all their former assumptions were
1259
1260
After a few words from Mr. Hutchinson, colonel Davies, and sir R. Wilson, the House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes 113.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 22, 1821
CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
Mr. Spring Rice
1261
ex parte
1262
1263
purus erat
1264
Hibernicus:
1265
1266
l.,
l.
s.
d.,
l.
s.
d.
1267
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
1268
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
1269
1270
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.,
s.
1271
1272
non pros,
1273
l.;
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1274
l.
1275
1276
1277
Captain O'Grady
said, he rose for the purpose of opposing the resolutions. He should, under any circumstances, feel considerable embarrassment in addressing the committee; but under the present circumstances, he hoped the House would grant him that indulgence which the peculiarity of his situation required. Before he proceeded further, he must say that he could not accept the compliments paid to the talents and abilities of the chief baron at the expense of his integrity and honour. What availed it, that a man was complimented on possessing great talents, when it was said in the same breath, that those talents were exerted in exacting, nay, extorting the most insignificant sums in his office? He was sure that the Report of the commissioners was made with the best possible intention. But admitting that, he denied that any legal proceeding could be ground-
1278
1279
quantum meruit;
1280
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the hon. mover had laid his view of the case before the committee in a very distinct and fair manner; and the hon. member who had last addressed the committee, with feelings which did him great honour, had applied himself to the statement of the case with an anxiety to give all the information which could be given on the subject. But he would state to the committee the great doubt he felt whether they were in a situation to form any distinct opinion respecting the case; whether they were satisfied that there was ground enough to ascertain the course to be taken in the prosecution of their purpose; whether there were facts to designate, define, and describe the nature of the charge, and the proper course of inquiry. With his impression of the subject, and with such legal understanding as he possessed, the facts did not appear to be sufficiently investigated to satisfy the House that all the evidence was before them which would be necessary to justify an ulterior proceeding. He did not see at present how parliament could be delivered of the question in a manner suited to their wisdom, and to the dignified station of the individual implicated. It was impossible to dispose of the question either affirmatively or negatively. Under these circumstances, it occurred to him, that the best mode would be for the chairman to report progress, and that members should take advantage of the interval to consider of the course to be adopted.
Mr. S. Rice
said, he acceded willingly to the proposition of the noble lord.
Mr. Abercromby
concurred with the hon. mover, who had done his duty in a manner that reflected great honour on him.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday.
AUSTRIAN LOAN.]
Mr. R. Smith
rose to move for the production of a paper alluded to in the despatch which had been sent from Vienna to this country by lord Stewart, on the 5th of Feb. 1818. This despatch contained the, rea-
1281
1282
The Marquis of Londonderry
admitted, that if government was inclined to compromise the affair with Austria, there might be some ground for the interference of the House. But that was not the case. He should certainly be deceiving the House if he were to represent the debt due 'by Austria as good as assets to the same amount in the hands of this government. It was true that the money advanced to Austria was advanced in the shape of loans; but in consequence of the struggles in which she had been engaged since the loans were advanced, that power had not hitherto been considered capable of satisfying the claims of this country. Every administration which had existed in this country since, had been of opinion that Austria was unable to pay her debts; although he could prove, if he were not unwilling to trespass on the time of the House, that she had wished to do so. He certainly thought that Austria would stand ill in the eyes of the world, if she denied the debt, until she received a
quietus
Mr. Warre
observed, that as matters now stood, even a compromise seemed hopeless, as Austria refused all recognition of the loan: no man could draw any other conclusion from the papers, than that the faith of Austria was not to be depended on.
The Hon. J. W. Ward
said, that the hon. mover was entitled to the thanks of the country, for agitating this question. A vast sum of money was owing to us from a foreign state. In the present embarrassed state of our finances, when re-
1283
1284
1285
Mr. James
supported the motion, contending that the emperor of Austria could have no keeper of his conscience, otherwise he never could have denied the existence of this just debt.
Mr. R. Smith
, after what had passed, begged to withdraw his motion.
AMERICAN LOYALISTS.]
Mr. Courtenay
said, he had great satisfaction in being able to inform the House, that there were funds at the disposal of the Crown, out of which it was the intention of his majesty to provide for the claims of the American loyalists. It was not therefore necessary to press the motion for a committee on those claims.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 25, 1821
SLAVE TRADE.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
, on rising to make his promised motion respecting the Foreign slave-trade, said, that though the attention of the House had been called many times to that interesting subject, it never had been called to it under circumstances which more strongly required their consideration. If the result of their endeavours had been more fortunate than they were, it would still become their lordships, after the lapse of so long a period since the abolition of that detestable traffic by this country, and the en-
1286
1287
1288
1289
Earl Bathurst
said, that though he did not agree implicitly in every sentiment contained in the address, he should give it his support. With respect to the adoption of a registry, as there was not the same general dislike to the trade among the people of other countries which existed in this, it was much to be feared that it would be evaded. The conduct of other countries on the subject was a matter of great delicacy. All he hoped was, that their lordships would believe that the government of this country had done its duty; and he would promise them that no exertion should be spared to give effect to the abolition by every means which ministers could command.
Lord Calthorpe
expressed his satisfaction at the avowal of the noble lord, and declared himself strongly in favour of the motion.
The motion was agreed to
nem. dis.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 25, 1821
NAVRGATION ACTS.]
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Navigation acts,
Mr. Wallace
said, he did not mean to
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
Mr. Sykes
said, he concurred in the general view taken by the right hon. member. Tie would, however, reserve to a future period his observations upon its details. He was not so wedded to the existing "navigation laws as to oppose any amendment upon them; but he felt that any alteration ought to be matter of serious deliberation. He was aware that there existed among the shipping interest a strong feeling of alarm upon this question. It was true that the shipping interest was of great value, but of late the ship-owners derived no advantage from their ships. The right hon. member was mistaken if he
1300
Mr. D. Browne
thought that the repeal of the transit duties on foreign linens would be total ruin to Ireland. The counties of Armagh, Cavan and Down would be seriously injured by such a proceeding; but those counties in which grey linen was manufactured would suffer still more.
Mr. Baring
concurred fully in the measure proposed by the right hon. member. He thought that a free importation would be productive of the greatest benefit. He hoped ministers would not be deterred by ignorance or clamour from following the course which they had laid down. Many foreign merchants were now deterred from trading with us in consequence of the complication and severity of our navigation laws.
Mr. Marryat
said:—Sir; wherever our navigation laws and colonial policy are the subject of discussion, they are constantly attacked by certain gentlemen, who take every opportunity to preach up the new, but delusive and dangerous doctrines, of free trade, and the abolition of all restrictions upon foreign competition. This course has been pursued on the present occasion. Those who condemn our navigation system, and apply to it the epithets of prohibitory, exclusive, and illiberal, do injustice to its true character. The leading feature of that system is, that all commodities shall be imported into Great Britain, either in a British ship or in a ship belonging to the country of which those commodities are the growth, produce, or manufacture,—a regulation founded on the most perfect justice and reciprocity, because it places the foreign ships of every country on precisely the same footing as British ships in the trade with those countries, and therefore is a principle of which no power can reasonably complain. It is certainly not favourable to the growth of our own foreign commerce, or of that opulence which arises out of it; but while it makes commercial profit a subordinate object, it lays the foundation of naval power, by securing
1301
1302
1303
1304
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
1305
1306
1307
in transitu;
1308
"With wind and with tide,
Down the river did glide,
A pig with vast celerity;
And the devil he grinned, for he saw all the while,
How it cut its own throat, and said with a smile,
This is England's commercial prosperity."
1309
1310
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
was in favour of the proposed bills. He thought the picture drawn by his hon. friend, of our commerce, under such regulations as were now proposed, was too gloomy.
Mr. Hume
said, he was surprised at hearing the opinions delivered by the hon. member. That a gentleman of his great commercial experience should be at this time the advocate of exclusive trade, was, indeed, a matter of no little surprise. He considered the measures proposed by the right hon. gentleman as most salutary; and he felt convinced, that if they were carried into full effect, they would materially improve the commerce of the country, and prevent our being viewed, as we were at present, with jealousy by every country in Europe. He thought that, with our capital, the proposed alterations must give us the advantage over every other country.
Mr. Wilson
agreed that it would be well if Great Britain removed all restrictive regulations on trade, provided other nations did the same; but until that took place he doubted the expediency of going the full length of the resolutions.
The Resolutions were then agreed to.
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of the Duke's Annuity bill,
Mr. Bennet
said, that there never was a more unprincipled vote passed by that House: every person of every class entertained but one opinion on the subject. He would divide the House on every stage of the Bill.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, that the grant was reprobated in every part of the empire.
1311
Lord A. Hamilton
objected to the grant, and to the manner in which it was introduced. The claim was founded on a vote of another parliament, made three years ago. He denied the existence of the debt and of the arrears. He was convinced that, in three years time, a question would arise, whether all grants, as well those to the royal family as others, should not be reduced instead of being increased. If the country continued, under the improved state of our currency, to pay its engagements at the same rate as before, they would not act consistently with the declared opinions of that House, nor of policy or justice. He considered the mode of proposing the grant improper, and the claim for arrears unpardonable.
Sir J. Sebright
said, he had not met with any one who had not considered the grant as unconstitutional in its mode, and as a waste of the public money. He would support the grant of 6,000
l.
l.
The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 14.
List of the Minority.
Benyon, B.
Martin, J.
Bernal, R.
Newman, R. W.
Bright, H.
Robarts, A. W.
Carter, J.
Scudamore, Mr. Williams, O. jun.
Hume, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
TELLERS.
Hamilton, lord A.
Bennet, hon. G.
Harbord, hon. E.
Palmer, C. F.
Monck, J. B.
EAST INDIA PRIVATE TRADE BILL.]
The House went into a committee on this bill. On its being resumed,
Mr. Bright
asked, whether the additional duty of 5
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that in the opinion of the law officers, the sugars now imported from the East Indies were not clayed sugars. The duty was imposed as a protecting duty, in case clayed sugars should be imported from the East Indies.
Mr. Bright
said, that the sugars which were brought from the East Indies were to a certain degree refined; but there could be no process for refining sugars adopted in the West Indies, which did not subject them to an additional duty of 5
s.
1312
Mr. Hume
said, at present the East India sugars were charged with a duty of 10s. per cwt. to which the sugars of the West India colonies were not subjected. The people of England, who were thus compelled to buy their sugar at the worst market, had cause to be discontented rather than the West India planters.
Mr. W. Smith
asked, whether the additional sugar duties in the bill were continued for one year only?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said they were.
Mr. W. Smith
said it was not worth while now, when so little time remained for discussion, to oppose the continuance of the duties, but he hoped the subject would be taken into consideration at an earlier period of the next session.
Mr. Barham
said, that this country was bound to the West India colonies by good faith as well as policy. The West India colonies had the exclusive possession of the British market as matter of right, by a contract of deeds, as Mr. Fox observed in 1782, when the first attack was made upon the colonies, which was better than any contract of words. The colonies had given a valuable consideration for that possession, and they enjoyed it by virtue of acts of parliament, which was all that could be said even of the public creditor, to talk of touching whom was thought so dishonourable. The first attack made on the right of the colonies was in 1782, when lord Beauchamp proposed to allow the prize sugar to be introduced into the British market. That proposition, though it came strongly recommended by peculiar circumstances, was rejected. In 1792, an attack was again made, and now the East Indians, allied to a set of gentlemen whom he did not mean to treat with disrespect, but who were known by the name of "Saints," had renewed the attack upon their joint accounts. The assailants of the colonies talked of free trade, as if, in this country, every thing was not loaded with restrictions. The West Indian colonist was obliged, to sail in British ships, and to buy his lumber at a disadvantageous market; yet a complaint was made because he sought to have the exclusive possession of the British sugar market. But the colonists
1313
Mr. J. Smith
contended against the proposition, that the West-India islands possessed a right to the exclusive monopoly of the English market.
Mr. Bernal
said, the question should be viewed as a whole. If the duties were proposed to be taken off the East India sugars, he should move to repeal all the restrictions on the trade of the West Indies.
The committee was ordered to sit again to-morrow.
1314
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 26, 1821
IRISH REVENUE INQUIRY BILL.]
The bill having been read a third time,
Mr. Denman
said, he had an objection on principle to putting members of that House on commissions, particularly when there was to be a salary or remuneration. It was desirable that members should hold no office under the Crown, and it was so laid down in the act of settlement and several others, but particularly the 6th of Anne. The provision of this act was extended by 1 Geo. 1st, and 25 Geo. 2nd. His lion, friend (Mr. F. Lewis) had spoken in strong terms against the supposition that such an appointment could have the effect of influencing his vote on a particular question; but that observation would go to repeal all those acts, The gentlemen opposite were equally justified, and were bound indeed in theory, to make the same assertion, and to state that they sat there not as officers of the Crown, but as members of parliament. If true at all, it must be taken as true to its fullest extent. A different principle had, however, been avowed in the debate, on the member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet's) motion. It was then stated on the opposite side of the House, that if persons under government did not give their votes in its support, the government could not be carried on. It was this dead weight of influence which tended to corrupt the House, degrade its character^ and deprive it of moral authority with the nation. It was but a hollow support which government received from those who derived an income under the administration, while the people were dissatisfied, and parliament failed of making its due impression on the public mind; There were not four divisions during the session, in which the number of the majority had equalled the number of placemen in the House. The 71 gentlemen who held places were vigilant pairers off, and therefore their power in the House was felt on every question of public importance. The general principle for which he contended was against the increase of members holding offices; and the question was, whether there ought to be a departure from that principle in the present instance? His hon. friend had on the former night expressed himself very emphatically on this pointy and had said, he hoped the earth would open and
1315
"Tellus prius ad ima dehiscat;"
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that in the present instance the commissioners were not appointed by the Crown, nor did they look to the Crown for their reward. As to the hon. gentleman to whom the motion applied, he was eminently qualified for the situation, and his acceptance of it was a favour conferred on the public.
Mr. Hobhouse
supported the amendment. He stated one ground of objection that had not been remarked on before namely, that as the commission was to be hereafter examined by the House, if members were upon that commission, they would, contrary to the spirit of British law, be parties and judges in the cause. With respect to influence, it was an insult on common sense to say it could be resisted by those who enjoyed the sweets of office; such could not be the case until the gentlemen opposite could alter human nature. No one could doubt the infringement of the principle of law, in the case of the hon. member under discussion.
Mr. J. Smyth
thought that the difficulties attending the collection of the revenue in Ireland for centuries, made it very desirable to have members on the commission of such qualifications and character as the hon. member alluded to.
Mr. S. Rice
was willing that, in this instance, the general principle, which directed that members of parliament should not hold their seat, together with offices of emolument, should be departed from. The revenue department of Ireland was said to be an Augean stable. This was not a charge against Ireland, but against the misgovernment of England. The commissioners were going over, not to wage war on clerks, or on obscure individuals but, to attack the magnates of the land the great powers and constituted
1316
Mr. Scarlett
said, the question was, whether that House would appoint one of its own members to a situation, to which a provision would be attached, either now or hereafter? He thought the House would stand much higher in the estimation of the country, if they did not give the public money to their own members.
The Amendment was negatived. After which, Mr. Denman moved, to insert after the word "Ireland," the words, "provided always, and be it enacted, that no member of either House of Parliament, who shall be appointed a commissioner under this act, shall receive any remuneration for and in respect of the execution thereof." Upon this the House, after a short conversation, divided t Ayes, 35; Noes, 80.
MR. OWEN'S PLAN—NEW LANARK.]
Mr. Maxwell
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a commission to examine into the feasibility of Mr. Owen's plan. The hon. member spoke as follows:—It is painful to contemplate nakedness and famine in the midst of plenty—to hear that the shower of May, and the sunshine of July are a curse; to know that those who clothe our fields with luxuriance, and animate the landscape with their flocks, must withdraw their eyes from the smiling face of nature to the bitter perspective of a bankruptcy and a dungeon. When we behold the ignorant stoicism of those who have induced such disorder in practice, and such impiety in theory, like Nero looking with unpitying eye on the sorrows they have caused, we are tempted to exclaim in the words of an amiable French, woman, on tracing the ravages of the modern Brennus in Switzerland,—"Les montagnes furent verdoyantes comme autrefois, les prairies florissantes comme jadis, le cœur d'homme seul pourquoi n'etoit-il qu'un desert?" The calamities which have sprung from corn-laws, inequitable to the consumer and useless to, the agriculturist—from a sacrifice of the present generation by a Vansittart,, to; atone for the folly of a past one under the auspices of a Pitt, have traveled through the labouring classes and the productive
1317
1318
1319
1320
Mr. J. Dawson
said, that the plan of Mr. Owen had not been treated with all that attention which any proposition for the improvement of the country deserved. He wished the motion had been brought forward at an early period of the session. They had now carefully examined the estimates, and voted the supplies. They had had an insufficient report on foreign trade, and he wished he could say they had had none on agricultural distress. In the report of the latter committee they had an account of all the speculations of every speculative farmer and tradesman. The sum of the report was, that the farmer must receive less for his produce, the landlord less rent, and the shopkeeper less profit. As the farmer had less money to spend, he must reduce his expenses in every direction, and some of the reduction must fall upon the labourer. It was under these appalling circumstances, that a learned gentleman had introduced a bill to stultify that generous system of legislation for the poor on which this country had so long acted. Mr. Owen proposed a more humane plan for the improvement of the poor-laws. His plan was exposed to much prejudice; of which all inventors had to stand the brunt, till it was dissipated by time. It was no small testimony in favour of Mr.
1321
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that a proposition similar to the present had formerly been rejected by the House, and he still had great doubt of the propriety of deciding that parliament should charge itself with the responsibility of deciding on the prospect held out to the community by Mr. Owen's plan. The mode in which his hon. friend had referred to the report which had been made to parliament during this session, increased those doubts. For, if the report of the agricultural committee was so unsatisfactory, what would the feelings of the country be, if, after being told that a plan existed for bringing back the golden days of paradise, and that parliament had given into the trick, all the bright colours melted into air? In this free and happy country, any plan of this kind would be sufficiently investigated, without the intervention of parliament. The hon. member had told us that the spade was preferable to the plough, and that we should never be happy until we were all digging; that a cotton manufactory could never be carried on well until there was a Mr. Owen to take care of the morals of the people when they came out Of the mill, so that society would lose its dispersed and independent character, and would be reduced to a system of machinery, which the hon. member would drive out of the world, except as applied to human beings. He protested against the House being the proper body to take upon itself the investigation of abstract principles, or of all new inventions, the success of which so often depended on the zeal of the inventors. He hoped they would not undertake an inquiry which would add one to those fruitless results which were supposed to lower their character in public estimation. There Were large and intelligent bodies which had a direct and lively interest in any plan for the improvement of the administration of the poor; and it was not necessary to a trial of Mr. Owen's plan (if it held out any prospects) that the country should be carved out into parallelograms, in order to put the poor under the management of the exchequer.
1322
Sir W. De Crespigny
thought that the House was precisely the place for considering of any plan that might lead to the improvement of the people, and bore testimony to the prevalent good effects of Mr. Owen's establishment.
Mr. Hume
said, he had never heard a speech from the noble marquis in which he so entirely concurred. The very principle of this system went to take away from the people of this country all that independence and spirit which were among their noblest characteristics. He admitted the extraordinary regularity of habits and discipline which it was calculated to introduce among them; but that very regularity furnished one of the strongest objections against the system. If a man were not called upon, from the circumstances of his situation to think, he never would think; and thus, if Mr. Owen's system produced so much happiness with so little care, the adoption of it would make us a race of beings little removed from brutes, only ranging the four corners of a parallelogram, instead of the mazes of a forest. He could not, however, sit down without expressing the respect and admiration he felt for the virtues and the extensive benevolence of Mr. Owen.
Mr. F. Buxton
observed, that there was hardly a remark which had fallen from the noble marquis with which he did not entirely concur; and on the other hand, there was scarcely one observation made by the hon. mover with which he did not absolutely disagree. He could not bring himself to believe that England would be able to find a remedy for all her distresses in the quadrangular paradises of Mr. Owen. There were reasons, however, which induced him to support the motion. He had inspected many of the work-, houses in this kingdom, and the result of his observations was, that those institutions were better adapted for promoting vice and misery than any other object. It was impossible for persons to visit our
1323
Mr. Scarlett
thought that the mode proposed was not the most expedient mode of inquiry. If any gentleman thought the principle good, perhaps the best way of proceeding would be to bring in a specific bill on the subject.
Mr. H. Gurney
observed, that although he was opposed to the principle of Mr. Owen, which tended to destroy all individuality in the societies conducted on the plan of that gentleman, yet he thought he possessed claims to the favourable consideration of the House. There was one circumstance which he thought it necessary to allude to. In the district in which Mr. Owen's' establishment was situated, a peculiar degree of distress had existed which had not in any way affected his establishment. Now the plan of the individual who had thus been able to keep the population of his establishment free from distress, whilst all around him was misery, must possess some meri.
Mr. Wilberforce
had the highest opinion of the disinterested benevolence of Mr. Owen's views, but thought a commission quite unnecessary. Any four or five members who would take upon them to examine Mr. Owen's establishment, and put the result of that examination on paper, would receive full credit from the public. Thus, all useful information would be obtained without the danger of having it understood out of that House, that they took up the principle of Mr. Owen as a sort of panacea for the present distress.
Dr. Lushington
considered the plan to be the most visionary, and the most impracticable he had ever met with. The praise-worthy exertions of Mr. Owen had made it succeed, on a small scale, with persons under his influence and control, but to attempt it on a general scale would, in his opinion, be utterly useless. That House had not now to learn from Mr. Owen that it was desirable the poor should support themselves by their own industry. He was delighted with the plan, which, according to Mr. Owen,
1324
Mr. Canning
said, that he had formed the highest opinion of the zeal, talents, and benevolent disposition of Mr. Owen. He had been unwilling, therefore, to do any thing that might hurt the feelings of that gentleman. Mr. Owen had, however, strongly urged him to attend; and he (Mr. C.) having given his word that he would attend, felt it necessary now to say, that after the most impartial consideration of the subject, he must decide against the motion. First, the general application of the plan, as had been well observed by the noble marquis, would lead to the complete destruction of individuality, and to the amalgamation of the population into masses, which was totally repugnant to the principles of human nature, and above all, to the genius of the people of this country. The inference which was drawn from the excellent management of Mr. Owen's establishment at Lanark, that it would be successful when acted upon on a more xtended scale, was, in his opinion, perfectly fallacious. Individuals must be congregated together upon some known and intelligible principle, It was a known principle which connected tenants with landlords, and workmen with manufacturers. But on what principle thousands of persons could be congregated together in Mr. Owen's establishments, he could not conceive. If a number of individuals should unite together as volunteers, supposing all the diffiulties opposed to such an undertaking by parochial regulations and other circumstances to be overcome, there was nothing to prevent the society, which, as it had commenced in delusion might end in disappointment, from becoming the seat of the worst of passions. He wished also to state, and he hoped he might do
1325
Mr. W. Smith
said that, if the present question was for the adoption of Mr. Owen's plan, he would say, no; but at the same time he felt it necessary to vote for an inquiry into the nature of that system which was found to produce so much local advantage in the only part of the country in which it was tried.
Lord A. Hamilton
contended, that Mr, Owen's plan included the strict observance of religious duties. He would support the motion for inquiry, without at all pledging himself to the details of the plan.
Mr. Maxwell
said, it was not his intention to divide the House upon the question.
Mr. Brougham
said, that if the hon. member had pressed the question to a division, he would have voted for the inquiry. He wished to correct a mistake into which some gentlemen had fallen with respect to Mr. Owen's plan. He could assure the House, that if any fault was to be found with the system pursued at Lanark, it was on the score of too much religion. He was aware that there could not be too great an observance of sound religious principles; but there were persons who complained that there was too much of the vehemence of religion practised at Mr. Owen's establishment.
The motion was negatived.
SLAVE TRADE.]
Mr. Wilberforce,
in rising to bring forward his motion on the subject of the Slave Trade, observed, that the situation in which he now stood was very different from that in which he was placed when he addressed the House upon
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that in common with the House, he always listened with the greatest pleasure to every speech of his hon. friend, especially, upon that great question of which he was the parent, and which, by his, benevolent and persevering exertions, he had brought to a successful issue. He could assure his hon. friend, that he had heard him with the greater satisfaction, because he observed, that while, his hon. friend endeavoured to rouse the feelings of the House and of foreign powers in the common cause of humanity, he did not omit to remind the House that it was long, before even this moral and Christian nation felt the full objections to the traffic in slaves, and could wind itself up to use the necessary exertions for its abolition. While his hon. friend, therefore, was pressing his majesty's government to make this appeal to foreign powers, he must feel that they could not be at once awakened to that state of moral feeling which we, had ourselves attained only by slow degrees. With regard to the address, it was impossible that the House should not observe that many passages in it conveyed very strong and pointed reproaches upon the conduct of foreign governments. He had no, hesitation in saying, that if he looked to the question merely in a political point of view, and with reference to the state of responsibility in which it was calculated, to place him, he should feel
1335
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that his chief reasons for troubling the House was, to embrace the opportunity which the
1336
1337
1338
1339
Dr. Lushington
said, that America had not done enough by passing one act. The making of slave-dealing piracy would not prevent it, unless a sufficient number of cruisers were kept along the coast of Africa, to enforce the penalty.
1340
Mr. Bernal
stated, that it had cost us a million of money to prevail upon Portugal by stipulations not to trade north of the line; yet those stipulations had been violated.
Mr. Marryat
said, that the learned member for Knaresborough had been mistaken in stating, on a former occasion, that slaves were treated better in the East than in. the West Indies, and cited passages from Dr. Buchanan's book in support of his statement: he also animadverted, on the difficulties, thrown in the way of the question itself by the emperor of Russia, who bad given the monopoly of supplying his dominions with sugar to Portugal and Spain, on account of our duties imposed upon foreign linen. He thought the powers favourable to the abolition ought to join in the prohibition of the consumption of Portuguese commodities.
Mr. Gurney
asked whether there was; any thing in the motion which pledged the House to support measures of hostility against those countries who refused to comply with the terms of the motion?
Mr. Brougham
replied in the negative, and with respect to the question, observed; that although America had done much to put down the slave-trade by her act of abolition, and by declaring the traffic piracy, yet until the right of reciprocal search was allowed, her efforts could not be complete. This, right of search, had acquired an ill-name by circumstances of the last war, but as we now offered a present equivalent to America for what she could give up, and not any thing future and contingent, as when one was belligerent and the other neutral; he trusted the difficulty would be soon obviated.
The Address was agreed to
nem.
con.
CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.]
The marquis of Londonderry moved that the ninth Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Courts of Justice in Ireland, together with the Answer of the Chief Baron of the Exchequer thereto, be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. S. Rice concurred in the motion. Mr. O'Grady cheerfully acquiesced in the motion, convinced as he was that the more light was thrown on the subject, the more would the result appear what he wished it to be. A Committee was accordingly appointed.
NEW STAMP-OFFICE IN EDINBURGH.]
Mr. Hume
called the attention of the
1341
l.,
l.,
l.,
Sir J. Marjoribanks
explained the cir-
1342
After a short conversation, the motion was negatived.
MR. THEODORE HOOK.]
Mr. Bennet
said, he rose to move for the production of certain papers containing an account of the suspension of Mr. Theodore Hook from his office of treasurer in the Mauritius; and of the sums of money due by him to the government of that colony. It might be in the recollection of the House, that about 17 or 18 months ago, he had put a question to an hon. gentleman opposite respecting the transaction which he had just alluded to. The answer given upon that occasion was, that ministers had received no official information on the subject, but they knew that Mr. Theodore Hook had arrived in this country. He had repeated the question this year; possessing, however, at the time, no information on the subject to which it referred. He had since obtained some information, the nature of which he would state to the House. He had reason to believe that the information was strictly correct. He would not now mention the name of the gentleman from whom he had received his information, but would reserve to himself the privilege of doing so, if he thought fit before the discussion terminated. It appeared from the facts which had been laid before him that on the 15th; of January, 1818, the acting governor of the Mauritius, governor Hall, received a letter from Mr. Allan, one of the confidential clerks of the treasury of the colony, informing him that Mr. Hook had appropriated to himself a part of the allowances for the expenses of his department, by appointing his own coachman to the situation of office-keeper, at a salary of 40 dollars a month, and his cook to another situation with a salary of 15
s.
1343
1344
Mr. Goulburn
thought that the House would not be acting justly, if it acceded to the motion of the hon. gentleman. Whatever might be the demerits of the individual whose conduct was now brought under consideration, he was still entitled, in common with every other person labouring under a charge, to a fair measure of justice. He could have no objection to the production of the despatch moved for, were it not for the reasons which he would briefly state. The case of Mr. Hook involved a question of considerable importance. When the dispatch which contained the substance of what had been stated by the hon. member was received in this country, it was thought fit to refer it to the Colonial Audit-board, in order that the accounts might be examined. The governor of the Mauritius had confined himself to sending Mr. Hook to this country, together with his papers. When Mr. Hook arrived, which he did in the character of a prisoner, and accompanied by other persons who were to be tried for offences committed at the Mauritius, application was made to the law officers of the Crown, to know whether the government would be justified in detaining him, and whether the circumstances of the case were of such a nature, as to authorize the institution of a criminal proceeding against him? The law officers of the Crown were of opinion that government possessed no legal power to detain Mr. Hook a prisoner, and that a criminal information could not be supported on the facts laid before them. Under these circumstances, no other course could be taken than to leave the Audit board to proceed with the examination of the accounts, and to endeavour to obtain fresh information from the Mauritius. Mr. Hook, was at this moment under examination by the Board of Audit; and a fresh case had been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, to ascertain whether he could now be prosecuted criminally.
The motion was then withdrawn.
1345
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, June 27, 1821
ECONOMY AND RETRENCHMENT.]
Mr. Hume
began by observing, that he ought to apologise to the House for submitting to its consideration a question of such great importance, as that which he had undertaken to bring forward, at so late a period of the session. Various circumstances had, however, concurred to postpone this motion for ten or twelve days beyond the period which he had originally fixed. Any person who had attended to the proceedings of the House, during the present session, must have noticed the repeated statements which had been made, from both sides, of the distress that weighed upon all classes of the community. There were no doubts on his mind, that the agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests were equally depressed. The distress of the agriculturists had been described as almost unexampled; manufacturing capital had suffered no less; and commercial transactions of every description produced profits scarcely sufficient to make it a matter of interest to carry them on.—He was of opinion, that relief could only be given by reducing the expenditure of the country, and thus permitting a reduction of the public burthens. Although he had voted in favour of the appointment of the committee to inquire into the state of agriculture, he did not at the time anticipate, that any benefit, except that of placing in a proper point of view the causes of the distress, would result from the labours of that committee. He thought the Report which had been made, would, in that way, have a most beneficial effect. It would show those gentlemen, who were generally said to represent the agricultural interest in that House, how erroneous the opinions were, which they had entertained, of the possibility of raising the price of their produce, in order to, relieve their own distress at the expense of the other classes of the, community. Many persons who formerly entertained such views, were now convinced of their fallacy, and agreed, that the only was relieve the country, was that pointed out by the report, namely, a reduction of the expenditure: and he was confident real relief could only be obtained by the most rigid economy and retrenchment in every department.
1346
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1347
No. 1. ABSTRACT of the PUBLIC RECEIPT and EXPENDITURE for GREAT BRITAIN, calculated on the average Produce of the Years 1788, 1789, and 1790; and Estimates for 1791–2.—[
Vide
RECEIPT.
Permanent Taxes
£.13,472,286
Land and Malt
2,558,000
16,030,286
EXPENDITURE.
Interest and Charges of the Public Debt
£.9,317,972
Interest on Exchequer Bills
260,000
9,577,972
Civil List
898,000
Charges on Consolidated Fund
105,385
Navy
2,000,000
Army
1,748,842
Ordnance
375,000
Militia
95,311
Miscellaneous Services
128,416
Appropriated Duties
40,252
5,391,206
Annual Million to pay off the National Debt
1,000,000
1,000,000
£.
*
*
£10,577,972
For Expenses of Civil List, Military Establishments, and Civil Government
5,391,206
TOTAL
£.15,969,178
N.B. The Expenditure of Ireland was somewhat above One Million Sterling.
No. 2.—EXPENDITURE of the UNITED KINGDOM, for the Year ending 5th January, 1821—[
Vide
HEADS OF EXPENDITURE.
Class
Total of each Class.
I.—
Interest of Permanent Debt of United Kingdom
£.29,126,973
Charges of Management
276,419
For Reduction of the National Debt
17,667,536
47,070,928
II.—
Interest on Exchequer and Irish Treasury Bills
1,849,220
III.—
Civil List, England
857,780
Civil List, Ireland
204,231
1,062,011
IV.—
Courts Of Justice (England)
65,138
Mint
13,800
Royal Family Pensions
327,066
Salaries and Allowances
56,948
Bounties
2,849
Miscellaneous
224,897
690,698
1348
1349
V.—
Permanent Charges in Ireland
381,504
VI.—
Civil Government in Scotland
132,081
VII.—
Bounties to Fisheries, Manufactures, &c.
359,213
Pensions on Hereditary Revenue
Excise
14,000
Post Office
13,700
Militia and Deserters Warrants
51,426
438,339
VIII.—
Navy, Wages, &c.
3,454,000
General Services
1,801,086
Victualling Department
1,132,713
6,387,799
IX.—
Ordnance
1,401,585
Army Ordinary Services
7,941,513
Army Extraordinary Services
984,911
10,328,009
X.—
Loans, Remittances, Advances, &c., to other Countries
1,230
XI.—
Issues from appropriated Funds for Local purposes
49,129
XII.—
Miscellaneous Services at Home
2,324,653
Miscellaneous Services at Abroad
292,048
2,616,701
Total Expenditure
71,007,649
Deduct Sinking Fund of the East India Company, repaid by them
156,907
Total
£70,850,742
Viz. Paid to the Commissioners for reduction of the National Debt
17,510,629
Viz. Paid to the Public Creditor, Interest on Funded Debt
£29,126,973
Viz. Paid to the Public Creditor, Interest on Exchequer and Irish Treasury Bills
1,849,220
Viz. Paid Charges of Management to the Bank of England
276,419
31,252,612
Expenses of the Civil List, Civil Government, and Military Establishments
22,087,501
Total
£70,850,742
He would take this opportunity of observing, that the public accounts were in such a state as to render it impossible for any man, whatever industry he might possess, to come to an undisputed conclusion upon them. If one person made up an account from them, another might easily draw up a different one, upon the same authority, and challenge the preference for correctness. His hon. friend, the member for Portarlington (Mr. Ricardo), whose unavoidable absence he regretted upon the present occasion, had assisted him in examining the various official accounts, in order to ascertain whether any, and what, progress had been made towards the reduction of the public debt within the last five or six years; or whether it continued the same in amount as at the
1350
1351
No. 3.—Amount of INTEREST paid to the Public on the FUNDED and UNFUNDED DEBT of the UNITED KINGDOM, and for the Charges of Management at the BANK of ENGLAND, in each of the following Years, ending December in each Year (exclusive of the Sinking Fund).
——
1815.
1816.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
Interest paid on Funded Debt
27,176,930
31,392,890
29,166,085
28,873,638
29,737,640
29,126,973
Charges of Management
259,970
265,400
284,589
277,699
274,393
276,419
Amount of Interest and Charges
27,436,900
31,658,290
29,450,674
29,151,337
30,012,033
29,403,392
Interest on Exchequer and Irish Treasury Bills
3,014,003
2,196,178
1,815,927
2,200,414
779,992
1,849,220
Total Charge for the Debt
*
30,450,903
33,854,468
31,266,601
31,351,751
30,792,025
31,252,612
Average of 1817, 1818, and 1819, £.31,136,792.
*
Vide
We were now in the sixth year of peace; and he would repeat, not with standing what the chancellor of the exchequer had stated, that during that time the charge of the debt had not been reduced a single pound; on the contrary, it had been increased to the amount he had stated, of 115,820
l.
It had been stated, on a former evening by the noble marquis, that the expenses
1352
creased, and was actually 115,820
l.
of our establishments had been reduced a million and a half. This reduction, as he should show, was neither in the army, navy, nor ordnance departments, though some would be found under the head of Miscellaneous Estimates, which might be increased or reduced, from year to year, at the pleasure of ministers. The apparent reduction this year arose from the chancellor of the exchequer's not having proposed several large votes usual in the miscellaneous estimates, such as the expense of the coinage, 100,000
l.;
l.
l.
l.
1353
From the statement he held in his hand, it appeared that the estimates for 1821 were larger than any of the preceding years, except 1820. He would ask the House, whether this was a situation in which things ought to remain? The chancellor of the exchequer and the noble
No. 4.—Comparative Abstract of the ESTIMATES voted for the ARMY NAVY, and ORDNANCE, in the last five Years, viz., from 1817 to 1821 inclusive.—[
Vide
Years.
Ordinary Military.
Ordnance with Stores.
Navy.
Total Estimate.
£.
£.
£.
£.
1817
6,682,318
1,284,035
5,985,414
13,951,767
1818
9,494,290
1,267,999
6,547,810
14,310,099
1819
6,582,800
1,212,000
6,527,781
14,322,581
1820
6,807,466
1,380,002
6,691,345
14,878,813
1821
6,643,968
1,327,000
6,382,786
14,353,754
The hon. member then proceeded to take a comparative view of the actual expenditure for the army, navy, and ordnance of the United Kingdom for 1792 and 1820. He pointed out to the House, that in the year 1792, the whole charges for these depart-
No. 5.—Comparative Abstract of the EXPENSE of the ARMY, NAVY, and ORDNANCE of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Years 1792 and 1820.
In 1792—
Great Britain Army Ordinary
*
Ireland Britain Army Ordinary
† 516,349
2,330,349
Ordnance Great Britain
422,001
Ordnance Ireland
22,862
2,775,212
Navy
1,985,482
Total charge in 179
£4,760,694
In 1820—
Great Britain Army Ordinary
7,941,513
Extra
984 911
8,926,424
Ordnance Great Britain
1,401,585
10,328,009
Navy
6,387,399
‡ £.16,715,408
Total Charge in 1792
4,760,694
Being more in 1820
£.11,954,714
than in 1792.
*
Vide
†
Vide
‡
Vide
1354
marquis professed a great desire to promote economy; but he, as well as the country at large looked more to deeds than to words; and he was sorry to say, he had seen nothing in his examination of the expenditure of the country, for the last six years, to prove their sincerity.
ments were 4,760,694
l.,
l.
l.
1355
It was but fair, however, to state that, in this large increase of charge, the Retired and Half Pay amounted to near 4½ millions, That of the army in 1792, was 458,247
l.,
l.,
No. 6.—Abstract of HALF-PAY, and RETIRED FULL-PAY in the ARMY, NAVY, and ORDNANCE ESTIMATES, for the Year 1821 (the Pensions and Retired Allowances in the Public Offices not included).
ARMY.
Allowances for General Officers
£. 174,069
0
Full Pay for Retired Officers
£. 129,999
12
Half-Pay and Military Allowances
819,169
19
Foreign Half-Pay
121,265
0
In-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals
58,766
12
Out-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals
1,155,305
19
Widows Pensions
120,993
4
Compassionate List, Bounty Warrants, and Pensions for Wounds
179,220
0
Reduced Adjutants Local Militia
19,819
10
Superannuation Allowances
40,196
14
2,644,736
12
NAVY.
To Flag-Officers, Captains, &c., of His Majesty's Fleet
970,400
0
Bounty, Chaplains Widows and Orphans, and Widows Charity
40,500
0
Superannuations to Officers in the Military-Line Naval Service
142,096
13
Superannuations to Commissioners, Secretaries, Clerks, &c.
105,973
16
1,258,970
9
ORDNANCE.
To Military Superannuated, Retired, and Half-Pay Officers, &c.
313,703
3
To Civil, Superannuated, Retired, and Half-Pay Officers, &c. &c.
42,227
6
355,930
10
Total
£.4,433,706
11
No. 7.—Comparative Amount of HALF and Retired PAY and MILITARY PENSIONS in the ARMY of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in 1792 and 1821.
DESCRIPTION.
1792.
1821.
General Officers
£.6,427
£.174,069
Full-Pay Retired Officers
15,064
129,999
Half-Pay Officers
223,161
819,170
Foreign Half-Pay
—
121,265
Chelsea Hospital, In
21,797
58,767
Chelsea Pensioners, out
151,307
1,155,306
Widows Pensions
9,382
120,993
Compassionate List
—
179,220
Adjutants Local Militia
—
19,819
Superannuation Allowance
—
40,197
Total Great Britain
£.427,138
2,818,805
In Ireland, Pensions
9,420
—
Half-Pay Officers
17,450
—
Widows, Officers
4,239
—
Total in 1792
458,247
Increase of Half-Pay and Pensions in 1821, more than in 1792
£.2,360,558
1356
He had prepared two statements—one to show the total of the half-pay, or the dead charge in the three departments oft the navy, army, and ordnance. The other, to show the comparative amount of half-pay and pensions in 1792, and in 1821, in the army alone.
1357
When the House considered that the total unredeemed debt of the country, funded and unfunded, had increased from 244,405,021
l.
l.
l.,
l.,
1358
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
For example, in 1792, the expenses of the army alone, without the ordnance, were 2,331,149
l.;
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1359
The charge for 1821, in the ordinary estimate, is actually more than for 1817,
No. 8.—Amount of the ARMY EXPENDITURE (Ordnance and East Indies excepted), of the UNITED KINGDOM and COLONIES abroad, for the following years;—
Actual Disbursements.
1792.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
Comparison of the Estimates of Ordinary Service for 1820 and 1821.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Army Ordinary Services
*
7,014,494
7,255,646
7,719,924
7,941,513
‡Ordinary Estimates 1820
6,807,466
†Ordinary Estimates 1821
6,643,968
Army Ordinary Extraordinaries
—
2,600,370
1,261,398
1,730,127
984,911
Less in 1821 than 1820
£.163,498
Total in each Year
2,331,149
†9,614,864
†8,517,044
†9,450,651
†8,926,424
*
£.1,814,800
Vide
Ireland
516,349
—15th Vol. Irish Journals.
£.2,331,149
†
Vide
‡ Army Estimates laid before Parliament.
N.B. The Charge for the Military College of
£.18,600
N.B. The Charge For the Military Asylum of
35,501
And for Militia and Deserters Warrants of
51,420
Is not included in the Army Expenditure, but in Miscellaneous Expenditure.
Total
£.105,527
No. 9.—Expenditure for the ARMY in IRELAND for the Year, to Lady-day 1792.— [
Vide
Army
£.433,895
Additional Pay (Dublin)
5,296
Battle Axes
1,892
Garrisons
3,822
Incidents
460
Fire and Candle for Guards, &c.
166
Pensions
9,420
Half-Pay Officers
17,450
Widows of Officers
4,239
Ordnance
22,862
Contingencies
3,000
Barracks
13,337
539,211
Deduct Ordnance
22,862
Expenditure of the Army
£.516,349
N.B. The Average Expenditure of the Irish Array from 1784 to 1792, without Ordnance and Barracks, was £.465,332.
When he first submitted to their notice his Comparative Statements relative to the establishments of the army in 1792 and in 1821, he had considerably understated the establishment of the latter year; an error he had been enabled to
1360
1818, or 1819; and only 168,498
l.
correct by the papers lately laid on the table of the House.
In comparing the numbers of the army in 1792 and in 1821, on the amended statement, he begged to premise that the numbers of 1792 were put down at
the
1361
full establishment of the army, although it was well known to be deficient by several thousand men; whereas, in 1821; not more than the numbers actually embodied were entered. In 1792, for Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, the number of regular troops amounted to 45,242, the artillery and marines to 8,115, the militia and yeomanry to 33,410; making a
—No. 10.—Statement of the MILITARY FORCE, regular and irregular (Men and Officers included), in GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND, and the BRITISH COLONIES (exclusive of the East Indies), in the Years 1792 and 1821, made up from Returns before Parliament.
1792.
Regular Cavalry and Infantry in Great Britain
*
Regular Cavalry and Infantry in Ireland
†12,000
Regular Cavalry and Infantry in Colonies
*
(Including the Corps at New South Wales)
45,242
Royal Artillery
3,730
Royal Marines
‡4,425
8,155
Total Regulars
53,397
Militia of Great Britain Disembodied
§33,410
Total Irregulars
33,410
Total Regular and Irregular Troops
86,807
*
† Journals, Irish Parliament, Feb. 7, 1792.
‡ Journals, Commons.
§ Parliamentary Paper, No. 363, of 1821.
1821.
Regular Cavalary and Infantry in Great Britain
27,852
Regular Cavalary and Infantry Ireland
20,778
Regular Cavalary and Infantry Colonies
32,476
*
Royal Artillery
7,872
Royal Marines
8,000
†15,872
Regular Cavalary Troops at the Cape of Good Hope
458
Regular Cavalary Troops Ceylon
3,606
‡4,064
Recruiting Establishment
497
Total Regulars
101,539
Militia of Great Britain disembodied in 89 Regiments
§555,092
Militia of Ireland Britain disembodied in 38 Regiments
║22,472
77,564
Yeomanry in Great Britain, Men and Offices
¶36,294
Yeomanry in Ireland Britain, Men and Officers
*
*
Volunteer Infantry, in Men and Officers, Great Britain
6,934
74,014
East India Company's Regiment
††750
Veteran Battalions disembodied and ready to be called
10,000
Total Irregulars
162,328
1362
total of 86,807. In 1821, the number of regular troops was 81,106 men; the artillery and marines were 15,872; and, with some troops at the Cape and in Ceylon, amounting in all to 101,539. The militia, and yeomanry, and other irregular corps amounted to 162,328, making a grand total of 263,867, and giving an increase of 177,060 men, above then umbers of 1792.
1363
Men in Arms, or may be in Arms in a few hours or days:
Total of Regular and Irregular, 1821
263,867
Total of Regular and Irregular, in 1792
86,807
More in 1821 than in 1792
177,060
*
? Parliamentary Paper, No. 363 of 1821. ║ Parliamentary Paper, No. 330 of 1821.
¶ Parliamentary Paper, No. 189 of 1821.
**
†† See Act of 2nd Geo. IV., C.
Such a comparison must speak volumes to the mind of every considerate and independent member in the House. In the increase which he had just pointed out, was included nearly 10,000 dragoons and
No. 11—Comparative Statement of the Number of HORSE GUARDS, LIFE GUARDS, DRAGOON GUARDS, DRAGOONS, and FOOT GUARDS, in GREAT BRITAIN, in the Years 1792 and 1821, of RANK and FILE, and also of OFFICERS and NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
——
RANK and FILE.
Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers in 1821.
Total of Men and Officers in 1821.
Increase In Rank and File in 1821.
1792.
1821.
Life Guards
411
688
187
875
277
Horse Guards
261
344
86
430
83
Dragoon Guards
696
2,668
1,506
9,326
1,972
Dragoons
2,080
5,152
3,072
Foot Guards
3,126
5,760
848
6,608
2,634
Total Number
6,574
14,612
2,627
17,239
8,038
N.B. The number of Cavalry which were in Ireland (supposed 12 or 1,400 men) in 1792, must be deducted from the increase, to give the fair comparison.
The noble lord on the other side of the House, in defending the, present large establishments of the army, had said, that the reliefs for foreign stations were the principal causes of the increase; but, surely, the household troops were not available for that purpose, as none of them were ever sent abroad in time of peace. This being the case, he would maintain that the reduction of them was most called for, and ought instantly to take place. The sum saved to the country, by such a reduction, would not be a trifle, since the expenses of every horseman employed in the service were nearly as great as those of the junior clerks in the public offices, some of whom,
1364
household troops, the most expensive class in the army. He had prepared a comparative Statement to show the number of life and foot guards and cavalry at these periods.
though they ought in justice to be the last, would certainly, on the plan on which the present ministers proceeded, be the first to suffer in case of any reductions, that their superiors in office might enjoy their overgrown emoluments in security.
He declared, for himself, and those friends about him who had urged retrenchment, that it was hot in this way they wished reduction to commence [Hear!] It appeared, by a statement taken from papers on their table, that the expense of a dragoon and horse, exclusive of his forage, &c; was 57
l.
l.
l.
1365
No. 12.—Comparative Statement of the Expense of the LIFE GUARDS, HORSE GUARDS, DRAGOON GUARDS, FOOT GUARDS, and INFANTRY of the LINE, exclusive of the expense for Corn, Hay, Stabling, &c., &c. (vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 399 of 1821).
Expense of a Regiment of
£.
£.
s.
d.
Life Guards of 8 Troops and 437 Men and Officers
32,446 or
74
4
11
each Man.
Horse Guards of 8 Troops and 430 Men and Officers
32,513 or
75
12
2½
each Man.
Dragoon Guards of 8 Troops and 439 Men and Officers
24,836 or
56
11
5½
each Man.
By the Annual Estimates p 3.
£.
£.
s.
The 3 Regts. of Foot Guards of 6508 Men and Officers, cost
222,959 or
34
5
each Man
A Regiment of Infantry of 10 Companies and 746 Men and Officers
23,059 or
31
0
each Man
N.B. To the latter Sum there may be some additional charge for Contingencies which will increase the amount; and the charge per head will become greater in proportion as the number of privates in each Regiment is reduced, whilst the Officers and Staff remain the same.
The sum that would be saved by a reduction of 10,000 household troops, and an equal number of troops in the colonies, would amount to about 753,955
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
The ESTIMATES for 1821 are,
Establishments For Recruiting for the troops in India
£.23,211
Establishments For Recruiting for the Great Britain
40,677
Establishments For Recruiting for the Ireland
9,510
Total
£.73,398
In 1792 the expense of the general and staff officers in Great Britain and the Colonies, was only 23,365
l.;
l.,
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
1366
year. Instead, therefore, of reducing the number of men in each regiment, as had been done, he would recommend to reduce the number of regiments from 93 to 75: 75 regiments of 800 each, would contain the same number of rank and file as 93 regiments of 650 each; and, a saving of 209,042
l.
l.
l.
1367
No. 13.—Comparative Statement of the CHARGE for MILITARY STAFF for GREAT BRITAIN and the COLONIES in 1792 and 1821.
1792.
General and Staff Officers in Great Britain
*
General and Staff Officers in Colonies
† 17,118
Total
£.23,365
1821.
Staff at Head Quarters
£.15,089
South and North Britain, Guernsey and Jersey, Medical Staff Officers and Allowances
34,547
Staff for the Colonies, Old and New, and Allowances to Medical Officers
83,854
Total
‡£.1334,90
Increase of Staff Pay in Great Britain and Colonies
£.110,125
*
Vide
†
Vide
‡ Vide Annual Estimates.
If the staff for Great Britain, Ireland and the Colonies, with the establishments for the same are taken, the amount, for 1792, was 44,295
l.,
l.,
l.,
No. 14.—General Abstract of the CHARGE for MILITARY STAFF,, and the Office, Establishments of the ARMY of the UNITED KINGDOM and its COLONIES in 1792 and 1821.
——
1792
1821
Amount of Expense of Staff in Great Britain
£.
*
49,636
Office Establishment
*
20,824
Amount of Expense of Staff in Ireland
† 10,501
40,143
Amount of Expense of staff in Colonies
17,118
83,854
Total in each Year
44,295
194,457
*
Vide
†
Vide
The Estimates for the public departments of the War Office, Pay-master General's Office, Judge-Advocate-General's Office, and comptroller of Accounts, were in 1792, 45,335
l.;
l.;
l.
No. 15.—Abstract Amount of the Public Departments of the ARMY of GREAT BRITAIN in 1792 and 1821.
——
1792
1821
The Paymaster General, his Deputies and Clerks
£.18,344
28,884
Secretary at War, his Deputy and Clerks
9,978
51,881
Fees at the War Office, received by the Deputy and Clerks
4,997
—
Judge Advocate General
2,421
5,180
Judge Advocate General North Britain
—
650
Comptrollers of Accounts
5,103
12,642
Commissary General of Musters
4,492
—
Total in each Year
£.45,335
*
*
l.
l.
1368
1369
The Estimates for the War Office alone in 1792, were 13,253
l.
l.,
l.
No. 16.—An Account of the Expense of the WAR OFFICE for the Years 1813, 1817, 1819, 1820, and 1821.
——
1813
1817
1819
1820
1821
Correspondence Department
£.30,240
28,356
23,483
23,269
21,527
Accounts
20,334
14,061
14,408
13,947
12,656
Foreign
3,600
—
—
—
—
54,174
42,417
37,891
37,216
34,183
Arrear Department
5,721
18,574
18,121
15,564
17,136
59,895
60,991
56,012
52,780
51,319
Superannuations
—
6,771
11,689
12,798
13,371
Total in each Year
59,895
67,762
67,701
65,578
64,690
Establishment of the War Office in 1792
£. 8,256
Amount of Fees received in that Year
4,997
Total Expense
£.13,253
The charge of the commander-in-chief's office in 1792, amounted to 846
l.,
l.,
l.
1370
l.
s.
l.
l.
1371
No. 17.—Total Number of Gentlemen who have been appointed to FIRST COMMISSIONS in Regiments of Cavalry and Infantry of the Line; of Promotions of Cornets, Ensigns and Second Lieutenants, to be LIEUTENANTS; of Lieutenants; to be CAPTAINS; of Captains to be MAJORS; of Majors to be LIEUTENANT-COLONELS: distinguishing the Number of each Rank in each Year from 25th January 1816 to 25th January. 1821, and the Total Of the whole.—[
Vide
—
First Commissions.
Cornets & Ensigns to be Lieutenants
Lieutenants to be Captains.
Captains to be Majors
Majors to be Lt. Cols.
TOTAL.
By Purchase
Without Purchase
By Purchase
Without Purchase
By Purchase
Without Purchase
By Purchase
Without Purchase
By Purchase
Without Purchase
From January 1816 to January 1817
143
134
64
143
53
45
17
13
2
11
625
From January 1817 to January 1818
105
71
70
75
56
23
17
8
6
5
436
From January 1818 to January 1819
178
89
54
59
54
24
17
8
5
5
493
From January 1819 to January 1820
78
104
62
72
56
41
21
17
4
6
462
From January 1820 to January 1821
93
110
77
93
70
52
20
11
6
5
537
597
508
327
442
289
185
92
57
24
32
2,553
Total of each Rank
1105
769
474
149
56
Total of the whole.
Viz. No.
1,329
Commissions by Purchase.
1,224
Commissions by without Do.
Total
2,553
Promotions.
It also appeared that in 1821, there were 9,037 officers on the half-pay of the
No. 18.—Abstract of the Number of OFFICERS on HALF-PAY of the ARMY, in the UNITED KINGDOM, on the 25th March 1821.—[
Vide
No.
Colonel
1
Lieutenant-Colonels
187
Majors
332
Captains; Lieutenants and Captains of Foot Guards and Captains and Lieuts
1,836
Lieutenants, and Ensigns and Lieutenants of Foot Guards
3,491
Cornets, 2nd Lieutenants and Ensigns
1,346
Paymasters
186
Adjutants
130
Quarter-Masters and Troop Quarter-Masters
483
Surgeons
333
Assistant Surgeons, Staff Assistants, Hospital Assistants and Mates
359
Veterinary Surgeons
24
Physicians
34
Superintendents General and Inspectors of Hospitals
70
Apothecaries, Purveyors, and Clerks
109
Inspecting field Officers of Militia, Assistant Quarter-Master General, Deputy Judge Advocate, &c.
28
Commissaries, Deputies and Assistants
13
Chaplains
75
Total
9,037
1372
army, at an expense of 812,557
l.
1373
Although there had been 2,553 steps in the army in these five years, yet only 303 officers had been brought from half
No. 19.—Return of the Number of OFFICERS who have been appointed from the HALF to FULL PAY, upon Vacancies in the Army, and not by Exchange, since the 31st December 1815—[
Vide
——
Lt. Colonels.
Majors.
Captains.
Lieutenants.
Ensigns.
Grand Total.
From Jan. 1 to Dec.31, 1816
—
—
1
16
9
26
From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1817
1
3
4
15
9
32
From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1818
1
1
10
20
8
40
From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1819
29
5
4
12
10
60
From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1820
2
2
29
94
18
145
Total of each
33
11
48
157
54
303
If all these vacancies, had been filled up from the half-pay, the sum of 214,264
l.
l.
l.
l.
No. 20.—Statement of the Number of OFFICERS of each Rank promoted in the Regular Army to REGIMENTAL RANK in the 5 Years ending the 25th January 1821; the Number of each Rank on HALF PAY, and the Number that have been called from Half to FULL PAY.
——
Ensigns and Cornets.
Lieutenants.
Captains.
Majors.
Lieutenant Colonels.
TOTAL.
Number of Officers of each Rank on Half Pay, as per Return of March 1821 (
Vide
1346
3491
1836
332
187
7192
*
Number of Officers promoted to each Rank in 5 years (
Vide
1105
769
474
149
56
2553
Number of Officers of each Rank brought from the Half to the Full Pay (
Vide
54
157
48
11
33
303
*
No. 21.—Statement of HALF PAY that would have been saved to the Public, if the 2,553 Officers had been brought from the Half to the Full Pay to fill up all Vacancies, instead of receiving First Commissions and Promotions in the 5 Years ending 25th January 1821.
OFFICERS APPOINTED AND PROMOTED BY PURCHASE.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
597
Ensigns at
54
15
0 per annum
32,685
15
0
327
Lieutenants
73
0
0
23,871
0
0
289
Captains
127
15
0
36,919
15
0
92
Majors
173
7
6
15,950
10
0
24
Lt.-Cols.
200
15
0
4,818
0
0
1,329
Officers by Purchase
114,245
0
0
1374
to full pay, being in the proportion of only one to eight of that number.
He did not go so far, as to recommend promotion altogether to cease; but he certainly thought that two vacancies in three should be filled up from the half-pay, until that list was much reduced. The statements he had prepared would explain these particulars.
1375
WITHOUT PURCHASE.
508
Ensigns of Half-pay at
54
15
0 per annum
27,813
0
0
442
Lieutenants
73
0
0
32,266
0
0
185
Captains
127
15
0
23,633
15
0
57
Majors
173
7
6
9,882
7
6
32
Lt.-Cols.
200
15
0
6,424
0
0
1,224
Officers without purchase
100,019
2
6
2,553
Total
214,264
2
6
At
12 Years
Purchase make the total Value for these Annuities
£.2,571,169
10
0
No. 22.—Statement of HALF PAY saved to the Public by bringing 303 Officers from the Half to the Full Pay by Vacancies, and not by Exchange, in the 5 Years ending 25th January 1821.
54
Cornets and Ensigns at
£.54
15
0 per annum
£.2,956
10
0
157
Lieutenants
73
0
0
11,461
0
0
48
Captains
127
15
0
6,132
0
0
11
Majors
173
7
6
1,907
2
6
33
Lieutenant-Colonels
200
15
0
6,624
15
0
Annuities of
£.29,081
7
6
Which at
12 Years
Purchase, give the Value of these Annuities £.
348,976
10
0
There were 118 officers on the half-pay of the artillery; and in the last five years, 38 had been brought from half to full-pay; and 62 cadets had received first commissions. The engineers had 50 officers on half-pay, and 26 first commissions had been given in-the last six years. The lords of the Admiralty had not been very consistent; they had followed
No. 23.—Return of the Number of Gentlemen appointed to FIRST COMMISSIONS in the ROYAL MARINES; of Officers who have been brought from Half to FULL-PAY, the Number who have been Promoted, of each Rank in each year, and the Total of the whole from the 31st Dec. 1815, to the 25th March, 1821. [
Vide
——
Colonels Commandant
Lieutenant-Colonels.
Majors.
Captains.
First Lieutenants.
Second Lieutenants.
TOTAL in each Year.
From 1st January to 31st December, 1816
—
—
1
7
68
13
89
From 1st January to 31st December, 1817
—
—
—
4
3
1
8
From 1st January to 31st December, 1818
—
—
—
—
5
5
10
From 1st January to 31st December, 1819
2
1
—
4
3
6
16
From 1st January to 31st December, 1820
—
—
—
4
3
7
14
From 1st January to 25th March, 1821
—
—
—
1
3
2
6
Total
2
1
1
20
85
34
143
No. of Officers on Half-pay on the 25th March, 1821.
—
2
3
142
342
278
768
and 1 Assistant Surg.
In these 6 years, only one First Commission, two Lieutenants to be Captains, and one Captain to be Major.
1376
one practice in the marines and another in the navy.
In the marines, in March last, there were 768 officers on half-pay, and 143 had, in the last five years, been brought from half to full-pay; there having been only three promotions and one first commission given in that time.
1377
There were about 7,000 officers on the half-pay of the navy, and yet, between January 1816 and July 1821, about 341
No. 24.—An Account of the Number of GENTLEMEN appointed as LIEUTENANTS, and of OFFICERS promoted in the Royal Navy in the following Years.
In what Year.
To be Assistant Surgeons.
To be Surgeons.
To be Pursers.
To be Masters.
To be Lieutenants.
To be Commanders.
To be Captains.
To be Rear-Admirals.
To be Vice-Admirals.
To be Admirals.
TOTAL in each Year.
1816
1
15
—
6
92
34
10
—
—
—
158
1817
—
5
—
1
27
10
26
—
—
—
69
1818
1
5
—
3
62
23
16
—
—
—
110
1819
—
7
2
—
53
27
17
25
21
13
165
1820
—
11
6
1
56
17
3
—
—
—
94
1821
—
4
—
1
51
22
4
—
—
—
82
Total
2
47
8
12
341
133
76
25
21
13
678
A practice so various in the different branches of the public service, where the claims were equal, appeared to him quite unaccountable. Why should not promotion cease in the army, navy and ordnance in the same manner as it had done in the royal marines, until the half-pay lists were reduced? The facility thus afforded to the commander-in-chief and the ministers, of adding to the number of pensioners on the public, was an abuse little known in former times, and it was high time, he thought, to put an end to it.
The hon. member likewise complained of the manner in which 247 officers had been transferred from the half and full-pay to the veteran battalions, in 1820 and 1821, a circumstance which, when coupled
No. 25.—Abstract of the Number of OFFICERS brought from the Half-pay, and transferred from Full-pay to the ROYAL VETERAN BATTALIONS, and placed on FULL-PAY for Life on the Reduction of these Corps.
——
Cols.
Lt.-Cols.
Majors.
Captains.
Lieuts.
Ensigns.
Adjts.
Quarter Masters.
TOTAL.
From Full pay,
*
—
1
3
20
34
7
1
2
68
Half-pay,†
8
8
2
29
96
33
1
2
179
Total of each Rank,
8
9
5
49
130
40
2
4
247
*
Vide
†
Vide
Difference of Full and Half-pay of 68 Officers
£.3,791
8
9
Difference of Full and Half-pay of 179 Officers
10,078
11
3
13,870
0
0
Which, at
12
Years
purchase, amounts to
£.166,440
0
0
1378
first comm.issions had been given, and 337 promotions made.
with the reduction of those battalions immediately afterwards, was calculated to induce the belief, that they had only been transferred to those battalions to give the ministers an excuse for placing so many officers on full pay for life, and thus to create an additional expense of 13,870
l.
l.
1379
Adverting to the expenditure of the military college, the hon. member remarked, that it was not included in the army estimates, but charged in the miscellaneous expenditure, which was rather surprising. It had been established in 1801,
No. 26.—Abstract of the Expense of the Royal MILITARY COLLEGE, for the Years 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820, and Estimate for 1821.
—
1816.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
Total.
Cadets.
Officers.
Cadets.
Officers.
Cadets.
Officers.
Cadets.
Officers.
Cadets.
Officers.
Cadets.
Officers.
412.
30.
412
30
330
30
320
30
290
30
1,764
150
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Staff
7,493
6,567
6,599
6,605
6,469
33,733
Junior Department
20,692
17,588
13,778
12,303
9,181
73,542
Total
£. 28,185
24,155
20,377
18,908
15,650
107,275
Pensions
368
491
740
646
2,153
4,398
Contingencies
—
—
750
1,697
1,160
3,607
Senior Department
5,265
3,508
3,647
3,923
2,507
18,850
Total Expense in each Year
£. 33,818
28,154
25,514
25,174
21,470
134,130
No. of Cadets who have received Commissions in each of these Years
18
40
18
14
44
160
N.B. The Estimate for 290 Cadets and 15 Officers for 1821, is £.18,739.
If the Pensions to the amount of £.2,153 already granted, are calculated at 12 years purchase, they will amount to the sum of £.25,836
During that period, there had been 1764 cadets educated there, but only 160 had received commissions; so that the expenses of this establishment, divided among the number who had been admitted to the army, had been no less a sum than 720
l.
l.
l.
l.
He then noticed the increase which had taken place in the superannuation list of the civil establishments. In 1792, the allowances under this head did not amount to more, than 5,000
l.
1380
at an expense of only 3,859
l.
l.,
l.
amounted to 17,964
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1381
No. 27.—Expense of the BARRACK and COMMISSARIAT ESTABLISHMENT of the UNITED KINGDOM, for the Years 1818 to 1821.
DEPARTMENT.
1818.
1819.
1820.
1821.
Barracks
Great Britain
99,100
123,500
241,000
137,500
Ireland
123,474
73,000
114,033
88,832
Total each Year £.
222,574
196,532
355,033
226,332
Commissariat
Great Britain
397,700
380,300
476,294
401,569
Ireland
134,249
148,532
100,077
112,102
Total each Year £.
528,949
528,832
575,371
513,671
The commissariat in Ireland had only 2,400 horses to support; and, if those horses had been put out to livery at the usual livery charge, they would not have cost the sum which had been paid for the establishment of the commissariat kept to supply them [Hear!].
He ought also particularly to notice the charge for issuing the army foreign half-pay as he considered it highly objectionable and unreasonable. The Secretary at War had appointed Mr. Disney to that department, and allowed him at first the very exorbitant commission of 3½ and since 2½ per cent, for the disbursement of 125,000
l.
l.
l.
d.
d.
Having closed his observations on the Army Establishments, he would shortly recapitulate to the House the principal motions which had been made for reductions, in that department. The grounds having been stated at length in the course of the session, why the reductions should take place, he would only then repeat the purport of each motion. It had been proposed to reduce 20,000 men of the army, the greater part to be household and colonial troops; and, if that motion had been acceded to, there would have been saved to the country in pay, &c. 753,955
l.,
l.,
l.
1382
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Propositions had likewise been made to reduce the estimate for the Military Staff, for the Commander-in-Chief's-office, for the War-office, for the Judge-Advocate-General's-office, and for many other public offices, amounting, (according to a list held in his hand,) to 151,172
l.,
l.
The hon. gentleman then proceeded to compare in the same manner the expenditure of the Navy in 1821 with that of 1792. The expenses of the navy in 1792,
1383
l.
*
l.,
*
No. 28.—Abstract of NAVY ESTIMATES, from 1817 to 1821, inclusive.—[
Vide
ORDINARY EXPENDITURE.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
1821.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Estimate of Salaries, &c.
1.
1,243,451
1,250,508
1,256,626
1,228,009
1,225,629
Estimate of Half-pay.
2.
1,146,828
1,130,512
1,125,693
1,150,370
1,152,997
Estimate of Superann. &c
3.
89,870
99,661
100,694
102,187
105,974
£.
2,476,149
2,480,681
2,483,013
2,480,566
2,484,600
For Building Ships
1,139,271
1,230,990
1,145,430
1,142,580
1,094,580
Improving Yards
252,368
556,191
486,198
451,900
424,648
Victualling
300,000
320,000
419,319
389,500
280,908
Transport Department
261,527
178,948
284,321
245,924
231,900
£.
1,953,166
2,286,129
2,335,268
2,229,904
2,032,036
Estimate of Wages, &c.
1,556,100
1,781,000
1,709,500
1,980,875
1,866,150
Total Estimate
5,985,415
6,547,810
6,527,781
6,691,345
6,382,786
Deduct for Old Stores
671,101
309,205
334,487
263,820
163,400
£.
5,314,314
6,138,605
6,193,294
6,427,525
6,219,386
Actual Expenditure from Annual Finance Accounts
£.
6,473,062
6,521,714
6,393,552
6,387,799
—
It was for the House to consider whether in a time of peace, with so few ships in commission, and with only 14,000 sailors employed, the country ought to continue sp great an expense for that department. The great and unnecessary increase of the different civil establishments since 1792, he would now point out. The expenses of the Admiralty, navy and navy-pay offices in 1792 was 58,719
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1384
4,397,304
l.
charge for the Dock-yard Establishments was very large. It had not been reduced in any proportion to the reduction of seamen or ships employed, nor did there appear to be that difference between a time of peace and of war, which might reasonably be expected. A statement he had prepared, would show that, in 1792, the total charge for Dock-yards at home was 25,352
l.,
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1385
No. 29.—Charge for the DOCK YARDS at Home, for Salaries to OFFICERS, &c.
—
1792.
1813.
1817.
1819.
1820.
1821.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Deptford
3,588
26,710
27,582
29,352
28,975
*
Woolwich
4,058
30,411
32,440
30,379
30,237
29,802
Chatham
4,200
33,241
36,883
36,956
36,488
35,438
Sheerness
2,434
23,870
26,659
26,209
24,707
24,078
Portsmouth
6,126
54,250
59,969
58,281
50,468
*
Plymouth
4,946
43,660
45,299
44,585
45,930
43,512
25,352
212,142
228,832
225,762
216,305
210,745
Pembroke
6,411
£.
217,156
*
How far it was proper to keep up the Establishments of clerks and other officers, when the number of workmen were reduced; or how far it was proper to keep a larger number of men than were required, and employ them for a few hours, only in the day, had been questioned by the Finance Committee. If there were any probability of the workmen being required in a short time, it might be well to keep them thus employed; but, with the prospect of a long peace, it appeared very objectionable. Such was the dispropor-
No. 30.—Comparative Statement of the Charge for OFFICERS SALARIES and PAY of MEN in the different DOCK YARDS in 1821.—[
Vide
——
Amount of Salaries, &c., to Officers, Foremen, Measurers, &c., who receive Yearly Salaries.
Amount of Wages to Artificers, and Labourers employed in building, &c., His Majesty's Ships.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Deptford
27,149
18
5
18,157
0
0
Woolwich
29,802
10
0
25,022
0
0
Chatham
35,438
13
2
52,976
0
0
Sheerness
*
13
0
4,754
0
0
Portsmouth
48,705
13
0
37,353
0
0
Plymouth
43,511
11
0
45,559
0
0
Pembroke
6,399
10
0
8,824
0
0
Total
215,086
8
7
192,645
0
0
Deduct Amount of Men's Wages
192,645
0
0
More for the Pay of Officers, Measurers, &c., than for the Men, exclusive of Houses, Allowances, &c.
£.22,441
8
7
*
s.
d.
s.
d.
1386
tion between the workmen, the operative, active and most valuable part of the Dock-yard Establishments, and the officers and clerks to superintend them, that in the Estimates for this year the total charge for wages to the former amounted only to 192,645
l.,
l.
l.
1387
The charge for outports and foreign naval stations had also increased in an unreasonable degree. In 1792, the total charge for them was 4,508
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
The expense for building and rebuilding ships of war, and for stores, appeared also very great for the sixth year of peace. He submitted to the serious consideration of the House, whether they were not throwing away more money on this branch of the navy than prudence warranted or necessity required. It was of vital importance to have an efficient navy; but, to have more ships than the finances of the country could afford, or than any force likely to be brought against us could require, appeared to him a waste of means. The opinion of the Finance Committee on this subject deserved attention; in their 8th Report they said, "that the amount and preparation of ships of war, must be left to the sound discretion of the government generally, and of the board, whose duty it is, more particularly to manage this most important department of the state. Always bearing in mind, that not ships, and stores, and military arrangements, are alone necessary for the safety, or for
1388
If he was rightly informed, the whole navies of Europe and America, if united and brought together against us, would not equal half the number of our present navy. The improbability of that combination ever taking place was very great, and we ought not (as the committee had strongly impressed upon the House), to go on, exhausting our immediate resources, in order to be prepared for a distant and improbable contingency. The total number of ships of war of all descriptions in 1792 was 401, and with them we were able to defeat the French and Spanish navies, then much more powerful than at present. In 1792 we had 278 rated ships and 123 sloops in ordinary and at sea, and 16 rated ships building. In 1821 we had 538 rated ships, and 163 sloops in ordinary and at sea, and 30 rated ships building, being an increase of 260 rated ships, and 40 sloops built, and 14 rated ships building, more in 1821 than in 1792. This was nearly double the number and strength of 1792, and he, therefore, called upon the House to pause before, in the present state of our finances, we added to that number. The comparative numbers would be best seen by a table he had prepared of the number of ships in each of these years.
1389
No. 31.—SHIPS of WAR in COMMISSION and in ORDINARY, in each of the following Years, as stated in Returns laid before Parliament.—[
Vide
——
1786.
1792.
1813.
1814.
1819.
1821.
Com.
Ordi.
Com.
Ordi.
Com.
Ordi.
Com.
Ordi.
Com.
Ordi.
Com.
Ordi.
Guns.
First Rates
100
—
5
1
4
*
7
8
6
2
14
2
23
Second Rates
90 to 98
—
21
7
9
9
9
9
6
1
11
2
22
Third Rates
74 to 80
17
103
18
89
102
106
111
100
11
69
14
97
Fourth Rates
50 to 60
6
14
8
10
8
13
10
15
9
5
7
29
Fifth Rates
32 to 44
13
84
31
59
118
84
134
83
18
58
14
126
Sixth Rates
12 to 28
12
31
12
30
38
27
43
35
19
3
65
137
48
258
77
201
282
246
315
245
60
160
104
434
Sloops, Yachts, and Small Vessels
38
73
67
56
209
150
226
171
95
250
15
148
86
331
144
257
491
396
541
416
115
410
119
582
Total in each Year
417
401
887
957
525
701
*
The expense that had been incurred for the repair and building of ships almost exceeded belief; it was 17,702,258
l.
No. 32.—An Account of the SUMS Voted for the Wear and Tear of the NAVY, for the Ordinary Repairs, for Building, Rebuilding, and Repairing SHIPS of WAR, Hulls, Masts, Yards, Rigging, and Stores for His Majesty's Dock Yards, and also in Merchants' Yards, from 1815 to 1820 inclusive.—[
Vide
——
For Wear and Tear.
For Ordinary Repairs.
For Building, Rebuilding, and Repairing Ships of War, Hulls, Masts, Yards, Rigging, and Stores.
Merchants' Yards, East Indies.
Total Amount each Year.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
1815
2,386,500
462,242
1,621,038
29,413
4,499,193
1816
922,350
535,589
1,499,603
65,728
3,023,270
1817
531,050
364,625
1,076,277
63,000
2,034,952
1818
559,000
310,000
1,170,990
60,000
2,099,990
1819
533,000
310,000
1,085,430
60,000
1,988,430
1820
612,953
310,000
1,062,580
80,000
2,065,533
5,544,853
2,292,456
7,515,918
358,141
15,711,378
1821
586,300
310,000
1,014,580
80,000
1,990,880
Total
6,131,153
2,602,456
8,530,498
438,141
17,702,258
1390
nary repairs and building, as appeared by an account he had extracted from the annual estimates.
1391
When so much had been expended in seven years of peace, we had a right to consider ourselves in possession of a very efficient navy at present, and to expect a greatly diminished expenditure in this and the ensuing years. He believed that the ships in ordinary were in better condition than they had ever been in any former peace; But the rate at which the manufacture of ships was going on, notwithstanding the numbers now on hand, appeared to him absolutely absurd. An hon. baronet (sir Joseph Yorke) had said, that we were over-manufacturing ships, and he (Mr. H.)
No. 33.—Comparative Expense for Building, Rebuilding, and Repairing SHIPS of His Majesty's NAVY, for the following Years.
*
£.390,994
*
352,040
*
370,228
1,113,262
† Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1819.
1,145,430
† Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1820.
1,142,580
† Building and Rebuilding, &c., in 1821.
1,094,580
3,382,590
More in 1819, 1820, and 1821, than in 1791, 1792, and 1793
£.2,269,328
*
Vide
†
Vide
When, therefore, the immense expenditure since the peace, and the great number of ships already built and in good condition, were taken into consideration, he thought the reduction proposed would appear reasonable.
The charge for improvements in the dock-yards increased the estimates very much, and appeared to him, to require minute examination. He did not question the importance of having our dockyards in the most complete order for the expediting of work and the preservation of stores, &c; but he thought these advantages might be purchased too dear if the improvements were disproportionate to the wants of the service. Many of the works had been begun, and were carrying on, upon a scale by far too large, for any service this country could ever again require. He had called upon the House, therefore, to institute an inquiry by a committee, into the state of the works now in progress, and, to consider of the propriety of completing them on the scale at present proposed, before they should vote so large a sum of money as they
1392
entirely concurred in that opinion; he had therefore recommended a reduction of 550,000
l.
l.;
l.
l.
had done this year; he was still satisfied that he was right in so doing. He regretted, therefore, that the House had refused inquiry into a subject which had already cost millions, and in which millions more were involved. It must be as well known to many hon. members as it was to him, that the utility of the works now carrying on at the dock-yards of Sheerness, Bermuda, and other places, as compared with their expense, was very generally questioned. He believed it would be found, on inquiry, that much money had been already thrown away on these works, and that many now proposed to be finished were quite unnecessary. The expenditure of nine or ten millions in fortifications and barracks, which had since been designated, by a committee of the House, as a waste of public money, proved the necessity of more accurate investigation when votes of this kind were proposed. He had prepared statements of the sums voted for works at the different dock-yards, abroad and at home, in the last eleven years, which amounted to 4,264,598
l.
1393
No. 34—FOR IMPROVEMENT OF YARDS AT HOME AND ABROAD
Sums Estimated for the different DOCK YARDS belonging to Government at HOME and ABROAD, for the Years from 1811 to 1821, both inclusive.
——
1811.
1812.
1813.
1814.
1815.
1816.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
1821.
Total of each Yard.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Deptford
510
—
—
9,500
44,175
25,346
2,000
34,600
9,905
—
—
197,036
Victualling Department
—
—
—
24,000
—
20,000
—
—
27,000
—
—
Woolwich
—
1,730
16,859
29,334
29,259
10,000
15,459
31,400
16,700
12,000
12,000
174,741
Chatham
5,000
17,850
42,244
27,048
20,386
95,556
50,885
104,225
54,880
34,000
30,830
482,804
Sheerness
58,749
17,346
80,000
80,000
109,846
160,000
70,000
180,000
182,000
210,000
208,000
1,355,941
Portsmouth
24,835
19,776
5,633
39,170
17,149
10,000
1,000
1,564
6,900
6,000
5,000
205,167
Portsmouth Victualling Department
—
10,000
50,140
8,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Plymouth
19,099
11,420
19,467
37,562
41,811
58,230
24,024
20,502
21,131
12,400
7,236
272,882
Plymouth Sound
—
80,000
72,000
90,000
85,008
90,000
40,000
65,000
64,000
64,100
52,041
702,749
Pembroke
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
50,300
22,000
27,000
27,770
127,070
Hawlbowling Island
28,240
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
9,832
143,072
Pater
—
—
—
20,000
38,000
54,500
19,000
—
—
—
—
131,500
Total each Year
136,433
168,122
296,343
374,614
396,234
533,632
232,368
502,591
419,516
380,500
352,709
3,792,962
Leith
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4,200
3,000
2,000
2,939
12,139
Admiralty Office
6,450
2,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8,450
Royal Marine Barracks, Woolwich
—
—
—
—
13,625
3,600
—
—
—
—
—
17,225
142,883
170,122
296,343
374,614
409,859
537,232
232,368
506,791
422,516
382,500
355,648
3,830,776
FOREIGN YARDS.
Bermuda
42,340
20,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
40,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
252,340
Jamaica
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15,000
15,000
15,000
45,000
Halifax
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
452
—
—
452
Kingston, Canada
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,330
10,000
10,000
21,330
Gibraltar
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6,500
6,500
4,000
4,000
21,000
Malta
10,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
400
400
400
—
11,200
Trincomalee
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
80,000
Antigua
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,500
—
—
—
2,500
Total each Year
195,223
190,122
306,343
394,614
429,859
577,232
252,368
556,191
486,198
451,900
424,648
4,264,598
Add the Sums estimated to complete the Work
1,254,897
Total Expense since 1811, on Dock Yards
£.5,519,495
By the estimates for this year, a sum of 1,679,545
l.
1394
out including those at Jamaica, Kingston in Canada, Trincomalee, &c. for which no estimates could be given.
1395
No. 35.—Estimates of SUMS wanted to complete WORKS carrying on in the different DOCK YARDS.—[
Vide
PLACE.
Total Estimate to complete Work.
Of which will be wanted in 1821
£.
£.
Woolwich
46,420
12,000
Chatham
58,330
30,830
Sheerness
955,421
208,000
Portsmouth
5,000
5,000
Plymouth
5,636
7,236
Plymouth Sound
243,223
52,041
Pembroke
27,770
27,770
Leith
2,939
2,939
Haulbowline Island
9,832
9,832
Bermuda
314,910
20,000
Jamaica
Uncertain.
15,000
Kingston m Canada
Uncertain.
10,000
Gibraltar
10,064
4,000
Trincomalee
Uncertain.
20,000
1,679,545
£.424,648
In 1821
424,648
To be expended in future Years to complete the Works
1,254,897
Of that sum 424,648
l.
l.
No. 36.—SUMS Estimated for Services at His Majesty's Dock Yard at SHEERNESS, detailed as under, and the Sums Voted in the several Years, from 1811 to 1821 inclusive. [
Vide
Year.
—
Estimate for completing the Works.
Sums voted to be laid out during the Year.
£.
£.
1811
Towards building a New Wharf
—
30,000
—
Towards building a New Dock
—
10,000
—
To build Artificers Lodges upon the site of the Old Navy Yard
—
10,000
—
Towards erecting a New Smithery, with Machinery
—
8,000
Carried forward £.
—
58,000
1396
stated at 824,992
l.;
l.
1397
Brought forward £.
—
58,000
—
To take down the Old Rigging-house, and erect Stables and Chaise-house
—
749
1812
To carry on the Wharf Wall
—
17,346
1813
To carry on the Wharf Wall and other Improvements
—
80,000
1814
Towards carrying on the Improvements to the Yard
824,992
80,000
1815
Towards carrying on the Improvements in Docks, Basin, Lea Wall, and Mast Pond, &c.
739,992
109,846
1816
Towards carrying on the Improvements including Enlargement of the Dock
635,146
160,000
1817
Towards carrying on the Improvements in Docks, Basins, Sea and Boundary Walls, and Mast Pond, and for Levelling the Surface of the yard
486,674
70,000
1818
Towards carrying on the Improvements in Docks, Basins, Sea and Boundary Walls, and Mast Pond, and for Levelling the Surface of the yard
433,800
170,000
—
Towards carrying on the Improvements to take down and rebuild Wharf and Stairs, at North part of the Yard
10,000
10,000
1819
Towards carrying on the Improvements to take down and rebuild Wharf and Stairs, at North part of the Yard
553,800
170,000
—
Towards building the Working and Store Mast-houses, and a Store-house on the entrance of Powder-Monkey Bay
80,800
12,000
1820
Towards building the Working and Smithery, Coal and Iron Stores, and Boundary, &c.
171,860
10,000
—
Towards carrying on Improvements in Docks, Basins, and Lea Walls, &c.
—
200,000
1821
Towards carrying on Improvements and Ordnance Wharf, and Small Basin
821,838
193,000
—
For building a Smithery, Coal and Iron Store, a Large Storehouse, a House for Commissioners, and other Works necessary for completing the Yard
133,583
15,000
Total laid out, including 1821
—
1,355,941
Estimate of Amount wanting in future Years to complete the Works at Sheerness alone, after the date of this Year
—
747,421
Total Expense for Sheerness
—
2,103,362
He would again appeal to the House, whether inquiry was not necessary when a sum of 2,103,362
l.
No. 37.—An Account of the EXPENSE for Improvement of the DOCK YARDS in the following Years.
*
£.54,061
*
45,307
*
67,532
166,900
† For Improvements in the Yards in 1819
486,198
† For Improvements in the Yards in 1820
451,900
† For Improvements in the Yards in 1821
424,648
1,362,746
More in 1819, 1820, and 1821, than in 1791, 1792, and 1793
£.1,195,846
*
1398
former periods of peace, when the dockyards were, found sufficient for all purposes, would be made plain by a comparative statement of the expenditure, in the three years, before the French war, when only 166,900
l.
l.
1399
The difficulties of the country required that a stop should be put to the enormous expense, at which such works have been carried on; and he had, therefore, proposed a reduction of 357,136
l.
l.
l.
He should not be very minute in his
No. 38.—Comparative Statement of the ORDNANCE ESTIMATES laid before Parliament for Five Years, from 1817 to 1821, both Years inclusive.
——
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
1821.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Ordinary Estimates
538,176
589,576
527,397
548,305
547,766
Extraordinary Do
211,784
244,893
220,825
280,390
271,524
Ireland
144,926
115,610
101,009
111,986
111,837
Half-Pay, Military
255,560
255,209
293,690
333,584
313,703
Superannuated, Civil
33,508
34,292
38,984
40,589
42,227
Expenses of Reduction
50,000
—
10,000
5,000
—
Unprovided of former Years
50,081
28,419
20,095
60,148
40,342
Total Estimates
1,284,035
1,267,999
1,212,000
1,380,002
1,327,000
Deduct for New and Old Stores Sold
53,000
118,000
112,000
285,000
232,000
Nett Amount of Estimate £.
1,231,035
1,149,999
1,100,000
1,095,002
1,095,000
Annual Amount of Estimate, on the Average of 1817, 1818, and 1819
£.1,254,678
Annual Amount of Estimate, on the Average of 1820 and 1821
1,353,501
The average Estimates for 1820 and 1821 are higher than for those of 1817, 1818, and 1819
£.98,823
To show the enormous scale upon which the Ordnance department was now carried on, he had only to state that the average expenditure for 1790,1791, and 1792, was
1400
observations on the Ordnance, not that it deserved less attention than the army or navy; but because he had, by the various returns called for, and the different statements already offered to the House, sufficiently explained the extreme profusion in this department, and pointed out the necessity of a very great reduction in every branch of it. By a statement in his hand, it appeared that the Estimates had greatly increased the last two years, and unless the House interfered to check this extravagance, he knew not to what extent it might proceed. The average Estimates for 1817, 1818 and 1819, were 1,254,678
l.
l.
l.
493,042
l.
l.
1401
No. 39.—Statement of SUMS Voted by Parliament for the ORDNANCE of GREAT BRITAIN, in the Years 1790, 1971, and 1792 (Ireland not included.)—[
Vide
—
1790.
1791.
1792.
£.
£.
£.
Ordinary Estimates
219,757
221,271
221,272
Extraordinary Estimate
198,451
160,498
156,626
Sea Service
52,000
62,400
41,600
Unprovided of former Years
39,240
61,908
44,103
Total in each Year
509,448
506,077
463,601
Average of these Three Years
£.493,042
N.B. The Expense of the Armament of 1789, is not included in the Charge for 1790, and the Charge for Ireland was £.22,000.
No. 40.—Account of the Actual Disbursement for the ORDNANCE of the UNITED KINGDOM, as submitted to Parliament in the Annual Finance Reports for the following Years.
——
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
£.
£.
£.
£.
For Services at Home
1,248,218
1,076,940
1,177,965
1,125,434
For Services at Abroad
40,170
238,709
231,025
158,999
For Services at in Ireland
152,687
92,308
129,219
117,151
Total in each Year
1,441,075
1,407,957
1,538,209
1,401,585
Annual Average of Four Years
£.1,447,206
One extraordinary circumstance he must notice, that the actual disbursements for the Ordnance, on an average of the
No. 41.—Comparative Statement of the ESTIMATES for the ORDNANCE of the UNITED KINGDOM, Voted by Parliament in the Years 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820, and the Amount stated to have been actually Expended in these Years.
——
1817.
1818.
1819.
1820.
TOTAL.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
Amount of Annual Estimates Voted by Parliament
1,284,035
1,267,999
1,212,000
1,380,002
5,144,036
Amount actually Expended, as per Annual Finance Account
1,441,075
1,407,957
1,538,209
1,401,585
5,788,826
More Expended than Estimated
157,040
139,958
326,209
21,583
644,790
1402
last four years, exceeded the estimates voted by parliament to the amount of 644,790
l.
1403
This he considered to be highly objectionable, as, in fact, it nullified the power of the House to control their expenses. If the actual disbursements were not made to agree, or nearly so, with the votes of this House, for what purpose were any Estimates submitted to it? He had asked for information on this subject from the hon. the clerk of the Ordnance (Mr. Ward), but had received no sufficient explanation. He would now notice some
No. 42.—Comparative Expenses of some of the Establishments of the ORDNANCE in 1796 and 1821, Fees included, in the TOWER and WESTMINSTER Establishments.
——
1796.
1821.
£.
£.
The Master General
1,560
3,239
Lieutenant General
1,125
1,592
Surveyor General
825
1,262
Storekeeper
964
1,522
Treasurer
585
1,265
Secretary to the Board
557
1,695
Superintendent of Shipping
200
827
The Under Secretary and Clerks under the Master General
365
1,387
Under the Surveyor General
14
Clerks
2,020
48
Clerks
10,621
Under the Clerk of the Ordnance
15
Clerks
2,230
31
Clerks
6,091
Under the Principal Storekeeper
12
Clerks
1,440
18
Clerks
5,619
Under the Clerk of Deliveries
8
Clerks
910
16
Clerks
3,857
Under the Treasurer
10
Clerks
1,203
12
Clerks
3,354
Under the Secretary to the Board
7
Clerks
833
30
Clerks
10,311
Porters and Messengers
819
1,964
It had been recommended to incorporate the Tower and Westminster establishments; and, from what he had been able to learn, he had no doubt that might be done, with advantage to the service, and with a saving of 20 or 30,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
1404
of the large establishments and high salaries, which accounted for the great increase of the Ordnance expenses. The total expense of the Tower and Westminster establishments, for example, in 1792, fees and gratuities included, was 18,726
l.
l.
l.
drivers, &c. were requisite, he would not at present question; but if the 9 battalions of 8 companies each, were formed into 6 battalions of 10 companies each, as they were in 1792, the saving by the reduction of the staff of the three battalions would alone be upwards of 25,000
l.
l.
1405
No. 43.—Comparative Statement of the Effective Strength of the ROYAL REGIMENT of ARTILLERY, in 1792 and 1821, showing the Numbers and the Expense at each Period.
ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY, 1792.
——
Battalions.
Companies.
Officers.
Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates.
Total No.
Total Expense.
Foot
4
40
232
2,600
2,832
81,273
6
8
Invalids
1
10
33
463
496
15,634
3
4
Total
3,328
96,907
10
0
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
1
Surgeon General, per Annum
£.146
4
Surgeon per Annum
438
—
594
0
0
5
Total
Total
97,501
10
0
Increase of Charge for the Establishment in 1821, more than in 1792
249,471
10
0
£.346,973
0
0
ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY, 1821.
——
Battalions.
Companies.
Officers.
Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates.
Total No.
Total Expense.
Foot
9
72
460
5,112
5,572
266,817
0
0
Horse
6
—
40
490
530
45,810
0
0
Drivers
4
—
23
407
430
24,211
0
0
6,532
Invalids
137
Total No.
6,669
MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT.
1.
Director General
8,778
0
0
1
Surgeon General
1
Assistant General
1
Resident Surgeon
1
Regimental General
10
Regimental General
1
Apothecary
15
First Assistant Surgeons
11
Second Assistant Surgeons
Increase of Pay to the above
1,357
0
0
42
Total
Total
£.346,973
0
0
1406
1407
The charge for, Medical establishments included in the Artillery department, had increased from 594
l.
l.
l.
The system of Gratuities in the Ordnance had been carried much beyond the greatest extravagance in other departments; and, although strongly disapproved of in 1817, by the Finance Committee, had gone on progressively increasing to such an extent, that a clerk, after one years service, received a gratuity, increasing every year, until, in many cases, the amount exceeded that of the salary. These gratuities intended for extra duties and services, were begun in war, and ought to have ceased with it. In 1796, the total gratuities paid in the Ordnance were 2,324
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
No. 44.—ORDNANCE GRATUITIES,
Amounted from 1807 to 1812 to
£8,565
Amounted from 1807 to 1813 to
9,628
Amounted from 1807 to 1814 to
10,343
Amounted from 1807 to 1815 to
20,712
£49,248
in nine years of extensive war.
And in 1816
24,966
And in 1817
27,000
1408
And in 1818
29,000
And in 1819
27,260
And in 1820
30,000
And in 1821
30,000
£168,226
Throughout the whole Ordnance department a scale of expense altogether unparalleled prevailed. He knew of no circumstances to warrant such an increase, and he had, therefore, endeavoured (though without success), to persuade the House to reduce 216,691
l.
l.
l.
l.
In the Miscellaneous Estimates he had proposed considerable reduction, and he was confident the necessity of these retrenchments would be felt before they met again. The offices of the Secretary of State and of the Treasury required revision. The expenses of the Treasury for salaries and incidents was in 1796, 40,764
l.
l.
l;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l,
l.
l.
The general law charges of 25,000
l.
l.
1409
l.
l.
l.
The charges under the head of Civil Contingencies were, in many instances, equally improper. Although the allowance of 850,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The hon. gentleman then adverted to the great advantages which the country might gain from an improved method of collecting the revenue. He recollected that in June 1819, when the chancellor of the Exchequer came down to impose 3,000,000
l.
l.,
l.,
1410
l.,
.;
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1411
No. 45.—Comparative Estimate of the EXPENSE of the RECEIVERS GENERAL of the LAND and ASSESSED TAXES in ENGLAND, now, and what the Select Committee of the House of Commons have recommended in their Report.
The Poundage now Paid to 65 Receivers General, Amounts Yearly to
£.41,900
The Interest on £.367,000 of Permanent Balances left in their hands at 5 per cent
18,000
The Interest on £.367,000 of Current Balances equal to Two Months on the whole Amount of £.7,898,896
58,000
Total present Expense
117,900
Estimate for 65 Receivers General, at £.600 per Annum
39,000
Expense for Bonds, Audit, and Incidents
3,250
Total estimated future Expense
42,250
Being a Saving of
75,650
And the Patronage of 65 Sinecure Places.
Whenever the number of Recivers General should be reduced to 44, as recommended by the committee, the annual saving would be 88,250
l.
l.
In the course of the session he had also shown how 40 or 50,000
l.
1412
l.
l.,
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
1413
No. 46.—Comparative Statement of the AMOUNT and EXPENSE of Collecting, the CUSTOMS in GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Years ending 5th Jan. 1807, and 1821.—[From the Annual Finance Accounts.]
——
Nett Produce applicable to National Objects and to Payments into the Exchequer.
Amount of Charges of Management.
Rate per Cent. on the Nett Receipt.
Rate which those Sums properly give.
In Great Britain.
£.
£.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
On 5th Jan., 1807,
Customs
10,553,293
655,603
6
4
3
—
On 5th Jan., 1821,
Customs
9,337,169
1,097,774
12
2
6
11
15
1½
In Ireland.
On 5th Jan., 1807,
Customs and Excise
4,369,541
351,655
9
18
1¾
On 5th Jan., 1821,
Customs and Excise
3,118,136
652,641
28
5
2C
20
18
7¼
16
13
1E.
With regard to the salaries of all Civil Officers, and contingent expenses, in Great Britain, he had to complain of similar extravagance and recommended similar reductions. There was an increase of 106,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
No. 47.—Reductions proposed by Mr. HUME and other Members, in the ESTIMATES, this Session.
ARMY
To reduce 20,000 men, Household Troops and troops in the Colonies
753,955
Army extras, one-third of 934, 911
300,000
£1,053,955
By reducing 93 Regiments of 650 men to 75 Regiments of 800 each
211,000
By reducing Barracks (England)
80,000
By reducing Barracks (Ireland)
40,000
120,000
By reducing Commissariat, England and Ireland
115,000
Military Staff, Great Britain and Colonies
£105,943
to reduce
10,943
Military-Irish Staff
26,538
6,538
Commander in Chief's Office
14,474
4,000
War Office
51,000
10,000
Adjutant General's Office
6,844
1,500
Adjutant General's Office (Scotland)
900
351
Quartermaster General
4,692
1,500
Quartermaster in Scotland
922
622
Judge Advocate General
5,180
2,180
Judge Scotland
650
650
Comptroller's Office
12,642
4,600
Medical Staff
5,614
2,200
Public Departments (Ireland)
10,518
3,500
Volunteers and Yeomanry (England)
170,000
20,000
1414
the mode of collecting and management of the revenue. Having thus, as shortly as he was able, stated to the House the several sums that might have been reduced from the Estimates of the several departments this year, amounting in the whole as appeared by a statement he had in his hand, to near 4½ millions, he hoped the House would support the motion he had to submit to them, to request his majesty to direct every reduction he may; find practicable in the expenditure of the state.
1415
Volunteers and Yeomanry (Ireland)
19,023
9,000
Military College
16,915
7,244
Military Asylum
36,000
12,000
Foreign Half-pay Agency
2,025
Garrisons Abroad and at Home
34,000
12,449
Recruiting
50,000
20,000
Veteran Battalion Officers
18,870
Kilmainham and Chelsea Hospital Establishments
10,000
Retired Allowances
40,000
8,000
Total for the Army
1,663,127
Navy
£.1,225,629¼
of
£.925,629
251,407
Building Ships
1,094,540
50,000
Works in Dock Yard
424,048
357,136
1,108,543
Ordnance.
£.65,804
to reduce
15,818
Sundries Total Ordinary
547,766
139,191
Extraordinary
£.271,124
¼
77,500
216,691
In the Miscellaneous Items of
£.2,444,100
might be saved
250,000
To be saved in the Collection of the Revenue
1,050,000
Total Reduction
£4,288,361
If such recommendations were adopted, we could immediately afford to repeal some of those taxes which were most expensive in the collection, and pressed most heavily on the labouring classes; such
No. 48.—Amount of the REVENUE derived from the EXCISE in the Year ending 5th January, 1821.
——
On Salt.
On Leather.
On Soap.
On Candles.
Total.
£.
£.
£.
£.
£.
England
1,501,590
605,894
958,621
356,847
—
Scotland
101,876
55,906
115,794
18,900
—
Total Gross Receipts
1,603,466
661,800
1,074,415
375,747
3,715,428
England
1,450,562
540,012
835,816
293,042
—
Scotland
78,681
45,128
96,298
15,662
—.
Nett Receipt in the Exchequer
1,529,243
585,140
932,114
308,704
3,355,201
In Ireland no Duty on Salt, Soap, or Candles, appear in the Excise; on Leather Nett Produce, £.34,166.
Would not relief like this be a great boon to the people? and such a boon it was still in the power of the House to grant; for hon. members ought to recollect, that as the Appropriation bill was not yet passed, their previous votes had not finally disposed of the public money. He could not conclude without adverting to the enormous amount of the Civil List, and calling upon ministers to advise their loyal master to imitate the sovereigns on
1416
as those on soap, candles, leather, and salt of which the gross charge to the country was 3,715,428
.,
l.
the continent, who had surrendered apart of their incomes, in consideration of the distresses of their people. The situation of the country called for similar sacrifices. Some great measure of economy was necessary to relieve the distress and to support public credit. A reduction of taxation could alone give effectual relief, and support the national credit.
He would add, the more money that was left in the pockets of the people,
1417
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, humbly to request that, with a view of affording relief to the Country from a part of its burdens, he will be graciously pleased to direct that a minute Investigation be instituted into the Mode and Expense of the Management and Collection of the several Branches of the Revenue; that a careful Revision be made of all Salaries and Allowances, especially of those which have been increased since 1797, in order that they may be adjusted with reference to the increased Value of the Currency, and to the distressed circumstances of the Country; that a vigilant superintendence be exercised over the Expenditure of the Country, in all its Departments, in order that every Reduction may be made therein, which can be effected without detriment to to the public Interest, and in particular in the Number of the Army; and the Expense of its Establishments."
The Marquis of Tavistock,
in rising to second the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, begged leave to offer him his sincere thanks for the constant attention which he had paid during the present session to the Estimates of the country, and to the zeal, ability, and perseverance with which he had endeavoured to effect a reduction of the public expenditure. He was persuaded that, in offering this testimony of his gratitude, he only echoed the sentiments of the people of England for the hon. member for Aberdeen, by the conduct which he had pursued during the session, had firmly rivetted himself in their confidence and esteem [Hear, hear!]. Having done this act of justice to the hon. gentleman, he must be excused for saying that he entertained those sentiments for him personally. He could not but regret the necessity the hon. member
1418
1419
1420
Mr. Bankes
believed it to be usual, on all occasions of public solemnity, to employ a large number of troops, as a matter of parade. With regard to the other observations which had fallen from the noble lord, he thought the noble lord had assumed a tone of despondency and reproach which did not come very graciously from a member of that House, who was almost in the dawn of life. The hon. member for Aberdeen had pointed out a great number of points in which, as he contended, large savings might be made; but he appeared to have forgotten that the House had already, in most of those points, decided against him [Cheers from the Opposition.] He believed, that of those gentlemen who were now cheering, not one in ten had made himself master of the items on which the hon. member for Aberdeen had insisted, and of those who had, not one in ten really believed the proposed reductions to be practicable. It was holding out a false expectation to the country to say, that four millions might be saved. He thought it also objectionable that the hon. gentleman should have taken away the credit due to ministers for the reductions which they had made this year, as compared with the expenditure of the last. It was true he could have wished that they had advanced more rapidly in the process of reduction; but still they were entitled to credit for what they had done. Besides, the hon. gentleman, whose industry no one could doubt, must have been aware that a commission had been employed for a long while in inquiring into the department of the Customs with a view to reduction. The recom-
1421
1422
Mr. Gooch
was anxious to beat testimony, as chairman of the agricultural committee, to the spirit of economy and retrenchment which pervaded their inquiries. He preferred the address proposed by the hon. member for Corfe Castle to that proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, because the latter was expressed in atone of censure against ministers, which he did not think they deserved. He was of opinion at the same time, that ministers ought to have commenced the reductions earlier: they had taken the subject up now, and he was sure they had done so with sincerity. The address which attached censure to ministers, could only be considered as a party question; and as he would rather have the present ministers in place than their opponents, he would resist the motion.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that in rising to trouble the House upon the present occasion, lie hoped they would allow him to indulge in a few preliminary observations in explanation of the general view which he meant to take of the course pursued by the gentlemen opposite: and he should in the first place consider himself to be one of those visionary politicians whom he wished to decry, if in throwing himself upon the candour of the House, for that constitutional confidence which as a member of his majesty's government he hoped he deserved at their hands, be should for a moment be considered as denying the right to call upon administration for an explanation of what his majesty's government had already done, or meant hereafter to do, in the reduction of the public expenditure. Still, however, in stating the conduct of the administration to which he had the honour of belonging, he should deservedly incur the charge of being a great hypocrite, if he said that he expected from some of the gentlemen opposite any candour in their estimate either of what had been done, or was in progress of being done, by his majesty's government. He did not mean to impute individually to those who contended, he hoped in an honourable struggle, in opposition to the measures of government, any particular want of candour: but the fact was, that they were, as a party, so accustomed to look with a jaundiced eye at every thing which was done at his side of the house, that if he and those with whom he acted were to wait either for their praise or even
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
l.
l.
l.
1428
Lord Milton
thought that until parliament had received proofs of the noble lord's economy, they were justified in judging from what he had done of what he professed to do. The noble lord had stated, that he pressed economy in the Agricultural committee; but the object of its report seemed to be to divert the agricultural mind of the country from the real causes of the distress to other objects. The price of labour had already fallen, but the fall was no relief to the agriculturist; for the farmer, by paying less in wages, might be certain that he must pay more in poor-rates. As he considered both addresses to amount to the same thing, he would vote for treat which was likely to unite the greatest number of suffrages. Gentlemen opposite had been lavish of their praises on the exertions of his hon. friend, though they took care never to give him their support; however, when the praise came from them, it proved that the encomiums were not undeserved. He was sure that the exertions
1429
The Marquis of Titchfield
said, that, unwilling as he was to offer himself to the notice of the House, and little as he was in the habit of doing so, yet as he was prevented by other duties from attending on former occasions when the expenditure of the country had been discussed, he was anxious not to miss this opportunity,— the last probably the session would afford, —of endeavouring to describe in a few words the great importance he attached to that subject [Hear!]. And he should break through his repugnance to trouble the House with the less difficulty, because, as he would freely confess, he was desponding enough to think the situation of the country so threatening, that almost no financial disasters were too great to anticipate, and that it was impossible to say how soon the period might come when remonstrance upon the subject of expenditure might be too late. Thinking, then, as he did, that, although the country might yet be saved, it could only be saved by an early change of system in that respect, he considered himself bound, even in the humble situation he had the honour to fill in that House, not to be backward in expressing and explaining his opinions. He certainly regretted not having been present on former nights when the estimates were before the House; although if
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
bonâ fide
1435
l.
l.,
1436
Mr. Wilmot
preferred the amended address, because it contained no censure upon government, as having neglected all economy. He also vindicated the late contest, and contended that the expenses which it had brought on the nation, were necessary for the preservation of its honour and independence.
Mr. Creevey
expressed his surprise that gentlemen opposite, who, at the commencement of the career of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, affected not to notice him, were now ready to allow that he had considerable merit. Finding themselves hardly pushed, they had been obliged to call in the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who had given them all the assistance in his power. He had been engaged in bringing up the rear of the ministers, and he had succeeded extremely well. The hon. member for Aberdeen, whose strenuous exertions for the reduction of expense were well known, submitted a proposition of great importance to the House; and then came the hon. member for Corfe Castle with his proposition, which neutralized the one originally submitted to the House.
1437
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the noble marquis (Titchfield) had taken too gloomy a view of the state of the country. When he spoke of its helpless and hopeless state, he ought to have recollected that his own friends and relations the other night wished government to interfere with the proceedings of other powers, and would have probably, by such interference, involved us in a war with them. Their desire of interference must therefore have not been sincere, or else they did not believe the country to be in so helpless a state as they pretended. He would deny that the expense of collecting the revenue exceeded four millions, and must protest against the assertion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, that his majesty's ministers had declared that they had reduced the establishments of the country so low, that they were not susceptible of any farther reduction. In opposition to the declaration of the hon. member, that there had been no retrenchment in the present year, he compared the sums voted in the present year with the sums voted in the last year, to show that there was a reduction of 1,770,000
l.
1438
Mr. Abercromby
observed that the taunting tone of the noble lord opposite generally proceeded from what he considered to be the feelings of those who supported him; but never was there a greater dissonance than that which now existed between them. The noble lord was fully aware, that one or other of the questions must be carried; and he would put it even to the hon. member for Corfe-castle himself, whether, if such an amendment had not been moved, the noble lord would not have met the original resolution with the previous question. The noble lord said, that he was friendly to economy in every department; but if the House gave him credit for that assertion, where was the necessity for either of the resolutions? The fact was, that the noble lord was afraid to put the previous question. The noble lord did not now rely with equal confidence on his former majorities, and was obliged to conform to what he found was the disposition of the House. There was, however, very little difference between the two motions. The principal difference was, that the motion of the hon. member for Corfe-castle was introduced with a speech laudatory of what ministers had already done towards reduction. Ministers, by supporting the amendment, showed that they felt themselves in a new situation. They were evidently in a state of repentance, conscious that they could not go on as they had hitherto done. He could not otherwise account for the juggle of the proposed amendment, than by supposing that either the hon. member for Aberdeen had not kept his secret with respect to the nature of his motion, or that the secrets of the agricultural committee had been suffered to transpire. A silent but virtual change was going on in the constitution of the country—a change which was wholly attributable to the weakness of the executive government. He meant that sort of change by which ministers ceased to introduce great public measures on their own responsibility; but left them to be effected by committees of that House, under the shelter of which they screened themselves. Such a practice could not be too much reprobated. As a decided
1439
Sir C Long
observed, that there was a marked inconsistency in the conduct of gentlemen on the other side. The hon. member who spoke last deprecated any resort to committees on great public questions, while the hon. member for Aberdeen asked only for committees on the various subjects to which he called the attention of the House, and offered to prove all his statements before such committees. The right hon. gentleman went on to show that very great benefits had accrued to the country by the commission which had been appointed to inquire into the collection of the customs. They had done every thing in their power to limit the expenditure in that department, as far as was consistent with the safety of the country.
Mr. Maberly
was not disposed to detain the House long, more especially after the very able exposition of the state of the country by the noble member for Blechingley, which completely coincided with his view of the subject. The hon. member for Corfe-castle had talked of delusion; but that hon. member himself was the great deluder. All that he (Mr. M.) wished for on the ground of economy was founded on the delusion of the hon. member for Corfe-castle, in the fourth Report of the Finance Committee. In that report it was stated, that the country ought to be governed at an expense of 17,380,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
rose to reply. He said, that to the general assertions of the noble marquis opposite, that he was a visionary in his plans of reduction, he would only answer, that they were deserving of that epithet who, like the noble lord and his friends, had made sweeping charges and assertions to the House which were not borne out by facts. He had taken his statements almost universally from official
1440
1441
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.;
l.
l.
l.
1442
l.
l.
The House divided: For Mr. Hume's Motion, 94; Against it, 174. Mr. Bankes's Amendment was then put, and agreed to.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Cockburne, sir G.
Apsley, lord
Clive, lord
Alexander, J.
Clive, hon. R.
Ancram, lord
Clive, H.
Beresford, lord G.
Courtenay, T. P.
Bathurst, rt. hon. B.
Courtenay, W.
Burgh, sir U.
Cranborne, visct.
Blake, R,
Cheere, E. M.
Bent, John
Clerk, sir G.
Barry, J. M.
Cumming, G.
Blair, J. H.
Claughton, T.
Blair, J.
Cust, hon. E.
Baillie, John
Cust, hon. P.
Beckett, J.
Cust, hon. W.
Bradshaw, R. H.
Crosbie, J.
Browne, D.
Cole, sir L.
Brandling, C.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Bourne, W. S.
Chichester, A.
Bankes, G.
Clements, hon. J.
Broadhead, T. H.
Congreve, sir W.
Binning, lord
Dawkins, H.
Brecknock, lord
Don, sir A.
Brownlow, C.
Doveton, G.
Bernard, lord
Dundas, rt. hn. W.
Bentinck, lord F.
Drake, T. T.
Brogden, J.
Dalrymple, R.
Calvert, John
Douglas, W. R. K.
Calthorpe, hon. H.
Dowdeswell, J.
1443
Dawson, G.
Osborne, sir John
Dodson, John
Pole, rt. hon. W.
Dunally, lord
Palmerston, lord
Ellison, Cuthbert
Phipps, hon. E.
Fane, John
Peel, rt. hon. R.
Fane, Vere
Peel, W.
Fane, Thos.
Powell, E. W.
French, Arthur
Pakenham, hon. H.
Fleming, John
Pearse, J.
Fleming, J.
Penruddock, J. H.
Forester, F.
Pennant, G.
Fynes, Henry
Prendergast, J. T.
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Pringle, sir W.
Gifford, sir R.
Robinson, hon. F.
Goulburn, Henry
Robertson, A.
Gossett, W.
Ricketts, C. M.
Greville, hon. sir C.
Russell, J. W.
Gordon, hon. W.
Smith, J. A.
Gascoigne, general
Stopford, lord
Huskisson, rt. hn. W.
Scott, hon. J.
Harding, sir H.
Scott, S. C.
Hulse, sir C.
Sumner, G. H.
Hawkins, sir C.
Somerset, lord G.
Harvey, sir E.
Somerset, lord R.
Holford, G. P.
Stuart, A.
Holmes, W.
Strutt, J. H.
Hotham, lord
Sotheron, admiral
Hill, sir G.
Twiss, Horace
Hart, general
Tremayne, J. H.
Irving, John
Tulk, C.
Kingsborough, lord
Thynne, lord J.
Lascelles, visc.
Taylor, sir H.
Legh, T.
Thomson, W.
Lygon, hon. H.
Ure, M.
Lindsay, lord
Upton, hon. A.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Vansittart, rt. hon. N.
Lewis, T. F.
Vernon, George
Lennox, lord G.
Valletort, vise.
Londonderry, marq. of
Wallace, rt. hon. T.
Long, rt. hon. sir C.
Ward, R.
Lowther, J.
Warrender, sir G.
Lowther, J. H.
Wells, John
Marjoribanks, sir J.
Wilson, T.
Martin, sir B.
Wilson, sir Henry
Martin, R.
Wrottesley, H.
Mansfield, John
Woad, col.
Metcalf, H.
Wodehouse, hon. J.
Manners, lord C.
Wodehouse, Ed.
Macdonald, R.
Ward, J. W.
Money, W. T.
Wigram, W.
Manning, W.
Westenra, hon. H.
Macnaghton, E. A.
Wilmot, R.
Munday, Geo.
Wilbraham, Ed.,
Musgrave, sir P,
Wortley, J. S.
Maginnis, Rich.
Walpole, lord
Mitchell, John
Williams, R.
Morland, sir S. B.
Wemyss, J.
Nolan, M.
TELLERS.
Nicholl, rt. hn. sir G.
Bankes, Henry
Owen, sir John
Gooch, T. S.
MINORITY.
Abercromby hon. J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Allen, J. H.
Bernal, R.
Baring, A.
Birch, J.
Barnard, lord
Brougham, H.
Becher, W. W.
Bright, H.
1444
Burdett, sir F.
Maberly, J.
Byng, G.
Maberly, W. L.
Burrell, sir C.
Macdonald, J.
Burrell, W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Benett, J.
Martin, J.
Calcraft, J.
Maxwell, J.
Calvert, N.
Milbank, M.
Calvert, C.
Milton, visct.
Carter, J.
Monck, J. B.
Cavendish, lord G.
Moore, Peter
Cavendish, H.
Marryat, Jos.
Cavendish, C.
Neville, hon. R.
Clifford, capt.
Newman, R. W.
Coke, T. W.
Nugent, lord
Crespigny, sir W. De
Ossulston, lord
Creevey, T.
Palmer, C. F.
Denison, W. J.
Pierse, H.
Denman, T.
Philips, G. jun.
Dundas, hon. T.
Powlett, hon. W.
Duncannon, vise.
Price, R.
Ebrington, lord
Robarts, A.
Ellice, E.
Robarts, G.
Evans, W.
Robinson, sir G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Rowley, sir W.
Fiizgerald, lord W.
Rumbold, C.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Rice, T. S.
Farrand, R.
Smith, J.
Grattan, J.
Smith, W.
Gordon, R.
Smythe, J. H.
Grenfell, Pascoe
Scarlett, J.
Guise, sir W.
Scudamore, R.
Haldimand, W.
Sefton, earl of
Harbord, hon. Ed.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Heathcote, G. J.
Titchfield, marq.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Warre, J. A.
Honywood, W. P.
Western, C. C.
Hughes, W. L.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hurst, R.
Williams, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C.
Williams, O.
James, W.
Wilson, sir R.
Lemon, sir W.
TELLERS.
Lloyd, J. M.
Hume, J.
Lester, B. L.
Tavistock, Marq. of
Langston, G.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 28, 1821
APPRENTICED SEAVES.]
On the motion of Mr. Wilberforce the House resolved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, representing that, great numbers of Africans, rescued front slavery by seizure and condemnation of the ships and vessels in which they were unlawfully carried as slaves, have been apprenticed, under his majesty's authority, pursuant to the acts made for abolishing the slave trade, in many different islands and colonies in the West Indies, for terms of apprenticeship which have in a great number of cases expired, or are near expiring; and many other African captives so enfranchised, have been enlisted into
1445
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]
The Resolutions of the Committee of Supply, amounting to 105, were reported. Much conversation took place on several of the resolutions.
The resolution for granting 20,006
l.
s.
d.
l.
1446
l.
l.
On the resolution for granting 7,000
l.
Mr. Bennet
called the attention of the House to the partial distribution of government patronage to the press of Ireland. The House would scarcely believe in what manner the government of Ireland managed the money granted for this purpose. He could show that proclamations of disturbances in districts were made, not in the newspapers of those districts, but in those of other counties. The publication was thus made, not for the purpose of spreading the requisite information, but of putting money into the pockets of certain editors, who were the creatures of the ministry. The sums of money given to them for advertising were in the inverse ratio of their claims to respectability and the extent of their circulation. Some papers received to the amount of between 1,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Grant
said, that 9,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
thought that the only means of putting an end to this great abuse was; to stop the allowance granted for supporting it. It appeared that the bribery of the government journals did not extend only to proclamations, but to other government advertisements, and was likewise taking root in England. A very considerable portion of the money which they had that night voted would be applied to the same purpose as the 7,000
l.
1447
l.
The resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 29, 1821
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]
The House proceeded to consider further of the Resolutions of the Committee of Supply. On the resolution, that 5,135
l.
s.
d.
Sir R. Wilson
rose to oppose the grant. If a foreigner misconducted himself in this country, it would be much better to proceed against him by indictment, than as now summarily by the Alien bill, on clandestine information. In some cases the evasion of the law prevented the foreigner from availing himself even of the scanty means of justification, which the bill itself afforded. In France, by the charter, although a passport was necessary
1448
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that several cases had been quoted to prove what were the evil effects of the alien law. He would take leave to mention another, which went to show what was the idea that was entertained of it by foreigners themselves. Some time since he happened to be in the theatre at Milan, in company with an English physician. His friend being incommoded with the cap of a grenadier officer who stood before him, begged him to take it off that he might see what was going on. To this civil request a rude answer was given, and the Englishman desired the grenadier to walk out of the box. The invitation being immediately complied with, both himself and his friend concluded that the preliminaries of a more particular meeting were immediately to be arranged. The House would judge of their mutual surprise, when, upon crossing a lobby, his friend was seized, put in the guard-house, and next morning desired, by a message from count Saurau, to quit the Milanese immediately. Upon his remonstrating with, the count, upon the hardship of the case, the count replied, "I believe you are
1449
Mr. Bernal
observed, that while we were holding out to foreign nations every inducement to trade with us, we ought to remove that impediment to a closer connection with those nations, which the Alien bill presented.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, the gallant general was too well aware of the course and practice of parliament, really to suppose that a question upon the charge of the Alien-office was a proper opportunity for discussing the Alien law. That law would only have operation for one year more; and a much more fitting occasion for such a discussion might be found. With regard to the law, he had always protested against the notion of its having been framed with a view to the particular wishes of any foreign nation whatever. Whenever the gallant general could make out a single case, in which any foreigner for his conduct abroad had been excluded from these shores, contrary to the well known hospitality of the country, and the generous spirit of our foreign and domestic policy, he would admit that the Alien act had been abused. It was a very different thing, however, that, where a foreigner came here, in order to make this kingdom the theatre of his conspiracies, and of his hostile machinations against other and friendly powers, he should be prevented from remaining. When this bill expired, and his majesty's government propose its renewal, it would then be for the gallant general to bring up his artillery to bear against it. At present he was only wasting his powder and shot, and directing his fire, not against the principle of the law, but against the officers and clerks of the establishment.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that such was his abhorrence of the measure, that he felt himself bound to avail himself of every opportunity of opposing it. Unfortunately it was now too late in the session to think of proposing the repeal of this law; but still he felt it necessary to object to the money by which it was to be carried into execution. Having no other means of
1450
Mr. Bennet
said, he would give his decided opposition to the grant. As an instance of the conduct pursued in Naples, he begged to state a fact which had been communicated to him upon the best authority. A Neapolitan senator had taken refuge on board a Spanish ship. He was there visited by sir W. A'Court and the French ambassador, who expressed their regret that he should entertain any jealousy or alarm, and promised that he might come on shore with perfect safety. The senator, relying on these promises, went on shore, accompanied by his son, a boy of 18 years of age, and they were immediately arrested and thrown into one of the worst prisons in the town. The confinement of this gentleman was the more unpardonable, as sir W. A'Court, by speaking one word, could instantly release him from prison. A recollection of some transactions which took place some time ago when he (Mr. B.) was in Italy, made him tremble for the fate of this unfortunate senator, under the government of the king of the Lazzaroni.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it was no bad Criterion of the mildness of the king of Naples' government, that he was beloved and respected by the Lazzaroni. With respect to what the hon. member had said of sir W. A'Court, he could not believe that that gentleman would lend himself to any such transaction.
Mr. Hutchinson
thought that a system of tyranny was now acted upon by the chief of the allied sovereigns, and that their great object wus to put down liberty in Europe; and he believed that though the noble marquis had not dared to affix his name to any of their public declarations, yet he was not unfriendly to their system.
The House divided: Ayes, 47: Noes, 27.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Harbord, hon. E.
Becher, W.
Hume, J.
Benyon, B.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
Calcraft, J.
Lennard, T. B.
Cavendish, hon. H.
Martin, J.
Clifford, W. J.
Milton, vict.
Creevey, T.
Monck, J.B.
Davies, col.
Palmer C. F.
Denman, T.
Phillips, G. R. jun.
Fergusson, sir R.
Robertson, A.
1451
Robinson, sir G.
Warre, J. A.
Robarts, A. W.
Wilson, sir R.
Rice, S.
TELLERS.
Smith, R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Smith, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE.]
On the order of the day being read for going into a Committee on the Duke of Clarence's Annuity Bill,
Mr. Creevey
thought that ministers were not treating the House as they ought on the present occasion. They had been hunting down bills both day and night during the whole session, and now, at its Conclusion, they proposed a measure which ought to have been introduced sufficiently early to enable gentlemen to give it a due consideration. His next objection was, that the whole proceeding was perfectly unconstitutional. It was not against any positive law, it certainly was against the understood usage of parliament, to connect this bill with something which took place two parliaments ago. All that could be said by the royal duke was, that if he could induce parliament to be so foolish as to grant him this money, he had the consent of the Crown in his favour. He contended that a message from the Crown ought to have been laid before the House before the bill was introduced, He objected also to parliament being made the instrument of favouritism, either by the Crown or the ministers. They ought not to allow themselves to show favour to one branch of the royal family, while another branch was neglected. He had heard it said, that her majesty was to have a sum of money allowed her as an outfit. This, however, was forgotten, and it was an outrage on parliament to make it the instrument of favouring this royal duke, while the Queen was allowed to be sacrificed. The Queen had as good a right as the duke of Clarence to the consideration of parliament. Her majesty had, with a magnanimity which did her great honour, refused to accept more than 35,000
.
.
1452
The Marquis of Londonderry
put it to the Chair whether the words "ferocious manner" ought to be used in speaking of the royal family.
The Speaker
was sure the hon. member would see the impropriety of using such expressions.
Mr. Creevey
said, he spoke of his royal highness merely in the capacity of a suitor to that House for money. He had heard the duke of Clarence signify his "content," in the case of the Queen, in a manner which he never could have expected, considering that the illustrious person was his own cousin—his sister-in-law—a princess of the house of Brunswick—and the Queen of England. The tone, and manner, and temper in which his royal highness pronounced his sentence, had made an impression on him that he should never forget. It was such as he never expected to have seen or heard in any civilized society [cries of Order!].
The Speaker
said, that he was sure no gentleman would more warmly contend for the freedom of debate in that House than the hon. member. He no doubt, would consider the freedom of that House infringed on, if any person in any other place commented on any thing that might pass within the walls of that House.
Mr. Creevey
said, he would go no farther in his comments, but would turn to another subject—that of the coronation; and he could not help observing, though he admitted, with the noble lord opposite, that it was a solemn compact between the king and his people, that somehow or other, it was not so regarded by the people. How else could he account for the questions put by almost all who spoke upon the subject, as to whether it was really to take place? How, he asked, could such questions be accounted for, except upon the supposition that the people thought the present was not the
1453
Mr. Bankes
, jun., said, that there was no analogy between the case of the Queen and that of the duke of Clarence. Her majesty had refused a part of the grant offered her by parliament, because she considered it was too much, and his royal highness had not accepted what he considered too little for the due maintenance of his rank in the country. At the time he had so refused it, he could not have been certain whether the illustrious princess to whom he was now united would have consented to settle in this country.
Mr. Harhord
said, that he was willing to vote for the 6,000
l.
Mr. Bennet
could not help feeling insuperable objections to the proposed coronation. He could not but grudge the whole expenses of it, not from disrespect to the sovereign, but from a thorough conviction that it was ill-suited to the poverty and distress of the times. It was not fit that the country, sick at heart as it was, should look so gay in the face. The large sum of 100,000
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the coronation was called a mere show; but he would tell the hen, gentlemen that that august ceremony was performed under the authority of law; that it was an institution ancient and venerable, sanctioned by the usage of ages, and by the spirit of the constitution. Ministers would have neglected their duty to the sovereign if they bad not advised the performance of that ceremony with as little delay as possible. He lamented, as a part of the bit-
1454
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that the noble marquis thought fit to throw very serious imputations upon gentlemen on his side of the House. But he would tell the noble lord, that he and his colleagues were the firebrands that created a flame through the country, when they attempted to crush the Queen of England. But it was too much for the noble lord to call the coronation an august and sacred ceremony. He denied that any ceremony could be august and sacred that was, like this, founded in injustice. If it was proper that the king should be crowned, it was right that the queen should be crowned also; if otherwise, the coronation, instead of being an august and sacred solemnity, would be a partial, wanton, cruel act of injustice. The noble lord and another noble lord stood pledged, that if the Queen should be acquitted she would be in titled to all her rights and privileges as Queen. Yet the noble lord now talked to the House of the august and sacred solemnity of a coronation from which the Queen-consort should be excluded! He believed no administration had ever departed so widely from the principles of Christianity, or wounded so deeply all the feelings and principles that were dearest to the heart of man. Was it not then too much for those who exerted all their power to prevent, to stop, to arrest such wrongs, to be charged by the noble marquis with disturbing, exciting, and inflaming the country? He had early, earnestly, and in every possible stage, resisted the persecution against the Queen, which had more generally and more justly inflamed the country than any act since the Revolutions. He now gave a piece of
1455
Mr. C. F. Palmer
said, he would oppose the grant, because he disapproved of it on principle, and because it was opposed to the sentiments and wishes of the people.
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that there was nothing in the coronation which could bind more firmly the people to the sovereign. Of one thing he was convinced, that if the sovereign, from a wish to save the money of his people, consented to forego this ceremony, he would do more to raise himself in the affection and respect of Englishmen, than by going through any ceremony, though it were ten times more splendid than that which was contemplated.
Mr. Bathurst
said, that a coronation had always taken place on the accession of the sovereign. The coronation oath had been since the Revolution part of the law of the land, and could not be administered but at the coronation.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Martin, J.
Becher, W. W.
Monck, J. B.
Benyon, B.
Milton, lord
Byng, G.
Palmer, C. F.
Brougham, H.
Robarts, A. W.
Crawley, S.
Robinson, sir G.
Denman, T.
Rice, S.
Fane, J.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Swann, H.
Hume, J.
Tremayne, J. H.
Harbord, hon. E.
TELLER.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Creevey, T.
Lennard, T. B.
APPROPRIATION BILL.]
The House having gone into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Hume
said, that the Bill contained matter which afforded ample ground for
1456
d
l.
l.
l.
l.
1457
l.
l.,
l.
l.
1458
l.
l.
l.
l,
1459
l.
l.
1460
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he could assure the hon. member, that it had been the intention of government to adopt economical measures, before the address was voted by the House. The conduct of ministers would have been the same, had neither of the addresses been moved. In the Address which the House had voted, and which was certainly more pointed than that proposed by the hon. member, ministers had given pledges which they would strictly perform. He was glad to see the hon. gentleman in such good humour, and to perceive that the debates of the session had not soured his good temper, which would, he doubted not, render him a valuable acquisition to the society lie was about to join.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Saturday, June 30, 1821
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE—CORONATION OF THE QUEEN.]
On the order of the day for receiving the; report of the commutes on the Duke of Clarence's Annuity bill,
Sir R. Fergusson
gave his decided ne-
1461
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that her majesty had claimed, as a right, that she should be crowned; but, as he understood the matter, she had no such right. It was entirely in the discretion of the Crown whether or not her majesty should be crowned: and the advice of ministers was that she should not participate in the ceremony.
Sir R. Fergusson
—I wish to ask when that application from her majesty was made?
The Marquis of Londonderry
—A few days ago.
Sir R. Fergusson
—I should be glad to know whether her majesty's counsel, or the legal advisers of the Crown, were consulted on this occasion?
The Marquis of Londonderry
—I do not apprehend that I am here to answer every question the gallant officer may think proper to put to me on the subject.
Mr. Denman
said the questions were put to the noble marquis as a member of parliament, and not with reference to the situation of a privy councillor; and being applied to in the former character, he ought to answer questions touching grave matters of state. In answer to an application made by the Queen on Monday last, it was stated that the law officers of the Crown would be consulted on the subject. Now, as the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy was declaring virtually that she should not be crowned, he was surprised that the same parties should be again consulted who had, as it were, already expressed a decided opinion. But as it appeared from the answer given by lord Sidmouth to lord Hood, that her majesty's application was now under consideration, it might be fairly inferred that there was claim enough on the part of her majesty to entitle her to be heard before the council on the subject of that claim. It did appear to him most extraordinary, that from Monday to Saturday no definite answer had been given, on a point which should have been as clear as the day, before that step was taken, which, indeed, amounted to an exclusion from the ceremony of the coronation.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had never given any opinion whatsoever on her majesty's legal claim. What he understood was, that the legal claim was
1462
Mr. Denman
said, that so far from feeling that any thing like a reproach could attach to her majesty's legal advisers for the course they had pursued, it appeared to him that they would have acted improperly if they had put this claim forward until it was perfectly clear, that the coronation was about to take place. He thought her majesty's legal advisers had some right to complain of the delay which had occurred in giving an answer to her majesty's application. The ceremony was in itself a pageant, but the custom of the country gave the Queen a right to participate in it. Ministers ought to have been prepared with a speedy and decisive answer whenever the application was made; but this delay showed, at all events, that such a doubt existed, as entitled her majesty's legal advisers to be heard before the council.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, it was easy to give an answer with respect to the discretion vested in the Crown. That was only one part of the question; but when a decided claim of right was made, it was necessary that it should undergo the usual course of investigation. When the learned gentleman complained that an immediate answer was not given, he might be permitted to observe, that he saw nothing of that extraordinary degree of facility in the conduct of the learned gentleman himself, when, he suffered so many days to elapse between the notification of the period for which the coronation was fixed, arid the introduction of this claim of right.
Mr. Scarlett
conceived it was not fair for the noble lord to speculate on the motives which caused the delay in pre-
1463
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that this was too grave a subject to be discussed in this incidental manner. He hoped it would not be inferred, from any thing which he had said, that her majesty would not be heard before the council.
Mr. Bernal
objected to the bill now before the House, and entered his solemn protest against granting the arrears. He really thought that there was a source of royal bounty, which ought to be open to the duke of Clarence, if he was fettered with debts. It was much more becoming that the liberality of the Crown should supply his wants, than that recourse should be had to this injudicious and unconstitutional mode.
Mr. R. Martin
defended the grant, on the ground that the younger branches of the family of the late good old king should
1464
Mr. Watson Taylor
said, the duke of Clarence did not formerly refuse the grant on account of advice given to him by any individual in office, but on the suggestion of his private and personal friends. They represented to him that having required 10,000
l.
l.
Colonel Davies
said, he had given his vote for the arrears, but he protested against the grant being considered a claim of right. He thought it rather hard on his royal highness that any hasty resolve of his should be severely visited on him. He wished to uphold the credit and character of the royal family, and that consideration had influenced his vote. With respect to the coronation, he would not give one shilling towards it beyond, what had already been voted.
The bill was then reported.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 2, 1821
ECONOMY IN THE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.]
The Earl of Darnley
rose in pursuance of the notice he had given. The subject to which he wished to call the attention of their lordships was that of Economy in the Public Expenditure. Upon no occasion had ministers denied the necessity of economy, but they had; never before gone so far as to make the admissions they had within these few days done in the other House. A resolution had, at their own suggestion, been adopted, which, though it differed in words from that which was originally proposed, equally pledged them to a system of economy; and the necessity of economy must be evident to their lordships when they considered that the estimates of this year were, with the exception of the last, larger than they had been during any year since the restoration of peace. What must impress their lordships with the necessity of inquiry was, that, notwithstanding all that was said on the prosperity of the country, an investigation which had lately been made by a committee, of the other House of parlia-
1465
1466
l.
l.,
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
1467
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
1468
l.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the subject which the noble lord had brought under consideration was one which would require a great deal of their lordships' time to discuss in detail, and there were circumstances in his own situation which would induce him on this occasion to be brief. He should, however, endeavour, in as few words as possible, to place the subject in a point of view which, if not satisfactory to the noble lord, would, he hoped, be so to the majority of their lordships. The noble lord had dwelt much on the statements in the report of the other House on the state of agriculture. An opinion was expressed in that report that no legislative measure could be proposed as a remedy for the evil of which the petitioners complained. He concurred in this declaration. He would also go a step further, and say, that in his opinion inquiries which could end in no practical result were always likely to produce evil. The agricultural class doubtless laboured under great distress, but those who attributed that distress to taxation did not take into consideration the fact that there was not a country in Europe, and even America, in which similar distress did not exist to as great a degree. In Russia, Poland, and in most parts of Germany, the distress was infinitely greater than in this country. With respect to the United States, where taxation was light, greater distress was experienced than in this country. The distress, in fact; was general. It was not owing to any artificial system of this country, but to the artificial state into which the whole world had
1469
l.
l.,
l.
1470
1471
Earl Grosvenor
said, that this was not the first time the noble earl opposite had admitted the distresses of the country, and pledged government to economy. He had heard from him, nearly verbatim, the same observations on several former occasions. The noble earl professed that he could not go along with his noble friend in his proposed reductions, but the noble earl had not pointed out their impracticability. In the justness of the description given by his noble friend, of the distress under which the country laboured, the noble earl concurred; but instead of pointing to its natural remedy, he satisfied himself with finding a parallel for it in other countries. But the distress of other nations furnished no reason why we should not endeavour to alleviate curs by economy; or why our government should not become a government of parsimony instead of profusion. The noble earl stated that this year there had been a reduction of 1,800,000
l.
l.,
l.,
1472
Lord Melville
said, he would hot dispute that 84 sail of the line in time of peace was a sufficient naval force; but the
1473
The Earl of Carnarvon
preferred the motion to the amendment, because it was most fair and manly, and expressed most plainly the objects intended. But his principal reason for rising was, not to advert to what had passed in debate, but to what was the cause of the enormous distress under which the agricultural and other interests laboured. How did it happen, that after so long a period since the peace, and when the evil seemed to have reached its
maximum,
l.
1474
adscripti glebœ.
Lord Calthorpe
could not help thinking, that after the candid manner in which the question had been met by the noble earl at the head of the Treasury, his noble friend must feel that his object had been obtained, and that consequently he would not press his motion to a division.
The amended Address was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, July 2, 1821
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE—
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Duke of Clarence's Annuity bill,
Mr. Creevey
rose to call the attention of the House, and still more of the public, to the time at which the subject was brought before parliament. When a motion for repealing the Malt tax was carried in that House, the number of members present being 274, the noble marquis declared, that the House was too thin finally to determine on so important a subject; he advised gentlemen not "to halloo before they were out of the wood," and in the end, he actually did convert the majority of 24 for a repeal of the tax, into a majority of 98 for its continuance. Again, when the hon. member for Cumberland succeeded in inducing a House of 254 members to agree to a repeal of the agricultural horse tax, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that it was too small a House, and that he would try his hand again; a resolution, however, from which he had subsequently been diverted. A House of 274, or of 254 members, was too small to discuss a subject in which the interests of
1475
Mr. Becher
declared, that he had never heard a proposition so unprincipled and so extravagant, as the proposition to pay what were called the arrears. To acquiesce in such a proposition, would be to show that the House was indifferent about that economy of which so much had been said, He should vote against the payment of any arrears; but the prospective grant of 6,000
l.
l.
Mr. Monck
felt himself bound to oppose the grant. In the present situation of the country, the simple consideration for the House was, whether strict necessity or justice required such an expenditure. The only way in which ministers could be made to be economical was by lopping off some of the taxes, and thereby depriving them of the means of being otherwise.
1476
Mr. Brougham
hoped, that as he was not in the House on Saturday, he would be allowed to offer an explanation of the alleged delay which had taken place in asserting her majesty's claim to be crowned. The noble marquis had stated the delay to be about two months from the time that ministers had intimated their own opinion on the subject. To show the inaccuracy of this statement, it would be necessary to refer to dates. On the 21st of May, a question was put by his hon. friend (Mr. Monck) which was answered by the chancellor of the Exchequer; and in the course of the conversation which followed, the noble marquis stated his opinion. Something had been said respecting an authority for her majesty to attend the coronation: but it was clear that there was no necessity for any such authority, as her majesty had a right, as a subject, to attend the ceremony as a spectator. The noble marquis also said, that there was no right so clear as that of the Crown with respect to this subject; and that the coronation of the queen-consort depended upon the grace and favour of the king. He at that time protested against the doctrine of the noble marquis; adding, that he had not made up his own mind on the legal question—and protesting against the doctrine of the noble marquis, lest his silence on that occasion should be construed into assent. This was what had taken place on the 21st of May. It was not the duty of her majesty's law officers to put in her claim immediately upon this. It was their duty to wait her majesty's orders, as they were not her responsible advisers like the ministers of the Crown. Besides, as the coronation had been appointed in the preceding year, and had been postponed, it became proper to wait until there was almost a certainty of its actually taking place. The proclamation appointing the ceremony this year was dated the 9th of June; and inserted in the Gazette on the 12th. The memorial claiming her majesty's right to be crowned was settled at his chambers eleven days afterwards; and upon a subject of such great importance he was not disposed to take any great blame to himself for a delay of eleven days, even had that not (as it had) been partially caused by the indisposition of Dr. Lushington. The holidays had also intervened, and the British Museum was shut, to which plate access was required for the purpose of making
1477
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he had not intended any reflection on her majesty's legal advisers in their professional character. He had merely contrasted the rapidity with which they had expected an answer, with the slowness of their own movements in making the legal claim. The 21st of May was not the only occasion on which the opinion of his majesty's ministers had been intimated to the Queen. Between that day and the 21st of June, her majesty addressed a letter to the earl of Liverpool, desiring to be informed what arrangements had been made for her convenience, and who were appointed as her attendants on the approaching solemnity. An official answer was returned, stating that it was a right of the down to give or withhold the order for her majesty's coronation, and that his majesty would be advised not to make any order for her majesty's participation in the arrangements. The Queen rejoined insisting on her right, and declaring that she should attend the coronation unless she were absolutely prevented. A respectful but equally peremptory answer was returned to her majesty, repeating the legal right of the Crown, and declaring that the former answer must be understood as amounting to a prohibition of her attendance. These proceedings clearly showed that her majesty was fully aware of the course intended to be taken by the government. There was on Saturday, a significant manner and an accusing tone about the hon. and learned member (Mr. Denman), as if there had been on the part of ministers an absolute denial of justice. Now, with these facts before the House, he would ask, whether it was not rather hard to call ministers over the coals and blame them for the delay? Respecting the hearing of her majesty's law officers before the privy council in support of, the claim, he had to state to the, House, that this had been asked that very morn-
1478
Mr. Denman
certainly thought her majesty's advisers had a right to complain that no answer had been sent to the memorial from Monday to Saturday last. The application itself, he contended, it would have been improper to make until the actual celebration of the solemnity had become morally certain. With respect to the former application, alluded to by the noble marquis, he trusted the noble marquis would pay him and his learned friends the compliment to believe that they had not prepared it; in fact, it had been presented while they were on the circuit, and they of course waited for her majesty's personal instructions on the subject. It had been represented that he had said, that the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy, was of itself a warning that she would not be crowned. He was not aware that he had ever made any such observation. If he had, it must have been incidentally, as he did not see that the exclusion from the Liturgy, necessarily led to an exclusion from the coronation.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Brougham, H.
Birch, Jos.
Becher, W. W.
1479
Colburn, R.
Mostyn, sir Thos.
Carters, John
Milton lord
Calvert, C.
Moore, Peter
Creevey, T.
Monck, J. B.
Denman, T.
Paulett, hon. W.
Denison, W. J.
Price, Robt.
Doveton, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Fergusson, sir R.
Rumbold, C. E.
Fane, John
Rice, Spring
Gurney, H.
Sefton, earl of
Grattan, Jas.
Scarlett, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sebright, sir J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Whitbread, S.
Harbord, hon. E.
TELLERS.
Lushington. Dr.
Bernal, R.
Martin, John
Bennet hon. H. G.
On the question, That the bill do pass, lord A. Hamilton moved as an amendment, "That a special entry be made in the Journals, that it be not drawn into precedent, that any pecuniary Allowance, or augmentation of Allowance, be granted by this House to the junior branches of the Royal Family, either founded upon the Resolution of a Committee of Supply of a former Parliament, as has been done in in the present case, not only of a former Parliament, but also of a former reign, or without the usual and accustomed forms of a Message, and a recommendation from the Crown upon the subject matter of such grant." The amendment was negatived, and the bill passed.
POOR RELIEF BILL.]
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the re-commitment of this bill,
Mr. Scarlett
said, he did not rise for the purpose of opening a discussion on this subject. His object was to withdraw the bill for this session. It had been his wish and determination that the bill should not pass without ample discussion. He need not remind the House of the causes which had prevented him from attaining that part of his object. He postponed it also, in order to have an opportunity of acquiring strength to make an adequate reply to the gallant member (sir R. Wilson). He knew that the gallant general had got together a great mass of legal matter to oppose him with. He confessed, that in order to meet this terrific battery, he was anxious to have a little time to brush up his law. He was aware that many inflammatory and calumnious misrepresentations had gone abroad on this subject. He assured the House that his motives in meddling with the matter were of the most pure description. He felt that the existing system of Poor-laws was most oppressive on one hand, and that it defeated its
1480
Sir R. Wilson
begged to assure the learned gentleman, that as it was his intention to renew this measure next session, he would find him at his post, prepared to dispute every inch of ground with him.
Mr. H. Gurney
said, that as the hon. and learned gentleman threatened them with a renewal of these most dangerous discussions in the ensuing session, he could not allow the bill to be withdrawn, without the strongest protest he was able to make against all the principles on which it was founded. He maintained, that the understood right of the poor to reasonable support was as old as the law of England; that up to this time it had been the boast of England, that no man could be left to starve; that the learned gentleman's bill went to the reversal of the law of the land, the laws of nature, and the law of God, and that its only possible tendency would be, to make the country a scene of rapine and violence and utter confusion, from one end to the other. The hon. gentleman referred to Harrison's preface to Holinshed, in which he gives a description of the state of England in the 60 years between 1526 and 1586, a period during which a total revolution in the prices of all things had taken place, similar to that which we had witnessed in Our own days, as affording a striking exposition of the situation in which we should have found ourselves, had we not been carried through, with whatever diffi-
1481
l.
l
1482
Dr. Lushington
said, that he would certainly oppose such a bill, if he believed that it tended to degrade the poor; but his settled conviction was, that the increase of Poor-rates was an increase of misery. If he failed to express this conviction from any unpopularity td which it might expose him, he should prove himself destitute of moral courage. The effect of the present laws, was, to oblige the industrious and prudent to support the improvident and thoughtless; to mulct the single individual for the support of the married. Every country long inhabited had been obliged to have recourse to emigration. Why should England be an exception? The bill prohibiting artificers from emigrating was utterly unjust in its principle. He was glad, however, that the bill of his learned friend was withdrawn for the present; the public press, the great instrument of discussion in this country, would in the mean time examine its details, and when the House should come to consider it next session, they would be themselves better prepared, and the public would be found better informed respecting it.
Mr. T. Courtenay
said, in reference to what had been observed with respect to the popularity sought by the opponents of the bill, that if any thing gave him cause to regret the part which he had taken, it was, the praises which he had received for his conduct, in a quarter from which he neither expected nor desired them. He hoped that the learned gentleman would give the House, in the next session, an opportunity of discussing the Poor-laws upon their principle, and of coming to a determination, either to abandon or maintain that principle. He should for one, be prepared to maintain it. If out-voted, he most acquiesce; but he hoped that if the House should decide with him, for upholding the principle of the Poor-laws the supporters of the present bill would
1483
Mr. Harbord
said, he disapproved of the principle of the bill, though he was disposed to thank the learned gentleman for having called their attentions to a subject of great importance.
Mr. C. F. Palmer
considered the Poor-laws as the chartered rights of the poor, and hoped the House would pause before it consented to touch them.
Colonel Davies
conceived it to be unfair to take that opportunity of making general declarations against the measure. Although he had been desired to oppose it, yet so convinced was he of its necessity, and so friendly to its general purpose, that without pledging himself to support the precise bill, he felt that some measure of that nature was quite necessary.
Mr. Monck
said, he considered the Poor-laws to be an ingenious device for obtaining the greatest quantity of labour at the least expense. They ought therefore to be abolished; but previously to any attempt of that kind, redress must be given of great and numerous grievances.
Mr. Scarlett
said, he would state to the House the opinions of an individual, with respect to the tendency of our Poor-laws, who certainly did not deserve the imputation of advocating mad schemes. The person whose opinions he was about to stale to the House was Dr. Franklin. That eminent individual had said, that "he was for doing good to the poor, but he doubted as to the means of effecting that object. In his youth he had travelled much, and he found that in those countries where most was done for the poor by the state, their situation was the most deplorable. He thought that those who passed the English Poor-laws took away the greatest inducement to frugality, industry, and morality; and had substituted a premium on idleness and crime. He was of opinion that a great change in the habits of the people would soon be perceived, if the-Poor-laws were repealed."
1484
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 3, 1821
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION —
Mr. Hobhouse
rose to present a petition from W. Benbow, late a bookseller in the Strand, but know a prisoner in the King's-bench prison. He stated, that the petitioner was arrested on the 21st of May last, on a warrant issued on the finding of two indictments for alleged libels; which indictments were preferred against him by a body calling itself, "The Constitutional Association." It seemed that the judges now thought themselves justified, in cases of libel, in holding the defendant to bail, not only for his appearance, but for his good behaviour also. The petitioner stated, "That on such arrest he was required to give bail, not only for his appearance to answer such indictments, but also for his good behaviour until the same should be tried. That the petitioner's friends, though perfectly ready to answer for his appearance, were unwilling to bind themselves for the indefinite and undefinable good behaviour of the petitioner; especially as it has been industriously circulated by the attorney for the prosecution, that their recognizances would be forfeited by the mere finding of a true bill against the petitioner for any other political offence, though such bill might be found upon false and
ex-parte
1485
The Attorney-General
said, he had no doubt that, with respect to the bail required, the judge had exercised a sound discretion. With respect to the postponement of the sittings after term, in consequence of the coronation, he did not suppose that notion was well-grounded. If, however, it should appear to be so, he would willingly exercise his authority to shield the petitioner from any additional inconvenience on that account, by obtaining his discharge upon such security as he could give.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that what had occurred was quite sufficient to show the inexpediency of taking such prosecutions out of the hands of the attorney-general, and committing them to the care of a common attorney. Under the existing law, booksellers were constantly liable to prosecutions for libel in cases in which their innocence of intention was completely manifest. The persons employed by the Constitutional Association might go and purchase, or order a book from a bookseller wholly ignorant of its contents; but who would nevertheless thereby render himself subject to a criminal prosecution. The time was sufficiently distant to allow of the calm consideration of a case of that kind which occurred in the early period of the French revolution. He alluded to the case of Mr. Johnson, who had been prosecuted and punished for selling a seditious libel. Mr. Johnson was a publisher of classical and other elegant; works. Mr. Gilbert Wakefield wrote a political pamphlet, which he tendered to Mr. Johnson to print, but with which Mr. Johnson refused to have any thing to do. Having been printed else-
1486
Ordered to lie on the table.
CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.]
Mr. S. Whitbread
observed, that though he should consider himself deserving of blame if he at any time unnecessarily forced himself on the attention of the House, yet he should think himself still more worthy of censure if he allowed a subject like that which he was about to bring under its consideration to pass unnoticed. He had been in expectation that some gentleman distinguished for his talents and legal knowledge would have attacked the misnamed Constitutional Association. He had been disappointed, and had therefore resolved not to let the session pass without calling the attention of the House to a society as odious in principle as it had proved itself malignant in practice. A difficulty existed in opposing this society, because, though acting in disregard of every principle of justice and equity, it insidiously took shelter under some quibble of the law. He wished to avoid speaking in rash terms of this Society. He would allow that there were many persons of exalted rank connected with it. He believed, however, that these individuals had been induced to become members in consequence of the false title which it had assumed. He was sure that if, instead of being called the Bridge-street Constitutional Association for opposing disloyal principles, it had received the title of the Birchin-lane Plot, the names of the individuals to whom he had alluded would never have been seen in connexion with it. No person of the least understanding could fail to perceive that this society was set on foot only by a few attorneys, for their own private emolument. He did not blame these attorneys for having regard to their own interest; but he had a right to quarrel with them when they
1487
1488
1489
nolle prosequi
Mr. Bathurst
said, that if he understood the practice of the Court of King's-bench rightly, it would be impossible to put a stop to prosecutions instituted against individuals by the society in question, in the way proposed by the motion. The court never inquired who the prosecutor was. The hon. member had described the principles of the association as odious he wished, however, the hon. gentleman had described what those principles were. In the light in which he (Mr. B.) viewed the association, it was nothing more than a certain set of gentlemen, who considered that libels ought to be punished. He could distinguish, however, between the principle on which the association was founded, and that on which it was conducted. The hon. member seemed to think, that no person might assume the authority of the attorney-general. He apprehended that this opinion was contrary to the law and the constitution. Every person who prosecuted another, assumed the character of a public prosecutor, by acting in the king's name. The office of the attorney-general was only an exception to this rule. In every part of the country societies existed for the prosecution of different offences; and he could see no distinction between the principle on which they were founded, and that on which the present association existed. He thought it was improbable that the society could have originated from the selfish schemes of a few professional individuals. Had the association originated in this manner, it never would have been able to attract so, much notice. The very circumstance, of its having been alluded to so frequently in that House, proved that the, society, had done, and was doing, a great deal,—of. good or evil, he would not pretend to say. He was of opinion, that the more the attention of the country was directed towards the society, by the
1490
Dr. Lushington
thought it not a little; extraordinary that, after the almost Uninterrupted power which hon. gentlemen opposite had maintained for the last thirty years, and in the face of the numerous laws which, under their administration had disgraced the Statute book, a cabinet minister should stand up in his place and admit the necessity of such an association as this to carry the laws against libel and sedition into effect.
Mr. Bathurst
—I did not say one word as to its necessity.
Dr. Lushington
—The right hon. gentleman denied that he admitted its necessity: but did he not defend it as being constitutional, and As a society whose existence was desirable f Did he not allow that government, were willing to receive the assistance of sir John Sewell, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Murray? Either the society was useful, or it was hot. It was necessary, or it was not. If it was neces-
1491
Sir M. Cholmeley
insisted upon the necessity of preventing the exposure of obscene prints in the windows of shops; and stated, that they were frequently
1492
Mr. Wilberforce
expressed his regret that the learned doctor should have thought it necessary to go out of his way to attack a society which had effected great good, and of which he was proud to avow himself a zealous supporter. The learned doctor seemed to know as little of the object as he did of the proceedings of that society. If he would point out any officer of that society who had conducted himself in the manner described, he would undertake that he should be dismissed immediately. One of its objects had been to stop the sale of obscene pamphlets and prints which had formerly found their way into the seminaries of the young of both sexes; in what manner that object had been effected, the House would judge when he informed them, that out of 45 prosecutions which the society had thought fit to institute, not one had failed. Another of its objects had been to put a stop to the profanation of the sabbath. In that pursuit, though not so successful as could have been wished, it had still been able to do much good. With regard to the motion before the House, had there been greater licentiousness of the press than existed at present? indeed it was perfectly insupportable. Calumnies and detractions were so prevalent, that an individual was obliged to be either perpetually contradicting them, or to submit to a belief of the truth of them. Where, then, was the man who would not rejoice in seeing the laws again appealed to for redress? So far from thinking it to be unconstitutional that individuals should endeavour to enforce the; laws against the licentiousness of the press, he thought that it was most congenial with the spirit of the constitution. How far the Constitutional Association had acted properly or improperly in their endeavour thus to enforce the law, he did not know; though he would not deny that the power which they had assumed was liable to abuse. He thought that it was the duty of a member of parliament, who saw the number of detestable publications now in circulation, to call upon the law officers of the Crown to enforce the laws against them, which he thought they had not done. The merit of a society like the Constitutional Association
1493
Mr. Denman
said, that the great objection to the constitutional and all similar associations was, that they could not exist without becoming a seminary for spies and informers. The person who could condescend to purchase a book from which he was to derive emolument on the conviction of the seller, would be ready to act even a more degraded part. If the book were not to be had for asking once, it would be asked for twice; and they might depend upon it, that the informer would not leave the shop without acquiring that which would afterwards prove a source of emolument to him. This was an objection to all societies, but pressed with greater force on the Constitutional Society than any others. The learned member dwelt on the illegality of a society, possessing large funds, and established, not for the punishment, but for the ruin of such booksellers as fell under their lash. The power thus placed in the hands of individuals was most enormous, and the number of bills presented by the association that had already been thrown out was enough to excite grave suspicion. It was impossible to calculate upon obtaining an unbiassed grand jury to find the bill, and an impartial petty jury to find the verdict, while the society extended in such infinite ramifications of power and influence. As to the formation of a counter-association, nothing could be more injurious to the administration of public justice than for two parties to be constantly running a race with each other, endeavouring to pour their several friends into the jury-box, and thus to gain a triumph over the law. The association had been properly considered
1494
The Attorney-General
said, that the motion was not sufficiently distinct at intelligible. Nobody had yet ventured to assert that the society was not legally constituted. If such were the case, the courts of law were open to any of its opponents. The fact that no appeal upon this point had been made to the proper forum, of itself showed that there was no ground for attacking its legality. In the same way, no attempt had been made to call in question the legality of the society for the Suppression of Vice, to which allusion had been frequently made, and between which and this society he could see no distinction whatever. It was a most extraordinary doctrine urged on the other side, that the attorney-general was the only public prosecutor in the country. If he brought a case of libel into court, he was constantly assailed by the defendant or his counsel with the charge that he was proceeding by an unconstitutional mode — that lie had filed an information
ex-offlcio,
1495
ex-officio,
1496
Mr. Brougham
said, that in his opinion, a man might with perfect consistency approve of the other societies alluded to incidentally, and yet disapprove of that under the notice of the House; as the distinction between them was as clear as possible. Some offences were, and ought to be prosecuted, though many a man would feel a repugnance at having his name mentioned in the same line with such an offence, even as its prosecutor. The argument drawn from the societies to prosecute for thefts could not apply to the present association. How was it possible that a man's feelings could be so interested in the case of a theft as they would be upon a question purely political? Party feeling would interfere, and even the jury become contaminated with it, by the encouragement of such a society as this. The remedy proposed would be an aggravation of the mischief; for, as had been well-observed, it would lead to the pollution of the very fountain of justice. The attorney-general bad said, he did not see that members of this association were disqualified to sit as jurymen on prosecutions instituted by the Society. The Court of King's Bench, however, had declared them unfit, and had ordered, that the fact of a juryman's being a member should be a good cause of challenge. He who subscribed to bring on an indictment, was certainly an improper person to try it. In the case of a felony, if a man had subscribed money to find the bill of indictment, this would be a good cause for challenging him as a juror and yet in such a case it was not likely that any thing had occurred from the act itself to rouse the passions. But the Bridge-street association was founded in party feeling alone. Even their enthusiasm, however
1497
1498
The Solicitor General
thought, that in order to form a correct opinion on the present question, it would be proper to inquire what was the state of the proceedings referred to by the motion. Bills had been found by grand juries against individuals for various libels; the judges of the courts of law had held these defendants to bail; and now the House of Commons was called upon to address the Crown to stop these prosecutions without any inquiry into their merits. The hon. and learned member here entered into a review of the proceedings against Dolby, and contended that the society had, in the course of the proceedings, clone nothing which was not justified by law. The stock of Dolby was not demanded; he was only desired to give up the remaining
1499
Mr. Scarlett
could not concur with his hon. and learned friend in pronouncing this society to be legal: he thought it usurped the functions of the attorney-general, in whose hands, prosecutions for political offences were vested by the government, and where he thought the discretion of instituting them would be exercised with more coolness than this society was likely to use on such subjects. Any set of men arrogating to themselves such a power of prosecuting for political offences assumed an unconstitutional power, which he considered dangerous, and which he could not easily be persuaded was legal. He meant to pronounce no conclusive opinion until he had all the facts before him; but he must deny that the judges, as the matter stood, had concluded any thing upon the point of law; nor, indeed, did, he know in what form their judgment could be summarily had upon so large a question. He thought there was a great distinction to be drawn
1500
Mr. Whitbread
said, that as it seemed to be the general wish, he would not take the sense of the House upon the subjects With respect to the argument, that those who were aggrieved by the proceedings of the society would have their remedy as law, he would ask who were the persons from whom redress was to be sought?
1501
l.
The motion was negatived.
APPROPRIATION BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Creevey
said, that as this bill went to appropriate all the money voted during the session, he would take the present opportunity of making a few observations on the business which had occurred in that House since they last commenced their sittings. He wished to express the satisfaction he felt on account of the late unanimous vote in favour of retrenchment. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had been repeatedly taunted by ministers, in consequence of his exertions; but they had at last been compelled to agree to a resolution, which would, he hoped, be followed up. This advantage had been gained by adhering to the forms of the House, and by pursuing the path marked out by past experience. At the commencement of the session, he had said that committees of supply had, for a long time, been a mere farce, but that they should no longer continue so. His assertion had been verified. The subject of the supplies had been so fully discussed, that the great body of the people of England were acquainted with them, and a pledge of pursuing a system of economical reform in the next session, had been obtained from ministers. This question of economical reform was nearly allied to political reform; because, when it was properly pursued, it brought them to the strong holds of corruption, that great enemy of property, of liberty, and of law. He differed from his noble friend (the marquis of Tavistock), when he asserted, that the exertions of the hon. member for Aberdeen had effected nothing. He agreed with his noble friend, that the power of the Crown had greatly increased in that House; but still he was of opinion that the freedom of speech which they enjoyed, and the publicity which was given to their debates, were advantages of the highest importance; and from these, if from any causes, they might look forward to economical reform in the next session. The House was, he thought, in progress to do a great dear of good.
1502
The Marquis of Londonderry
rejoiced to observe the good humour which now, prevailed on the other side of the House; but to which the gentlemen opposite appeared, at times, to be entirely strangers. He trusted, that in the next session of parliament they would be equally pleasant. They appeared to have receded his a considerable degree from that, political and constitutional Utopia which they had originally set up. The hon. gentleman had given a very proper rebuke to the noble member for Bedfordshire, who
1503
Mr. Brougham
said, it must give great satisfaction to the House to learn, that the reform in the department of the receivers-general of the land-tax had been
1504
l.
The bill was then passed.
The Marquis of Londonderry,
in rising to move that the House adjourn till Tuesday next, begged to observe, what it might be agreeable for their constituents to know, viz. that upon an average the House had sat eight hours and forty minutes daily, for every sitting day throughout the session. This was exclusive of the business done in the morning in the committees. So that whatever might be the opinion of hon. members opposite, or of persons out of doors, it was plain, that if the House of Commons did no good, it was not for want of labour.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, July 5, 1821
GRANT TO THE DUKE OF CLARENCE.]
On the order for committing the Duke of Clarence's Annuity bill,
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that it certainly was not his intention to oppose the principle of this grant, or that on which the arrears were given from the period of the original vote. On the contrary, he approved of both parts of the measure. He thought the Commons had done credit to themselves in reverting in this bill to the general principle which ought to guide all grants of the kind, and giving the annuity from the time of his royal highness's marriage. He could not, however, refrain from calling their lordship' attention to the situation of the duke of Cumberland, who had, in his opinion, been treated very unfairly. It was not easy to conceive on what ground his royal highness was not placed on the same footing with the rest of the king's sons. If there
1505
l.
The Earl of Limerick
concurred in the sentiments expressed by his noble friend, and warmly eulogized the character and conduct of the royal duke.
The bill was ordered to be committed to-morrow.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 9, 1821
AGRICULTURAL HORSE DUTY REPEAL BILL.]
On the order of the day, for the third reading of this bill,
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that after the declarations recently made by the noble earl opposite of the necessity of keeping up the revenue, he was surprised to find that he had agreed to a measure by which 500,000
l.
1506
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had much rather the proposition of this bill had not come before their lordships, but since it was before them, he conceived that, under all the circumstances of the case, it was his duty to give it his support. When a committee to inquire into the agricultural distress was suggested, he objected to the proposition, on the general ground that he saw no chance of good, but much of evil, from such an investigation. He had also stated that the distress had nothing to do with the state of the revenue or taxation; and when he said that, it was plain that he could see no useful result to which such inquiries could lead. The noble lord, however, was for appointing a committee to see what taxes could be repealed. He believed that such an inquiry would have a result similar to that which had taken place respecting the agricultural distress. He never knew-a case in which seven or eight persons got together to consider how taxes to a certain amount might be removed, but each had the repeal of some particular tax in view, which he insisted ought to take precedence of all others. The noble lord had declared, that he would prefer the repeal of the duties on soap, candles, and some other articles. Now, though he did not mean to say that the agricultural horse duty would have been his first choice, he would certainly much rather repeal it than any of the taxes on those articles to which the noble lord had alluded; for, in the present state of the revenue, nothing could
1507
The Earl of Carnarvon
expressed his dissent from the noble earl's declaration, that the distress experienced through the country had no connexion with the state of the revenue or taxation. He, on the contrary, considered the connexion to be most intimate, and was of opinion that it would not be long before it would be found to be impossible to pay the taxes at the present rate of the currency. It was plain that indirect taxation had reached its
maximum;
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, it was the fluctuation of the currency which was to be complained of, and not its restoration to a true standard. After the currency had been brought back to its natural state, nothing would be more mischievous than any new alteration. In speaking of reductions, the
1508
The bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, July 10, 1821
COURT OF SESSION—PETITION OF
Mr. Hume
rose to present a petition from a Mr. Jameson, a Writer to the signet in Scotland, who complained of having suffered severely from acts of Sederunt in the Court of Session. By these acts the court had the power of superseding acts of parliament. It was impossible for a suitor in that court to know what act was in force, or in disuse; for, strange to say, it rested entirely with the judges to declare which laws were in force, and which were in desuetude. Nay, one judge of the court had declared the clause of a bill to be in force, while another held that it was not. If, then, the law was held to be a lottery in England, how much more uncertain was it in Scotland. The commissioners of inquiry had stated, that the grievance now complained of should be inquired into; but no further mention was made of it. He had last year presented a petition from a Mr. Hay, on the same subject. It was the opinion of Blackstone, that if the judicial and legislative functions were united in the judges, the lives, liberties, and properties of the people would be at the mercy of a few individuals. It was only necessary to put a wig and a gown on any individual in order to qualify him to give lectures on public matters. We had many instances of judges going out of their way, for the purpose of delivering opinions on matters not connected with their duty. Witness the conduct of sir J. Silvester, who, in delivering a charge to a jury, went out of his way for the purpose of praising the Bridge-street Association. He thought it ill became men who were elevated to such high rank by the monarch, thus to go out of their way for such purposes. The magistrates of Montrose
1509
Lord Binning
said, he must protest against all that the hon. member had said respecting the court of session as being totally groundless; and he must add, that the hon. member had made but an ill use of his discretion in bringing this subject forward as he had done. He denied that the judges superseded the law by acts of sederunt; and with respect to desuetude, he understood it applied only to certain Scottish laws, and not to any British act of parliament. He had no doubt this petition would turn out to be one of that class of which they had already seen but too many.
Lord A. Hamilton
complained of the hardship of allowing the judges to declare which laws should be held in force, and which in desuetude.
Mr. Hume
said, that so wedded was the noble lord to the abuses which existed in Scotland that he believed, if they were shown to be as black as ink, it would be impossible to induce the noble lord to remove them. He repeated, that the charges against the lord president Hope were true, and admitted of no justification. He had on one occasion ordered a person from the bar, declaring that acts of sederunt should supersede the law of the land.
Lord Binning
could not allow the imputations thrown out against his relation to pass unanswered. The hon. member might think that abuses existed in Scotland, and wish to reform them; but was it fair to make such an attack upon the
1510
Ordered to lie on the table.
STATE OF EDUCATION IN IRELAND.]
Mr. Spring Rice,
in rising to move for the I4th Report of the Commissioners on the State of Education in Ireland, said, that even in an economical point of view, the subject to which the Report referred was of some consequence, for since the Union no less than 1,200,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Brougham
said, he entirely concurred with his hon. friend, as to the soundness of the principles laid down by the commissioners. Nothing could be more sound in the present state of Ireland, than that any system of education 'attempted to be made general there, should avoid all suspicion of an intention of proselytism. The state of the Established
1511
1512
1513
Mr. Bright
contended, that the Education bill was an attack upon religious liberty, and he hoped it would be manfully resisted by those who were interested. The dissenters were to be taxed for the support of schools, the teachers of which were to be chosen by the established clergy, and who would teach in a manner which would be agreeable to that clergy. The accuracy of the returns in the digest had been disputed, and with reason; for the Sunday schools were almost entirely overlooked. He should oppose the measure, as its tendency and effect would obviously be, to throw the whole education of the country into the hands of the established church, to the exclusion and injury of the dissenting interests.
Mr. Brougham
said, his hon. friend had no right to assume that there existed on the part of the advocates of the measure the least disposition to do any thing in
1514
The motion was agreed to.
CORONATION OF THE QUEEN.]
On the motion, that the House do adjourn,
Mr. Hume
said, he conceived it to be most important that the country should understand, before the prorogation of parliament, how her majesty was to be placed at the ensuing coronation, and that every precaution should be taken that was calculated to prevent the peace of the capital from being disturbed upon that occasion. If any of his majesty's ministers had been in the House, he should have felt it his duty to have gone at greater length into this subject than he then felt inclined to do: but being one of those individuals whom a noble marquis on a former night had accused of having by their exertions risked the peace of the country, he could not allow himself to be placed in such a situation again as would compel him to have recourse to similar proceedings, without protesting most loudly against it. From the nature of the court to which her majesty's claims had been submitted, he could not draw any favourable augury as to their decision; though he was convinced that her lawyers had made out as clear a right for her coronation as existed at present for the king's. Taking for granted, then, that the decision of that court would be against the existence of the claim, the point which he wished to ascertain was this—whether ministers intended to persevere in their, system of insulting, persecuting, and oppressing the Queen upon all occasions, or whether they intended to assign her a place among the other members of the royal family at the ensuing coronation. That her majesty would attend in person at that ceremonial, he entertained not the slightest doubt. From what he knew of her spirit and resolution, he was convinced that she would be present at it if not as a part of it, at least to prevent the rights of future queens-consort from being compromised and degraded in her person It was upon that account that he now gave notice, that he should to-morrow submit to the House a motion on the subject,
1515
Mr. Butterworth
lamented the introduction of such a subject at a time when no minister was in the House to notice it. He trusted that her majesty would not be so ill-advised as to pursue the plan which the hon. gentleman had chalked out for her. She had already had ill-advisers enough about her; and he trusted, for the sake of the little credit and popularity which she still had left her, she would not interfere in the manner alluded to.
Mr. Alderman Wood
should not have risen, if it had not been for the extraordinary expression which had escaped from the hon. gentlemen, as to the little credit and popularity which her majesty retained. He was surprised the hon. member had dared to make such an assertion, when he must have known that ninety-nine out of every hundred of his own constituents were strongly biassed in favour of her majesty. So far from her majesty's popularity being upon the wane, it had even increased since the conclusion of the infamous investigation into her conduct. Her majesty, he was sure, would not be dictated to by any person, as to the course which she ought to pursue. He had, however, no hesitation in saying, that it was the decided intention of the Queen to attend the coronation, notwithstanding any thing that had occurred, or that might occur, before a particular tribunal.
Mr. Butterworth
conceived that nothing could be more ill-advised than her majesty's intention of disturbing the coronation.
Mr. Hume
said, that if the hon. gentleman intended his observations to apply to him, he could only inform him that he never had the honour, and most probably never should of being one of her majesty's advisers.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, July 11, 1821
CORONATION OF THE QUEEN.]
Shortly after the Speaker had taken the chair,
Mr. Hume
rose to submit the motion of which he had given notice yesterday. He began by saying, that we were now within eight days of the coronation, and as yet it was not known in what situation her majesty was to be placed, with regard to that ceremony. Surely ministers would not renew the agitation of the public mind by the exclusion of her majesty; for he
1516
1517
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, July 11, 1821
THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION.]
After the royal assent had been given, by commission, to several bills, a Speech of the Lords Commissioners was delivered to both Houses by the Lord Chancellor, as follows:
"My Lords and Gentlemen;
"We have it in command from his Majesty to inform you, that the state of public business having enabled him to dispense with your attendance in Parliament, he has determined to put an end to this Session.
"His Majesty, however, cannot close it without expressing his satisfaction at the zeal and assiduity with which you have prosecuted the laborious and important inquiries in which you have been engaged.
"He has observed, with particular pleasure, the facility with which the restoration of a Metallic Currency has been effected, by the authority given to the Bank of England to commence its payments in cash at an earlier period than had been determined by the last Parliament.
"His Majesty has commanded us to acquaint you, that he continues to receive from foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons;
"We are commanded by his Majesty to return you his thanks for the provision which you have made for the public service.
1518
"Although the public expepditure has already undergone considerable reduction within the present year, his Majesty trusts he shall be enabled by the continuance of peace, and of internal tranquillity, to make such further reductions as may satisfy the just expectations expressed by Parliament.
"His Majesty has commanded us to assure you of the gratification which he has derived from the provision which you have made for his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen;
"It is with the greatest satisfaction that his Majesty has observed the quiet and good order which continue to prevail in those parts of the country which were not long since in a state of agitation.
"His Majesty deeply laments the distress to which the agricultural interests, in many parts of the kingdom, are still subject.
"It will be his Majesty's most anxious desire, by a strict attention to public economy, to do all that depends upon him for the relief of the country from its present difficulties; but you cannot fail to be sensible that the success of all efforts for this purpose will mainly depend upon the continuance of domestic tranquillity; and his Majesty confidently relies on your utmost exertions, in your several counties, in enforcing obedience to the laws, and in promoting harmony and concord amongst all descriptions of his Majesty's subjects."
After which a Commission was read, for proroguing the Parliament until the 20th of September.
APPENDIX.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY 1821.
CLASS.
I PUBLIC INCOME for the YEAR ended 5 Jan. 1821
Appen. P.
II. CONSOLIDATED FUND — v
III. ARREARS AND BALANCES — xv
IV. TRADE AND NAVIGATION — xv
V. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE — xxi
VI. PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT — xxiii
VII. UNFUNDED DEBT — xxxv
VIII. DISPOSITION OF GRANTS — xxxv
I.—PUBLIC INCOME OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
FOR THE YEAR ENDED FIFTH JANUARY, 1821.
An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year ended 5th January, 1821.
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT: Total Sum to be accounted for.
Drawbacks, Discounts, Charges of Management, &c. paid out of the Cross Revenue.
NETT PRODUCE applicable to National Objects, and to Payments into the Exchequer.
Ordinary Revenues.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
CUSTOMS, including the Animal Duties
14,440,881
5
11¼
3,697,691
12
10
10,743,189
13
1¼
EXCISE, including the Annual Duties
31,714,935
10
9
3,092,687
0
6¼
28,622,248
10
2¾
STAMPS
7,250,199
1
9¼
455,332
5
0¼
6,794,866
16
9
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES, including the Assessed Taxes of Ireland
8,694,733
0
5½
381,584
13
1
8,313,148
7
4¼
POST OFFICE
2,310,599
1
10¼
617,962
3
11½
1,692,636
17
10¾
PENSIONS AND SALARIES
1
s.
21,252
1
9
480
7
0
20,771
14
9
6
d.
9,559
6
5
296
17
3
9,262
9
2
HACKNEY COACHES
26,466
0
1
4,122
5
9
22,343
14
4
HAWKERS AND PEDLARS
30,522
8
9
5,219
17
6
25,302
11
3
POUNDAGE FEES (Ireland)
4,392
10
8½
4,392
10
½
PELLS FEES (Ireland)
878
10
0¼
878
10
0¼
CASUALTIES (Ireland)
3,419
13
3
3,419
13
3
TREASURY FEES, and Hospital Fees (Ireland)
515
0
1½
515
0
1½
SMALL BRANCHES OF THE KING'S HEREDITARY REVENUE
132,967
7
4½
5,146
19
4¾
127,820
7
11¾
TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues
64,641,320
19
3
8,260,524
2
3¾
56,380,796
16
11¼
Extraordinary Resources.
PROPERTY TAX AND INCOME DUTY (Arrears)
57,043
5
6¼
15,395
15
6
41,647
10
0¼
Lottery, Nett Receipt
175,154
10
2
19,000
0
0
156,154
10
2
Unclaimed Dividends, &c. per Act 5.6 Geo. 3, cap. 97
283,810
7
11
283,810
7
11
From the Commissioners for the issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, cap. 34, for the Employment of the Poor
159,000
0
0
159,000
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
25,849
1
4½
25,849
1
4½
From several County Treasurers in Ireland, on account of Advances made by the Treasury for improving Post Roads, for building Gaols, for the Police, for Public Works, Employment of the Poor, &c. &c.
61,664
1
2¾
61,664
1
2¾
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
195,728
4
4
195,728
4
4
TOTAL (exclusive of Loans)
65,599,570
9
9½
8,294,919
17
9¾
57,304,650
11
11¾
Loans paid into the Exchequer
17,292,544
16
6
17,292,544
16
6
GRAND TOTAL
82,892,115
6
3½
8,294,919
17
9¾
74,597,195
8
5¾
II.—CONSOLIDATED FUND AND PERMANENT TAXES.—INCOME AND CHARGE, 1821.
INCOME.
CHARGE.
Actual Payment out of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended 5th January 1821.
Future Annual charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as it stood on 5th January 1821.
£.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
CUSTOMS: Consolidated
£.
15
8¾
Total Charge for Debt created prior to the Year 1811
25,456,951
16
78½
24,677,128
14
5¾
CIVIL LIST:
Isle of Man
10,197
13
6
For the support of his Majesty's Household per sundry Acts of Geo. 3, to 29 Jan. 1820
£.
3
6
For the support of his Majesty's Household per Act 1, Geo. 4, c. 1.
793,956
0
10
857,780
4
4
850,000
0
0
COURTS OF JUSTICE:
Quarantine Duty
16,488
15
6
Judges of England and Wales, in augmentation of their Salaries
13,050
0
0
13,050
0
0
Deficiencies of Judges Salaries in England
13,646
18
10
Uncertain.
Additional Salaries to Welsh Judges
3,200
0
0
3,200
0
0
J. Baldwin, Esq. Receiver of the Seven Police Offices
21,629
1
5¾
Uncertain.
Canal and Dock Duty
35,065
3
6½
3,821,019
8
3¼
Sheriffs of England and Wales
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Clerk of the Hanaper
2,400
0
0
Patrick Colquhoun, Esq. Receiver of the Thames Police
1,785
2
0
Charles Bathurst, Esq. Receiver of the Thames Police
3,537
8
7
Thomas Venables, Esq. Receiver of the Thames Police
1,889
6
4
EXCISE: Consolidated, alter reserving the several sums carried, per Acts 52 and 55 Geo. 3, to Duties, pro Annis 1812 and 1815
20,798,730
3
8
7,211
16
11
Uncertain.
MINT:
Master of the Mint in England
13,800
0
0
13,800
0
0
SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES:
Speaker of the House of Commons, to complete his Salary of
£.
1,807
9
0
Uncertain.
Edward Roberts, Esq. an annual Sum formerly paid to the Auditor
650
0
0
650
0
0
British Spirits, Anno 1806
444,085
1
4½
George Pepler, Esq. Inspector of Tontine Certificates
500
0
0
Uncertain.
21,242,815
5
0½
Chief Cashier of the Bank, for Fees
1,175
0
0
[This Account continued over leaf.]
[This Account continued over leat.]
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Chief Cashier of the South Sea Company, for Fees
269
9
10
Uncertain.
STAMPS: Consolidated, after reserving as directed per Acts 50 and 55 Geo. 3.
5,674,485
9
11½
For the encouragement of the growth of Hemp and Flax in Scotland
2,956
13
8
2,956
13
8
COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS:
Wm. Mackworth Praed, Esq. Chairman
1,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
Sir C. W. Rouse Boughton, Bart
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
Richard Dawkins, Esq.
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
John Wishaw, Esq.
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
John Sargent, Esq.
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
Licences for selling Lottery Tickets
3,500
7
4
Salaries, &c. in the Office of the said Commissioners
6,292
8
3
Uncertain.
5,677,985
17
3½
COMMISSIONERS OF WEST INDIA ACCOUNTS:
John Halket, Esq.
1,500
0
0
1,500
0
0
James Chapman, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
John Wilson, Esq.
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Salaries, &c. in the Office of the said Commissioners
6,292
8
3
Uncertain.
INCIDENTS
7,180,239
6
0¼
MISCELLANEOUS:
Russian Dutch Loan, per 55 Geo. 3, c. 115
119,517
1
9
Uncertain.
Deficiency of Profits to the South Sea Company, per 55 Geo. 3, c. 57
2,200
17
3
Contingencies in the Office for Inquiring into Charities
14,000
0
0
Irish Life Annuities
38,978
17
0
Commissioners of Roads to Holyhead
25,000
0
0
Duke of Wellington, per 54 Geo. 3, c. 161
20,000
0
0
Surplus Duties on Sugar, Malt, Annual man, and Tobacco
3,589,211
14
8¼
Commissioners for the improvement of Port Patrick harbour
5,000
0
0
George Boyd, Esq. Collector of the Customs at Caicos, being Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per 47 Geo. 3, c. 36
835
0
0
Charles M'Carthy, Esq. Governor of Sierra Leone, being Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per 47 Geo. 3, c. 36
476
0
0
Lieut. Col. Chisholm, Commandant at Goree being Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per 47 Geo. 3, c. 36
85
0
0
John R. Forbes, Acting Collector of the Customs at Port Maria, in Jamaica being Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per 47 Geo. 3, c. 36
427
0
0
Surplus Duties on Pensions, Offices, &c. Anno 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820.
52,993
6
4¾
Colonel Alexander Murray, Acting Collector of the Customs at Nassau being Bounty on the Seizure and Condemnation of Slaves, per 47 Geo. 3, c. 36
78
0
0
Land Taxes, Annis 1799 to 1820
1,139,266
16
9½
Major Gen. Sir John Keane, Governor of St. Lucia, Do. Do
69
0
0
Uncertain.
Archibald Campbell Do
690
0
0
Lieut. Geo. Lee Do
82
0
0
W. Salter Sanders Do
107
0
0
PENSIONS:
Arrears of Income Duty
24
0
0
Earl of Chatham
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Lord Rodney
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lady Dorchester
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
John Penn, Esq
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Duke of Clarence
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
Duke of Clarence
9,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke of York
9,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duchess of York
2,329
17
11¼
Dead.
Money reserved on account of Nominees appointed by the Lords of the Treasury, in Tontine, Anno 1789
23,383
11
5
Earl St. Vincent
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Viscount Duncan
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Duke of Cumberland
9,000
0
0
9,000
0
0
Duke of Richmond
6,333
6
8
6,333
6
8
Lord Erskine
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Sir Archibald Macdonald
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Sir James Mansfield
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Sir William Grant
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Sir Alan Chambreé
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Sir Sidney Smith
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Arrears of Property Duty
30,782
4
1¼
Baroness Abercrombie
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
John William Comptom
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Alexander Groke, Esq
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
John Hinchcliffe
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Duke of Sussex
9,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Duke Of Cambridge
9,000
0
0
12,000
0
0
Lord Hutchinson
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Money brought to this Account, being the remainder of the sum set apart in the Exchequer on 5th April 1820, as Hereditary Revenues, which had not been issued or paid in respect of any charges upon the Civil List Revenues, per Act 1 Geo. 4, c. 1, s. 4
39,018
4
2
Sir James Saumarez
1,200
0
0
1,200
0
0
Lord Boringdon, et al. for Lord Amherst
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
Duke of Atholl
3,664
7
4¼
Uncertain.
Henry M. Dyer, Esq
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
John Sewell, Esq
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
William Terrelt, Esq
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
[This Account continued over leaf.]
[This Account continued over leaf.]
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Money brought from Civil List, being the sum paid out of Hereditary Revenue, Set apart in the Exchequer, on 5th of April 1820, for charges payable out of the Civil List Revenues by said Act
28,074
3
6
Lady Nelson
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Sir Richard Strachan
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
0
Hon. Sarah Collingwood
500
0
0
500
0
0
Hon. Mary P. Collingwood
500
0
0
500
0
0
Duke of Clarence
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke of Cumberland
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke Sussex
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke Cambridge
6,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Duke Gloucester
14,000
0
0
14,000
0
0
Monies paid by divers person
171,816
9
4¼
Princess Sophia of Do.
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Earl Nelson
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Lord Rodney
923
1
6
923
1
6
Viscount Lake
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Viscount Wellington
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Earl of Ditto
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Jane Perceval
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
TOTAL Income of Duties, &c. applicable to paying the Charges prior to the Year 1811, and the Incidental Charges as they stood on 5th January 1821
42,996,630
7
0¼
Princesses Augusta, Elizabeth, Mary, and Sophia, £.9,000 per annum to each
36,000
0
0
36,000
0
0
Sir Archibald Macdonald
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir James Mansfield
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir William Grant
800
0
0
800
0
0
Sir Alan Chambré
600
0
0
600
0
0
Duke of Wellington
6,175
0
0
5,525
0
0
Lord Beresford
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lord Combermere
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lord Exmouth
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1811
156,105
0
0
Lord Hill
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Lord Lynedoch
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Duke of York, in trust for the Prince of Cobourg
50,000
0
0
50,000
0
0
Duke of York
7,000
0
0
14,000
0
0
Duke Clarence
1,250
0
0
2,500
0
0
Princesses, as above, £.4,000 per annum to each
8,000
0
0
16,000
0
0
Lord Colchester
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Duke of Cambridge
3,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1812
1,018,131
0
6
Duchess of Kent
5,703
5
11
6,000
0
0
Late Queen's Servants
18,129
11
2
Uncertain.
Late King's Do.
10,857
18
3
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1813
—
TOTAL of Incidental Charges, &c. upon the Consolidated Fund, as they stood on the 5th January 1821
1,548,278
11
1¼
1,223,438
1
10
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1814
5,500
0
0
Total Charge for Debt incurred prior to the year 1811
25,456,951
16
7½
24,677,128
14
5¾
Total of Incidental Charges, &c.
1,548,278
11
1¼
1,223,438
1
10
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1811
1,495,929
14
9
1,360,189
1
3
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1812
2,216,397
10
6¾
2,216,597
10
6¾
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1815
569,667
16
3½
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1813
4,152,940
19
9
4,152,940
19
9
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1814
3,269,727
2
6¼
3,271,119
10
9½
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1815
4,365,619
10
2
4,365,619
10
2
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1816
76,699
16
6¾
73,745
0
7¼
Total Income of Duties for the Year 1816
37,392
10
4¾
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1818
1,603,777
17
0
1,603,777
17
0
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1819
1,892,317
6
9½
1,442,005
16
5
Total Charge for Debt incurred in the Year 1820
363,932
15
2¾
1,517,468
4
9¾
Total Amount received in Great Britain
44,783,426
14
2½
46,442,573
1
0¾
45,903,830
7
7½
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued to make good Deficiency Consolidated Fund
107,332
17
5
Uncertain.
Total Charge payable in Great Britain
46,549,905
18
5¾
45,903,830
7
7½
Income received in Ireland
3,605,446
2
5½
Charge defrayed in Ireland
2,356,200
5
8¾
Total Income of the United Kingdom
48,388,872
6
8
Deficiency of Income
517,233
7
6½
48,906,106
4
2½
48,906,106
4
2½
III
FOR THE YEAR ENDED FIFTH JANUARY 1821.
[
The Accounts of Arrears and Balances were not ordered to be printed.
IV.
I.—TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
An Account of the Value of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from GREAT BRITAIN, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January, 1821 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated inclusive and exclusive of the Trade with IRELAND); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from GREAT BRITAIN, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF EXPORTS.
YEARS.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF IMPORTS.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
Total Exports.
Declared Value of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
VALUE, inclusive of the Trade with Ireland.
1819
40,135,952
0
44,564,044
14
12,287,274
15
56,851,319
9
48,905,760
16
1820
33,625,740
17
35,634,415
11
11,278,076
17
46,912,492
8
37,939,506
17
1821
36,517,262
2
40,240,277
10
11,490,339
8
51,730,616
18
38,619,897
8
VALUE, exclusive of the Trade with Ireland.
1819
35,845,340
0
41,963,527
0
10,835,800
6
52,799,327
7
45,188,249
9
1820
29,681,639
16
32,923,574
18
9,879,236
0
42,802,810
18
34,248,495
6
1821
31,517,891
1
37,818,035
13
10,525,025
18
48,343,061
11
35,568,669
9
2—TRADE OF IRELAND.
An Account of the Value of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from IRELAND, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January 1821 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated inclusive and exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from IRELAND, according to the Value thereof, as computed at the Average Prices Current.
OFFICIAL VALUE OF EXPORTS.
YEARS.
OEFICIAL VALUE OF IMPORTS.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
Declared Value of the produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
£
s.
VALUE, inclusive of Trade with Great Britain
1819
6,098,720
2
6,436,950
14
84,078
9
6,521,029
4
11,776,860
14
1826
6,395,972
17
5,708,582
15
61,882
12
5,770,465
7
9,747,206
1
1821
5,167,014
10
7,089,441
11
89,781
6
7,179,222
18
10,308,713
11
VALUE, exclusive of Trade with Great Britain
1819
1,033,660
7
736,325
17
24,057
17
760,383
15
1,423,099
0
1820
1,093,247
0
558,261
10
25,948
11
584,210
2
956,069
12
1821
924,542
5
577,519
13
30,886
11
608,406
5
855,933
4
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
NEW VESSELS BUILT.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, that were built and registered in the several Ports of the British Empire, in the Years ending the 5th January 1819, 1820, and 1821 respectively.
In the Years ending the 5th January.
1819.
1820.
1821.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
United Kingdom
752
86,748
777
89,091
619
66,691
Isles, Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
9
316
20
1,381
16
1,451
British Plantations
298
17,302
328
21,701
170
9,847
Total
1,059
104,366
1,125
112,173
805
77,989
VESSELS REGISTERED.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS usually employed in Navigating the same, that belonged to the several Ports of the British Empire, on the 30th September, in the Years 1818, 1819, and 1820 respectively.
——
On 30th Sept. 1818.
On 30th Sept. 1819.
On 30th Sept. 1820.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
United Kingdom
21,526
2,426,969
154,891
21,501
2,425,885
155,277
21,473
2,412,804
155,335
Isles, Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
498
25,639
3,595
496
25,712
3,613
496
26,225
3,775
British Plantations.
3,483
221,860
15,121
3,485
214,799
15,488
3,405
209,564
15,304
Total
25,507
2,674,468
173,607
25,482
2,666,396
174,378
25,374
2,648,593
174,414
VESSELS EMPLOYED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS employed in Navigating the same (including their repeated Voyages) that entered INWARDS, and cleared OUTWARDS, at the several Ports of the United Kingdom, from and to all Parts of the World (exclusive of the Intercourse between GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND respectively) during each of the Three Years ending 5th January 1821.
INWARDS.
Years ending 5th Jan.
BRITISH AND IRISH.
FOREIGN.
TOTAL.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1819
13,006
1,886,394
111,880
6,230
762,457
43,936
19,236
2,648,851
155,816
1820
11,974
1,809,128
107,556
4,215
542,684
32,632
16,189
2,351,812
140,188
1821
11,285
1,668,060
100,325
3,472
447,611
27,633
14,757
2,115,671
127,958
OUTWARDS.
1819
11,442
1,715,566
106,610
5,400
734,571
40,181
16,842
2,450,137
146,791
1820
10,250
1,562,802
97,267
3,795
556,041
30,333
14,045
2,118,843
127,600
1821
10,102
1,549,508
95,849
2,969
433,328
24,545
13,071
1,982,836
120,394
V.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE—5th Jan. 1821.
HEADS OF EXPENDITURE.
SUMS.
TOTAL.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
I.
For Interest, &c. on the Permanent Debt of the United Kingdom, unredeemed; including Annuities for Lives and Terms of Years
47,070,927
16
5½
II.
The Interest on Exchequer Bills, and Irish Treasury Bills
1,849,219
13
0
III.
The Civil Lists of
England
£.
4
4
Ireland
204,231
3
10½
1,062,011
8
2½
IV.
The other Charges on the Consolidated Fund.
Courts of Justice in England
65,137
17
2¾
Mint
13,800
0
0
Allowances to the Royal Family, Pensions, &c.
327,066
8
9½
Salaries and Allowances
56,948
4
9
Bounties
2,849
0
0
Miscellaneous
224,896
16
0
Permanent Charges in Ireland
381,503
19
5¾
2,134,213
14
5½
V.
The Civil Government of Scotland
132,080
11
9¾
VI.
The other Payments in anticipation of the Exchequer Receipts, viz.
£.
s.
d.
Bounties for Fisheries, Manufactures, corn, &c.
Customs
277,951
2
7¼
Excise
81,261
12
8
359,212
15
3¼
Pensions on the Hereditary Revenue
Excise
14,000
0
0
Post Office
13,700
0
0
27,700
0
0
Militia and Deserters Warrants, &c. Excise and Taxes
51,426
6
10¼
438,339
2
1½
VII.
The Navy, viz.
Wages
3,454,000
0
0
General Services
1,801,086
0
1
5,255,086
0
1
The Victualling Department
1,132,713
5
7
6,387,799
5
8
VIII.
The Ordnance
1,401,585
5
11¾
IX.
The Army, viz.
Ordinary Services
£.
14
4¼
Extraordinary Services
986,140
11
4
8,927,653
5
8¼
Deduct the Amount of Remittances and Advances to other Countries
1,229
12
0
8,926,423
13
8¼
X.
Loans, Remittances, and Advances to other Countries
Morocco
1,125
0
0
Holland
104
12
0
1,229
12
0
XI.
Issues from Appropriated Funds, for Local Purposes
49,128
18
0
XII.
Miscellaneous Services, viz.
At Home
2,324,652
16
9½
Abroad
292,047
12
6¼
2,616,700
9
3¾
71,007,648
2
6
Deduct, Sinking Fond on Loan to the East India Company
156,906
18
6
*70,850,741
4
0
*
£.
£.
VI.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT of the UNITED KINGDOM, payable in GREAT BRITAIN, as the same stood on the 5th of January, 1821.
CAPITALS, at
£.
Bank of England Annuities 1726.
South Sea Old and New Annuities 1751.
Consolidated Annuities.
Reduced Annuities.
CAPITALS at
£.
s.
Consolidated
£.
CAPITALS, at
£.
£.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Great Britain
14,686,800
21,037,684
13
11½
398,828,865
17
0¼
201,171,660
17
0
22,635,246
3
11
74,935,719
2
2
141,830,057
9
7
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Ireland
19,376,637
12
3¾
789,784
12
3¾
11,289,803
9
3¼
TOTAL LOANS to the Emperor of Germany, payable in Great Britain
7,502,633
6
8
TOTAL LOANS to the Prince Regent of Portugal, payable in Great Britain
895,522
7
9
14,686,800
21,037,684
13
11½
406,331,499
3
8¼
202,067,183
4
9
42,011,883
16
2¾
75,725,503
14
5¾
153,119,860
18
10¼
In the Names of the Commissioners of the National Debt
8,216,100
0
0
26,850,593
0
7
63,406,939
17
3
11,369,805
0
10
187,633
3
7¾
28,882
12
4
14,686,800
12,821,584
13
11½
379,480,906
3
1¼
138,660,243
7
6
30,642,078
15
4¾
75,537,870
10
10
153,090,978
6
6¼
Transferred to Commissioners for Purchase of Life Annuities, per Act 48 Geo. 3, cap. 142
3,682,183
0
0
2,019,847
0
0
41,706
0
0
90,646
0
0
TOTAL
14,686,800
12,821,584
13
11½
375,793,723
3
1¼
136,640,396
7
6
30,642,078
15
4¾
75,496,164
10
10
153,000,332
6
6¼
(
Repeated Column.
CAPITALS at £.5 per Cent. Annuities 1797 and 1802.
TOTAL CAPITALS.
ANNUAL INTEREST.
Annuities for Lives, or for Terms of Years.
Charges of Management.
Annual, or other Sums, by sundry Acts.
TOTAL of ANNUAL EXPENSE.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Great Britain
1,021,968
12
4
877,611,216
8
8¾
30,077,174
14
3
1,418,584
3
1¾
277,123
11
11¾
12,929,874
4
8¼
44,702,756
14
0¾
TOTAL DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in Ireland
31,456,225
13
10¾
1,274,263
17
5¾
43,724
6
2
553
16
11¼
404,542
0
9
1,723,084
1
4
TOTAL LOANS to the Emperor of Germany, payable in Great Britain
7,502,633
6
8
225,079
0
0
36,693
0
0
261,772
0
0
TOTAL LOANS to the Prince Regent of Portugal, payable in Great Britain
895,522
7
9
26,865
13
5¼
30,000
0
0
56,865
13
5¼
1,021,968
12
4
917,465,597
17
0½
31,603,383
5
2
1,462,308
9
3¾
277,677
8
11
13,401,109
5
5¼
46,744,478
8
10
In the Names of the Commissioners of the National Debt
6,000
9
11
110,065,905
4
6¾
3,361,399
18
7
599
5
3
3,361,999
3
10
—
1,015,968
2
5
807,399,692
12
5¾
28,241,983
6
7
1,461,709
4
0¾
277,677
8
11
16,763,108
9
3¼
46,744,478
8
10
Transferred to Commissioners for Purchase of Life Annuities, per Act 48 Geo. 3, cap. 141
5,834,382
0
0
177,261
8
9½
8,471
0
0
185,732
8
9½
—
1,015,968
2
5
801,565,310
12
5¾
28,064,721
17
9½
1,453,238
4
0¾
277,677
8
11
16,948,840
18
0¾
46,744,478
8
10
Add Annuities payable at the Exchequer, unclaimed for three Years, at 5th January, 1821
30,835
2
0
16,979,676
0
0¾
Deduct Life Annuities, payable at the Bank of England
383,000
8
0
Amount applicable to the Reduction of the Debt of the United Kingdom
16,596,675
12
0¾
REDEMPTION OF THE PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT of the United Kingdom, payable in GREAT BRITAIN, at the 5th January, 1821.
FUNDS.
CAPITALS.
Long Annuities at the Bank of England.
Transferred to, or Redeemed by the Commissioners, from 1st August 1786, to 5th Jan. 1821.
TOTAL SUMS Paid.
Average Price of Stocks.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Consolidated
£.
516,379,744
7
10¼
128,391,627
0
0
83,583,903
5
11
65⅛
Reduced
£.
395,131,452
0
1
244,861,855
0
0
157,017,569
11
0
64⅛
£.
22,635,246
3
11
4,334,500
0
0
3,598,504
5
0
83
Old South Sea Annuities
24,065,084
13
11½
Old
6,891,600
0
0
4,730,759
14
6
68⅝
New South Sea Annuities
New
5,140,500
0
0
3,571,895
1
9
69½
£.
1,919,600
0
0
1,131,000
0
0
796,780
10
0
70½
Consolidated
£.
82,732,119
2
2
7,796,400
0
0
6,586,934
8
9
84½
Consolidated
£.
141,972,057
9
7
145,500
0
0
130,113
7
6
89⅜
£.5 per Cent Annuities, Anno 1797 and 1802
1,021,968
12
4
—
—
—
—
£.
1,000,000
0
0
—
—
—
—
£.
14,686,800
0
0
—
—
—
—
Consolidated Long Annuities
1,359,435
18
8½
—
—
—
£.
1,643,510
2
1
180,296
9
4
155,334
10
3
86⅛
Capitals transferred to the Commissioners, the Dividends on which have not been claimed for 10 years and upwards, and which are subject to the Claims of the Parties entitled thereto
393,873,278
9
4
260,171,784
14
8
686,822
11
6
1,203,187,582
11
11¾
1,359,435
18
8½
399,560,101
0
10
Transferred to Commissioners, on account of Land Tax Redeemed, at 5th January 1821
25,726,200
13
11
1,177,461,381
18
0¾
Note.—The Unredeemed Debt of £.772,066,898 17
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
Transferred to Commissioners, for Purchase of Life Annuities, per Act 40 Geo. 3
5,834,382
0
0
1,171,626,999
18
0¾
Redeemed by the Commissioners, including Capitals, the Dividends upon which have not been claimed for 10 Years and upwards
399,560,101
0
10
Unredeemed Debt of the United Kingdom, payable in Great Britain, at 5th January, 1821
772,066,898
17
2¾
SUMS annually applicable to the Redemption of the National Debt.
ANNUITIES fallen in since 22nd June, 1802, or that will fall in hereafter.
£.
s.
d.
Annual Charge, by Act 26 Geo. 3
1,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Annuities 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th April, 1803
£.
s.
d.
Annual Charge, by Act 42 Geo. 3
200,000
0
0
23,369
13
4
Annual Charge, per Act 1 Geo. 4, c. 111, being
£.
410,000
0
0
Exchequer Annuities 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th Jan. 1805
7,030
6
8
Annuities for 99 and 96 Years, Expired Anno 1792
54,880
14
6
Annuities for 10 Years, Expired Anno 1787
25,000
0
0
Exchequer 4 Annuities 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th April. 1805
23,254
11
6
Exchequer Annuities Unclaimed for Three Years, at 5th January 1821
30,835
2
0
Exchequer of which Nominees shall have died prior to 5th July 1802
21,481
6
1
Exchequer 5 Annuities 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th April. 1806
7,776
10
0
Annual Interest on
£.
£.
11,592,497
9
2¼
Annual Interest on 4,334,500 Redeemed at 3½ per Cent
151,707
10
0
Exchequer 6 Annuities 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th April. 1807
4,710
10
0
Annual Interest on 7,796,400 Redeemed at 4per Cent
311,856
0
0
Annual Interest on 145,500 Redeemed at 5per Cent
7,275
0
0
Exchequer 6 Annuities 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th July 1807
10,181
0
0
Annual Interest on 180,296 9 4 Irish £.5 per Cent payable in England
9,014
16
5½
£.
6,640,220
3
7½
Bank Short Annuities, 2nd and 3rd Anne; Expired 5th Jan. 1808
418,333
0
11
Ann. Interest on £.5,702,030 at
£.
171,060
18
0
Bank Long Annuities, will expire 5th Jan. 1860
1,359,435
18
8½
Ann. Interest on 41,706 at 4 per Cents, transferred for Purchase of Life Ann.
1,668
4
9½
Ann. Interest on 90,646 at 5 per Cents, transferred for Purchase of Life Ann.
4,532
6
0
By an Act of 42nd Geo. 3, cap. 71, such Annuities as fall in after the passing of that Act, are not to be placed to the Account of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
Long Annuities transferred for transferred for Purchase of Life Ann.
8,471
0
0
Sinking Fund borne by Consolidated Fund, on Loans raised and Bills funded 1815, 1818 and 1819
1,377,013
4
7
Annual Appropriation on
£.
£.
626,255
10
5
Ann. Interest on £.193,743 14 10 at
£.
5,812
6
2¾
Ann. Interest on 24,295 14 5 at 4 per Cents uncl. for 10 years and upwards
971
16
6¾
Ann. Interest on 31,383 2 3 at 5 per Cents uncl. for 10 years and upwards
1,569
3
1¼
Long Annuities, unclaimed 2 3 at 5 per Cents uncl. for 10 years and upwards
599
5
3
Ann. Interest on
£.
13,122
0
0
Chargeable on the Sinking Fund:
22,665,843
16
9½
Life Annuities
£
8
0
Loans and Bills, funded from 1813 to 1820
9,070,900
1
4
Part of Charge on Treasury Bills raised for Ireland, Anno 1816
9,014
16
5½
9,462,915
5
9½
Deduct for Sinking Fund for said Loans and Bills
2,575,023
5
7¼
6,887,892
0
2¼
Actual Sinking Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, funded therein, Consolidated
15,777,951
16
7¼
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the IMPERIAL DEBT, at 5th January, 1821.
FUNDS.
CAPITALS.
Long Annuities at the Bank of England.
Transferred to, or Redeemed by the Commissioners from 1st August, 1786, to 5th January, 1821.
TOTAL SUMS Paid.
Average Price of Stock.
SUMS Annually applicable to the Reduction of the NATIONAL DEBT.
ANNUITIES fallen in since 22nd June 1802, or that will fall in hereafter.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Imperial
£.
7,502,633
6
8
2,479,087
0
0
1,564,455
0
5
62¾
£.1 per Cent per annum on Capitals created by Loan, 1797
36,693
0
0
Imperial Annuities for 25 Years, expired 1st May 1819.
Annual Interest on
£.
£.
74,372
12
2¼
£.
0
0
Redeemed by the Commissioners, including Capital transferred to them, the Dividends on which have not been claimed for 10 Years and upwards
2,479,437
3
0
350
3
0
Annual Interest on £.350 3 0, Unclaimed Capital, for 10 Years and upwards, at
£.
10
10
1
111,076
2
3¼
Debt unredeemed at 5th January, 1821
5,023,196
3
8
2,479,437
3
0
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the DEBT of PORTUGAL, at 5th January, 1821.
Reduced
£.
895,522
7
9
677,939
0
0
449,791
15
11
66⅜
Annual Appropriation for Redemption of Loan, 1809
30,000
0
0
Redeemed by the Commissioners
677,939
0
0
Annual Interest on
£.
£.
20,338
3
4¾
Debt Unredeemed at 5th January, 1821
217,583
7
9
50,338
3
4¾
An Account of the Progress made in the Redemption of the FUNDED DEBT of IRELANS, payable in Ireland, at 5th January, 1821, in British Currency.
Terminable and Life Annuities.
Annual Charge, per Act 37 Geo. 3
62,445
5
7
£.
21,436,865
18
5¾
9,095,483
7
0
7,133,864
18
8
78⅜
Terminable Annuities expired
66,616
6
6
Part of per Centage on Loans and Outstanding Treasury Bills, at 5th January, 1821
247,403
10
2¼
£.
1,061,630
15
4¾
435,184
12
3¾
385,623
16
5¾
38⅝
Annual Interest on
£.
318,341
18
4
Annual Interest on
£.
17,407
7
8¼
£.
12,828,712
15
10¼
110,340
12
8
1,538,909
6
7¼
1,382,187
1
2
89¾
35,327,209
9
8¾
110,340
12
8
11,069,577
5
11
8,901,675
16
3¾
Annual Interest on
£.
76,945
9
4
789,159
17
7½
Chargeable on Sinking Fund:
Redeemed by the Commissioners
11,069,577
5
11
Interest cancelled in Ireland, towards defraying the Charge of Treasury Bills raised anno 1816, &c. the remainder being cancelled in England
£.
Deduct Annuities expired
66,616
6
6
Deduct for Sinking Fund for said Bills 28,076 18 5¾
131,850
7
7
Actual Sinking Fund of Ireland, payable in Ireland
657,309
10
0½
Debt Unredeemed at 5th January, 1821
24,257,632
3
9¾
43,724
6
2
VII.—UNFUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT, and DEMANDS OUTSTANDING, on the 5th day of January, 1821.
AMOUNT OUTSTANDING.
EXCHEQUER:
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
Exchequer Bills
Provided for
1,965,900
0
0
Unprovided for
29,000 000
0
0
30,965,900
0
0
TREASURY,
Miscellaneous Services
1,071,033
2
3
Warrants for Army Services
51,530
14
7½
Treasury Bills of Exchange, drawn from Abroad
96,806
0
0
Irish Treasury Bills
Provided for
800,000
2,300,000
0
0
Unprovided for
1,500,000
3,519,369
16
10½
ARMY
1,094,371
6
10¾
NAVY
1,193,455
5
1
ORDNANCE
269,337
3
0¼
BARRACKS
Nil.
37,042,433
11
10½
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 20th March, 1821.
S. R. LUSHINGTON.
VIII.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
An Account, showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1820, have been disposed of; distinguished under their several Heads, to the 5th January, 1821.
SERVICES.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
NAVY
6,586,695
3
11
5,644,158
0
0
ORDNANCE
1,199,650
0
0
962,638
7
10¾
FORCES
9,443,243
12
4
7,542,420
10
4
FOR defraying the Charge of the CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS under-mentioned, viz.
Of the Bahama Islands, in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
3,301
10
0
2,000
0
0
Of the Dominica, in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
600
0
0
240
13
2
Of the Upper Canada in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
10,800
0
0
5,000
0
0
Of the Nova Scotia in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
13,593
15
0
6,796
17
6
Of the New Brunswick, in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
6,757
10
0
3,000
0
0
Of the Cape Breton in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
2,285
13
2
1,800
0
0
Of the Prince Edward's Island in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
3,520
15
0
2,000
0
0
Of the Newfoundland in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
5,976
0
0
4,500
0
0
Of the New South Wales in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
17,081
5
0
9,000
0
0
Of the Sierra Leone in addition to the Salaries now paid to the Public Officers, out of the Duly Fund, and the Incidental Charges attending the same, front the 1st of January to 31st December, 1820
22,358
1
0
20,000
0
0
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Of the Royal Military College; from the 25th Dec. 1819 to the 24th Dec. 1820, both inclusive, being 366 days
21,471
16
9
18,600
0
0
Of the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea; for the same time
35,500
13
10
33,017
16
3
For discharging Interest on Exchequer Bills, Irish Treasury Bills and Mint Notes
1,000,000
0
0
465,521
3
9¾
One hundredth part of Forty-one Millions of Exchequer Bills, authorized in the last Session, to be issued and charged upon the Aids granted in the present Session, to be issued and paid by equal Quarterly Payments to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, to be by them placed to the Account of the Commissioners fur the Reduction of the National Debt; for the year ending 1st Feb. 1820
410,000
0
0
307,500
0
0
For defraying the Expense attending the confining, maintaining and employing Convicts at home; for 1820
83,675
0
0
83,675
0
0
For defraying the Expense of confining and maintaining Criminal Lunatics; for 1820
3,164
0
0
1,548
14
1
For defraying the Expenses that may be incurred for Prosecutions, &c. relating to the Coin of this Kingdom; for 1820
8,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of Law Charges; for 1820
40,000
0
0
30,000
0
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1819, for defraying the Charge of Printing Acts of Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament, for the Sheriffs, Clerks of the Peace, and Chief Magistrates throughout the United Kingdom, and for the acting Justices throughout Great Britain; also for printing Bills, Reports, Evidence, and other Papers and Accounts
19,724
17
9
—
For defraying the Charge of Printing Acts of Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament, for the Sheriffs, Clerks of the Peace, and Chief Magistrates throughout the United Kingdom, and for the acting Justices throughout Great Britain; also for printing Bills, Reports, Evidence, and other Papers and Accounts for the House of Lords; for 1820
21,000
0
0
—
To make good the Deficiency of the Grant for 1819, for defraying the Expense of printing the Voles of the House of Commons, during the then Session of Parliament
1,425
11
4
1,425
11
0
For defraying the Expense of printing the Votes of the House of Commons, during the last and present Session
3,500
0
0
1,081
16
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1819, for printing 1,750 Copies of the 74th Volume of Journals of the House of Commons
1,933
10
10
1,933
10
10
For defraying the Expense that may be incurred in 1820, for printing 1,750 Copies of the 75th Volume of the Journals of the House of Commons
3,500
0
0
—
To make good the Deficiency of the Grant of 1819, for defraying the Expense of printing Bills, Reports and other Papers, by Order of the House of Commons, during the then Session
8,765
8
5
8,765
8
5
For defraying the Expense of printing Bills, Reports and other Papers, by Order of the House of Commons, during the last and present Session
21,000
0
0
4,759
3
0
For defraying the Expense that may be incurred for reprinting Journals and Reports of the House of Commons; in 1820
3,000
0
0
—
For defraying the Charge of the Allowances or Compensations granted or allowed as Retired Allowances or Superannuations, to Persons formerly employed in Public Offices or Departments, or in the Public Service, according to the provisions of an Act of the 50 Geo. 3, c. 117; for 1820
4,158
3
4
1,290
0
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Funds in the Departments of the Treasury, three Secretaries of Stale and Privy Council; for 1820
73,608
0
0
46,244
5
3¾
For defraying the Contingent Expenses and Messengers Bills in the Departments of the Treasury, three Secretaries of State, Privy Council and Lord Chamberlain; for 1820
85,628
0
0
56,445
10
7
For defraying the Amount of Bills drawn or to be drawn from New South Wales; for 1820
100,000
0
0
60,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of Works, and Repairs of Public Buildings; for 1820
41,787
0
0
10,274
0
10
For defraying the Salaries to the Officers, and Expenses of the Court, and Receipt of Exchequer; for 1820
7,000
0
0
1,517
14
9
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
For defraying the Expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons; for 1820
21,668
0
0
17,296
18
7
To make good the Deficiency of the Sum granted in the year 1819, for defraying the Expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons
6,889
6
7
6,389
6
7
For defraying the Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons; for 1820
27,604
0
0
24,193
3
6
For His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services; for 1820
60,000
0
0
22,569
0
0
For defraying the expenses incurred for printing by Order of the Commissioners, for carrying into execution the Measures recommended by the House of Commons, respecting the Records of the Kingdom; for 1820
12,528
14
5
—
To make good to the Civil Contingencies the like Sum advanced thereout in the year 1819, for Public Services, not being part of the Ordinary Expenditure of the Civil Contingencies
25,466
13
0
21,563
3
10½
To enable His Majesty to grant Relief to Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, Saint Domingo Sufferers, Dutch Naval Officers, and others, who have heretofore received Allowances from His Majesty, and who from Services performed or Losses sustained in the British Service, have special Claims upon His Majesty's Justice or Liberality
25,000
0
0
6,000
0
0
For defraying the Supplemental Charge for Miscellaneous Printing done by Order of the House of Commons in Session 1819
12,000
0
0
—
To enable His Majesty to provide for such Expenses of a Civil nature, as do not form a part of the Ordinary Charges of the Civil List; for 1820
300,000
0
0
299,978
1
1
Towards completing the Purchases necessary for the completion of the New Street, in conformity to an Act of the 53rd year of his late Majesty
100,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
On Account of the Expenses of His Majesty's Coronation
100,000
0
0
—
To enable His Majesty to pay the same to Persons, who at the time of his late Majesty's decease, received Salaries or Allowances from his Majesty's Privy Purse
403
6
0
403
6
0
Towards satisfying such Annuities, Pensions and other Payments as would have been payable out of the Civil List, in case the demise of his late Majesty had not taken place before the 5th April 1820, or out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland; in case the demise of his late Majesty had not taken place before the 5th July 1820, and to enable His Majesty to make such Advances as may be necessary for the Expenses of Her Majesty, until Parliament shall make other provision in respect thereof
200,000
0
0
132,063
0
2
The following SERVICES are directed to be paid, without any Fee or other Deduction whatsoever:
To be applied towards the Expenses to be incurred in the Management of the British Museum; for 1820
10,009
16
10
10,009
16
10
Towards defraying the Expense of the building of a Penitentiary House at Milbank; for 1820
60,000
0
0
43,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Establishment of the Penitentiary House at Milbank; from the 24th June 1820 to the 24th June 1821
21,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the National Vaccine Establishment; for 1820
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
For the Relief of American Loyalists; for 1820
9,000
0
0
—
Towards the Repair of Henry the Seventh's Chapels for 1820
3,317
6
9
3,317
6
9
For defraying the Expense of Works carrying on at the College of Edinburgh; for 1820
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
For maintaining and repairing the British Forts on the Coast of Africa; for 1820
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
For defraying the Sum which may be wanted for the year 1820, to pay the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of the Commissioners appointed on the part of His Majesty under the Treaties with Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands, for preventing the illegal Traffic in Slaves; and in pursuance of the Acts of the 58th and
SERVICES—
continued.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS. Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
59th years of his late Majesty King George 3rd, for carrying the said Treaties into effect
21,200
0
0
12,356
8
0
To pay, in the year 1820, the Awards of the Commissioners established in London, in pursuance of an Act of the 58th year of his late Majesty King George 3rd, for carrying into effect a Convention between His Majesty and His Most Faithful Majesty, signed at London the 28th July 1817, to Claimants of Portuguese Vessels and Cargoes captured by British Cruizers, on account of the unlawfully Trading in Slaves; from the 1st June 1814
150,000
0
0
98,603
0
0¼
For the support of the Institution called "The Refuge for the Destitute;" for 1820
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
To enable His Majesty to pay the same to the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne, for the Augmentation of the Maintenance of the Poor Clergy, according to the Rules and Regulations by which the Funds of that Corporation are governed
100,000
0
0
—
For making further Alterations and Improvements, for putting into a proper Stale the whole Line of Road between the Village of Chirk and Bangor Ferry, in North Wales; for 1820
22,594
0
0
5,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of making an Inland Navigation from the Eastern to the Western Sea, by Inverness and Fort William; for 1820
60,000
0
0
20,000
0
0
To enable His Majesty to pay Allowances from the 29th Jan. to the 5th July 1820, to certain of the Officers and Attendants upon his late Majesty, and to certain of the other Persons to whom his late Majesty had granted Pensions and Allowances payable out of his Privy Purse
10,500
0
0
8,056
6
0
For defraying the Charges of preparing and drawing the Lotteries for 1820, &c.
18,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the following SERVICES in IRELAND, which are directed to be paid Nett in British Currency:
For the Remuneration of certain Public Officers in Ireland, for their extraordinary Trouble in 1820
1,153
16
11
1,153
16
11
For defraying the probable Expenditure of the Board of Works in Ireland; for 1820
12,500
0
0
6,869
15
0
For defraying the Charge of Printing, Stationery, and other Disbursements, for the Chief and Under Secretaries Offices and Apartments, and other Public Offices in Dublin Castle, &c.; and for Riding Charges and other Expenses of the Deputy Pursuivants and extra Messengers attending the said Offices; also Superannuated Allowances in the said Chief Secretary's Office: for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
19,000
0
0
13,247
4
4½
For defraying the Expense of publishing Proclamations and other matters of a Public nature, in the Dublin Gazette and other Newspapers in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
9,500
0
0
7,739
3
11¼
For defraying the Expense of Printing 1,500 Copies of a compressed Quarto Edition of the Statutes of the United Kingdom, for the use of the Magistrates of Ireland; also 250 Copies of a Folio Edition of the same, bound, for the use of the Lords, Bishops, and Public Officers in Ireland
3,400
0
0
1,033
13
1
For defraying the Expense of Criminal Prosecutions, and other Law Expenses in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
20,000
0
0
20,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of apprehending Public Offenders in Ireland; for one Year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
1,000
0
0
276
18
5½
For completing the Sum necessary for the Support of the Non-conforming Ministers in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
8,628
0
0
6,471
0
0
For the Support of the Seceding Ministers from the Synod of Ulster in Ireland; for one year ending the 25th March 1821
4,034
15
5
2,017
7
8½
For the Support of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
756
0
0
756
0
0
For paying the Salaries of the Lottery Officers in Ireland; for one year ending the 24th June 1820
1,718
0
0
1,718
0
0
For the Establishment and Maintenance of the Public Navigations
SUMS voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
in Ireland, vested in the Directors of Inland Navigation; for 1820
3,450
0
0
3,450
0
0
For carrying on the Works at Dunmore Harbour; in 1820
12,000
0
0
6,461
10
9
For carrying on the Works of Howth Harbour; in 1820
6,440
0
0
1,846
3
1
For clothing the Battle Axe Guards; for 18 months, commencing from the 1st June 1820
378
0
0
378
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Police and Watch Establishments of the City and District of Dublin; For the year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
26,000
0
0
26,000
0
0
For paying the Salaries of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Duties, Salaries and Emoluments of the Officers, Clerks, and Ministers of Justice, in all Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
6,000
0
0
4,500
0
0
For enabling the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to issue Money from time to time, in Aid of Schools established by Voluntary Contributions
3,000
0
0
406
3
0¾
For defraying the Expense of building Churches and Glebe Houses, and of purchasing Glebes in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
9,230
0
0
9,230
0
0
For further defraying the Expense of building Churches and Glebe Houses, and of purchasing Glebes in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
18,461
0
0
18,461
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Trustees of the Linen and Hempen Manufactures of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821; to be by the said Trustees applied in such manner as shall appear to them to be most conducive to promote and encourage the said Manufactures
19,938
0
0
19,938
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Commissioners for making wide and convenient Streets in the City of Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
11,000
0
0
11,000
0
0
For defraying the Additional Allowance to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Navigation in Ireland; for 1820
276
18
5½
276
18
5½
For defraying the Expense of putting the House of the Royal Irish Academy in Grafton-street, into perfect Repair
300
0
0
300
0
0
For defraying the Expense of completing the Dough Allan Canal; for 1820
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of supporting the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
24,000
0
0
24,000
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Foundling Hospital at Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
30,000
0
0
30,000
0
0
For supporting the House of Industry, Hospitals and Asylums for Industrious Children in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
24,438
0
0
24,438
0
0
For defraying the Expense of supporting the Richmond Lunatic Asylum at Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
6,500
0
0
6,500
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Hibernian Society for Soldiers Children; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
9,000
0
0
9,000
0
0
For defraying the probable Charge of the Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin; for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
1,800
0
0
1,800
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Female Orphan House, in the Circular Road near Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
2,600
0
0
2,600
0
0
For supporting the Westmorland Lock Hospital in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
For supporting the Lying-in Hospital in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
For defraying the probable Expense of Doctor Steven's Hospital; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
1,400
0
0
1,400
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Fever Hospital and House of Recovery in Cork-street, Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
4,600
0
0
4,600
0
0
For defraying the Expense of the Hospital for Incurables, in Dublin; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
460
0
0
460
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the Establishment of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
8,928
0
0
8,928
0
0
For defraying the Expenses of the Association incorporated for discountenancing Vice and promoting the Knowledge and Practice of the Christian Religion; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
6,462
0
0
6,462
0
0
For defraying the Charge of the Green Coal Hospital of the City of Cork; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
140
0
0
140
0
0
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s.
d.
£.
s.
d.
For defraying the Expense of the Cork Institution; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
2,300
0
0
2,300
0
0
For defraying the Expenses of the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
5,538
0
0
5,538
0
0
For defraying the Expenses of the Dublin Society; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
8,000
0
0
8,000
0
0
For defraying the Expenses of the Farming Society of Ireland; for one year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
For defraying Civil Contingencies in Ireland; for the year ending the 5th Jan. 1821
20,000
0
0
13,084
8
3¼
21,101,717
2
0½
16,543,768
4
7¼
Towards paving off and discharging any Exchequer Bills or Treasury Bills, charged upon the Aids or Supplies of the years 1818, 1819 or 1820, now remaining unpaid or unprovided for
£.
0
0
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to Two Acts of the 57th year of his late Majesty, to authorize the issue of Exchequer Bills, for the carrying on Public Works and Fisheries in the United Kingdom
989,750
0
0
39,489,750
0
0
20,376,600
0
0
To pay off and discharge Irish Treasury Bills charged upon the Aids or Supplies of 1820, outstanding and unprovided for
2,000,000
0
0
This Sum, although voted separately, is included in the above Sum of
£.
60,591,467
2
0½
36,920,368
4
7¼
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES,
Not being part of the SUPPLIES granted for the Service of the Year.
£.
s.
d.
James Fisher, Esq. on his Salary, for additional Trouble in preparing Exchequer Bills, pursuant to Act 48 Geo. 3, cap. 1
375
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
4,700
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Commercial Exchequer Bills
1,500
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for building additional Churches, per Act 58 Geo. 3, cap. 45
3,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for the Redemption of the Land Tax
1,277
5
0
Bank of England, for Management on Life Annuities
1,575
8
7¼
Bank of England, to make good Deficiences of Balance on account of Unclaimed Dividents, &c. pursuant to Act 56 Geo. 3, c. 97
291,395
2
8
303,822
16
3¼
Amount of Sums voted, as above
60,591,467
2
0½
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
60,923,751
2
6¾
WAYS AND MEANS
for answering for foregoing SERVICES.
£.
s.
d.
Duty on Malt, Sugar, Tobacco and Snuff, and on Pensions, Offices, &c. continued
3,000,000
0
0
Excise Duties, continued per Act 56 Geo. 3, c. 17
2,500,000
0
0
Profits of Lotteries
240,000
0
0
Monies to arise from the Sale of Old Naval and Victualling Stores
263,820
0
0
Loan per Act 1 Geo. 4, c. 17
5,000,000
0
0
Loan per Act 1 Geo. 4, c. 22, from the Commissioners for the Redaction of the National Debt
12,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Bills Funded, pursuant to Act 1 Geo. 4, c. 13
7,000,000
0
0
Interest on Land Tax redeemed by Money
94
15
7¾
Unclaimed Dividends, &c.
283,810
7
11
Brought from the Civil List Revenue, to replace the like Sum issued out of the Aids granted in 1820, for the Payment of certain Charges upon the Civil List, pursuant to Act 1 Geo. 4, c. 1, sec. 4
29,649
18
0
Repayments on account of Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to two Acts of the 57th year of his late Majesty, for carrying on Public Works and Fisheries in the United Kingdom
188,006
7
0
30,505,381
8
6¾
Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means, 1 Geo. 4, c. 31
£.
0
0
Irish Treasury Bills, 1 Geo. 4, c. 46
1,500,000
0
0
30,500,000
0
0
TOTAL Ways and Means
61,005,381
8
6¾
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
60,923,751
2
6¾
Surplus Ways and Means
81,630
6
0
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 23rd March, 1821.
C. ARBUTHNOT.
REPORTS.
FOREIGN TRADE OF THE COUNTRY.— FIRST REPORT
of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider of the means of Improving and Maintaining the
of the Country: Ordered to be printed
th March
THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider of the means of maintaining and improving the Foreign Trade of the country, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon from time to time to the House; and to whom the report relative to the timber trade, which was communicated from the Lords in the last session of parliament, and the several petitions respecting the duties on timber, presented to the House in the present session, were severally referred;—Have, pursuant to the order of the House, considered the matters to them referred; and have agreed to the following Report:
YOUR Committee have deviated from the course which their former report appeared to prescribe, and instead of proceeding to examine some of the burthens that were stated to press with considerable weight upon the foreign trade of the country generally, have applied their consideration to that particular branch of it, which embraces the importation of timber from the northern states of Europe, and the British colonies in North America. This they have done, as well on account of that branch having (as appears by a report referred to them) already occupied the attention of a committee of the other House of parliament, appointed for similar purposes; as of the anxiety they understand to prevail among the commercial and shipping interests, connected with the trade in question, and the inconvenience of a continued suspense in respect to the system which parliament may deem it expedient to adopt, on the expiration of the existing law, which, according to the latest extension of it, will terminate on the 25th of March in the present year.
In the imposition of the several duties, at present in force, on the importation of timber, the consideration of the legislature appears to have been directed to two distinct objects; first, to the protection and encouragement of the wood trade in the British American colonies; and secondly, to the augmentation of the revenue.
Regarding them in this point of view, the first question that obviously presented itself was, to the maintenance of what part of these duties, if of any, the public faith might be supposed to be committed; a short reference to the laws which imposed the respective duties, and to the circumstances attending the periods at which they were imposed, has been sufficient to satisfy your Committee on this head.
Although the policy of giving encouragement to the trade in timber from the British American colonies, may be inferred to have been previously entertained, from the acts 3 and 4 Anne, and 5 Geo. 3, by which bounties upon the export of it were granted; it does not appear to have been acted upon with much effect before the year 1809; at that time the course of events had placed our relations with the northern states (from whose territories our supplies of timber, as well foe domestic as for naval purposes, had been chiefly derived) in a situation which gave rise to a well-founded apprehension, Jest the resources in that quarter might entirely cease to be available for the demands of this country.
Under the influence of this apprehension, it was deemed advisable by parliament to resort to the hitherto neglected though abundant supplies to be found in our American colonies, and by adequate protection to encourage the transport of them to meet the exigency with which we were threatened; to accomplish this object, a virtual exemption from duty was granted to the timber imported from our North American possessions, while a large addition was made to that levied on timber from the north of Europe, first, by the 49th Geo. 3rd, c. 98, and in the ensuing year by the 50th, c. 77, by which the duties of the preceding year were doubled, making the whole duly on northern timber, including the temporary duty imposed in the same years, for the support and during the continuance of the war, amount to 2
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
From this statement it will appear, that of these duties (however they may all alike have
l.
s.
The policy most advantageous to the country, as far as the mere supply of timber is concerned, would be, to obtain it of the best quality, and at the lowest price, without reference to the quarter from whence it might be derived; and the course of your Committee has been to inquire, first, to what extent the operation of this policy is infringed by the system of duties now in force; in the next place, to examine how far the limits imposed on its operation are sustained by adequate considerations of expediency; and lastly, to determine whether, by the adoption of any and what alterations, the duties might be rendered, as far as circumstances allowed, more consistent with the regard due to the principle on which this policy proceeds, and generally more beneficial to the commercial interests of the United Kingdom.
It appears that previously to the imposition of the duties in 1809–10, the supplies of wood required for the consumption of the country were principally furnished by the northern states of Europe; that subsequently to that period, a great and gradually increasing proportion of its supplies has been drawn from the British North American colonies; that at present the use of the limber from the north of Europe, owing to the price it bears in comparison to American timber, is in a great measure confined to the higher and more valuable description of buildings, and to purposes for which increased strength in bearing is necessary or desirable; that for less substantial buildings, and for the inferior purposes to which wood is applicable, the American timber and deals have been generally brought into consumption, and although the red pine of America (of which the quantity is relatively small) is said by several witnesses to be equal in quality to the fir from the north of Europe, yet the yellow pine, of which the great importation consists, is stated, when used in this country, to be inferior to it, except for particular purposes and in particular situations, from its supposed greater liability to dry-rot, and comparative deficiency in strength and durability. At the same time there is reason to believe, from other evidence, that much prejudice subsists on this head, and that in Lancashire, where the yellow pine has been a long time in general use than in any other part of the kingdom, as well as in the neighbourhood of Shields, its qualities are considered as more valuable than they are generally esteemed; and there is repeated-testimony, that when used in America, both in the construction of ships and buildings, it has been found to be free from the particular defect alluded to, and of a durability equal to that of the best timber of Europe.
The scale of comparative value attached by different witnesses to the wood drawn from each particular country, will be seen in the evidence of sir R. Seppings, Mr. Holland, Mr. White, Mr. Copland, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Smith, Mr. Haigh, Mr. Bellhouse and others, to which your Committee think it sufficient to refer.
That the supply of wood to meet the demands of the British and Irish market might be obtained with greater facility and cheapness to the consumer (if the means of purchasing and transporting it at the lowest rate were the only considerations to be attended to), a reference to the account of the charges of obtaining and transporting it from the northern ports of Europe, independent of the duty, will leave no doubt; and although under the pressure of the duty, the demands of the country for superior purposes may have been such as to lead to the importation to a certain amount of timber from the Baltic, it yet must be obvious, that while this duty bears upon it with its present weight, it is to those higher purposes alone to which, that species of timber can be applicable; and that a great proportion of wood of an inferior quality must be forced into consumption, both in avowed substitution for the superior timber
The prudential considerations by which the application of the same principle appear to have been limited, are, the danger incident to want of competition, from the exclusion of colonial timber, and from a reliance for our supplies on a single source: the possible failure of supply from the north of Europe, in a moment of necessity; the maintenance and employment of our shipping, and the effect that might be produced on the various interests connected with our American trade, and the capital embarked in the establishments for carrying it on. The same prudential considerations, in the opinion of your Committee, at present forbid any recommendation on their part, tending entirely to take away the legislative protection hitherto enjoyed by the colonial trade; but, as the extent of that protection is admitted on almost all hands to exceed the necessary bounds, they have directed their attention to ascertain to what amount that protection, and in what mode, should be prospectively continued.
In so far as any alteration introduced is favourable to foreign trade, it must have a tendency to produce an increased importation from the north of Europe, and thereby possibly to induce an increased demand from that quarter for the manufactures of Great Britain; and your Committee are inclined to believe that an increased demand would be the result, as well from the desire for British manufactures that is said strongly to prevail in those countries, as from the extent to which the export of them has been maintained, notwithstanding the burthens imposed on the importation of this important branch of their produce into the United Kingdom. Your Committee do not think it improbable, that a diminution of the export of wood from the British North American colonies might, on the other hand, be experienced; some diminution, as far as the trade is concerned, would be desirable, and indeed can hardly fail to take place, even independent of any alteration of duties, owing to the excess beyond the consumption of the country, to which the importation has been, by peculiar circumstances, recently enlarged. The causes to which we may attribute this excess, are, in part, the prolonged expectation of an alteration in the rate of duties, combined with the desire to take advantage of the time the present law may continue, and to anticipate the impending change by the greatest possible previous importation; and in part, to the amount of shipping (greatly exceeding the actual demands of our commerce), which has been thrown out of employment by the conclusion of the war, and other circumstances, and which has been since engaged in this branch of trade, not so much because the employment was attended with advantage, as because it was preferable to the vessels lying entirely idle, incurring expense, and deteriorating in value.
As our intercourse with the northern states must be liable to be influenced by the fluctuations of political events; and as the exclusion front their ports, which has been once experienced, may at some future period recur, your Committee are apprehensive, that the consequences of any measure that might have the effect of placing our dependence for a supply of timber exclusively on those countries, might become eventually the occasion of serious political inconvenience and danger; and by the exclusion of competition, possibly defeat the expectation of comparative cheapness to the consumers of this country.
The alarms represented in the petitions from the shipping interest in various quarters, which have been referred by the House to your Committee, appear to proceed on a presumption of the necessarily destructive effects of any alteration made in the existing duties, a measure which is accordingly deprecated with corresponding earnestness. Your Committee feel the respect due to an interest so important to the power and safety of the country; and if all the weight is not given to the representations of the petitioners which they may expect, it is because the alarms expressed in them appear to be carried to excess, and the objects sought, not conducive to the general commercial interests of the kingdom, in which their own must be inseparably involved.
Your Committee see no reason whatever to imagine, that the alteration which they have in contemplation, would be attended with the
The degree in which the shipping may be affected by any change that is adopted, must depend upon the influence which such change is likely to have in reducing the export of wood from the colonies. From the evidence of persons conversant in the uses to which wood is applied, your Committee collect, that for many of those uses, the wood imported from America is either indispensable, or preferable, or as good, or nearly so, as that brought from the north of Europe. In reference to the first description, are mentioned masts for ships of large dimensions, both ships of war, and the more valuable description of merchant-men, which can only be found in our North American colonies, and which must therefore form a considerable article of import into this country under almost any state of duties. To the second, all articles in which facility of working, and an extensive surface and freedom from knots is required, and to whatever extent pine timber for these purposes is employed, the American wood even at equal prices would have a preference. To the last, the application to all inferior purposes, as for packing chests, and various objects in the interior of houses, or in situations where, it has the benefit of a free circulation of air: for such uses it may be fairly supposed, and indeed it is more than once admitted, that the consideration of mere cheapness would cast the balance in favour of the produce of our American provinces.
The aggregate of these applications of timber, form a very considerable proportion of the general consumption of the country; and it appears to your Committee, that it would require something little short of equality in point of price with those of the Baltic, to exclude the timber and deals of the British colonies from importation for these purposes. Nor must it be forgotten that the experience, obtained within the last few years, of the qualities and value of the American wood, which has had the effect of removing much of the prejudice that prevailed against it, in so far must probably have contributed to induce a permanent extension of its consumption.
By the estimate of some of the witnesses, the excess of supply of American pine beyond the demand, is stated to be at present considerable, insomuch that a heavy loss is incurred by the importers. This circumstance, even under the existing duties, cannot fail to lead to a reduction in its future importation, and of course to a diminution of employment, in the same degree, of the shipping engaged in the trade. If the effect of an alteration of duty should for a time increase the demand for northern timber, it must also undoubtedly tend to a similar consequence, not likely to be more than partially counterbalanced by a corresponding increase of demand for British shipping in the trade with the north of Europe from the ports of which a smaller number of vessels may be sufficient for an equal amount of importation.
By a diminution of the demand from America, the capital invested in saw-mills and establishments in those colonies, stated at 150,000
l.
To the Canadian propriety, the principal value of the timber trade appears to consist in the employment it affords to the persons concerned in agriculture and their servants, during a certain period of the year, in conveying the wood from the places where it has been felled, to the places from which it is to be conveyed to the ports of export; while the part of the business which belongs to cutting and rafting, is in many instances performed by axe-men passing from the United States for this purpose, who are understood to be more expert in these operations than the labourers of the British territories.
If what has been stated by your Committee leads them to expect some diminution of the export of the American colonies, from a change in the scale of existing duties, they have also reason to believe that it is only by a temporary restraint of that export that the character of the wood is likely to be improved, and its value eventually increased; such a diminution, therefore, is in itself by no means in the contemplation of your Committee, a sufficient ground of objection on the part of the colonies to any alteration that may be proposed, unless it be such an alteration as shall be calculated extensively to exclude from consumption the timber of the North American colonies, and transfer the trade to foreigners. Within certain limits, the trade of the colonies of Great Britain have a just claim to encouragement and support from the mother country; and to such claim your Committee are anxious to give full weight. It is not, however, a question whether this encouragement and support should be given or withholden; but admitting it to be due, to what extent it should be carried, in justice to other interests, which have also their peculiar claims to attention, and which are, in the opinion of your Committee, also deeply involved in this discussion. On the fair regard shown to foreign countries, the extent of our commerce with them may depend, and in providing with too much partiality for the interests connected with the trade to and from our American colonies, we may put in hazard all those still more extensive interests that are engaged in the export to those countries which are directly concerned in the timber trade (if not of our foreign trade generally), by such a proof of deliberate preference of a principle of restriction, as the rule of our commercial policy.
In maintaining the original duty imposed expressly for the purpose of encouragement to the North American trade, it cannot be contended that every claim on public faith is not fully satisfied. In point of expediency, however, and in consideration of the interests, involved, your Committee are disposed to think it may be allowed to go even something further in favour of the colonies. The difference created by duty on timber amounts at present to 3
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
However the tendency of the evidence generally may be, to recommend an alteration in the duties, to such an amount as may prove a corrective to the trade, without impairing materially the consumption of the American timber; a considerable variety of opinion was expressed by the witnesses examined, as to the extent to which an alteration of the existing duty might be carried, without danger to the fair demand for the produce of our American colonies. Amidst the different opinions given, it was difficult for your Committee to determine the precise amount by which the relative difference between the colonial timber, and that from the northern states should be reduced, and in fixing upon 20
s.
Your Committee next proceeded to consider, in what mode that alteration of duty should be effected, whether by reduction of duty on Baltic timber, by an imposition of duty on American, or by a combination of both; and the result of their consideration has been, a preference of the last mode of producing the relative approximation they have recommended, in the prices of the respective descriptions of timber, by the imposition of 10
s.
The state of the duty on deals will not, in the opinion of your Committee, allow the same degree of relative reduction to be applied to it, which has been recommended for that on timber.
The rate of duty on long deals at present falls considerably below that on timber, whilst on those of short lengths, it rather exceeds it. In what principle this distinction in favour of deals, as compared with timber in the log, originated, your Committee are at a loss to discover, and are averse to recommend a continuance of it, at least to its present extent. They feel, however, considerable difficulty in proposing to equalize the duty on timber and deals, which, if effected by a reduction of the duty on timber, must be attended with a large sacrifice of revenue, and if by an addition to that on deals, might tend in some measure rather to impair than assist the foreign trade of the kingdom, by the effect it would have on the exports of wood from those states, of which deals form the greatest proportion. This, in the opinion of your Committee, precludes the application of a rule of strict equality to deals and to timber; but it appears to them, that while the amount of duty on timber is reduced in the degree proposed, a small increase on deals of large dimensions, will in some measure lessen the distinction, at least as far as that class of deals is concerned. On the shorter deals, they recommend some reduction of duty, less with reference to the manner in which the duty at present bears upon this description of deals in comparison with timber, than in consideration of the difference in the quantity of wood contained in a given number of deals of the larger and smaller dimensions, which seems to call, in respect of the latter, for a more favourable assessment. Another alteration which has suggested itself to your Committee, is one that has reference to deal ends, on which a comparative low duty has been hitherto levied, in order to accommodate the ship-owner in broken stowage; this indulgence has been found to lead, to great abuse in covering the introduction of timber of this description as cargo (a practice never contemplated) to an extent most injurious to the revenue. They therefore submit the propriety of confining the length of this class of deals to six feet, and making a moderate reduction in duty to which they are at present liable.
In consequence of the report referred to them, the mode of levying the duty on deals and wood of the other denominations, under which it is imported into this country, according to the cubic measure, has been an object of your Committee's examination; and although the reduction of them all to their cubical contents in assessing the duty, seems, on the first view of it, the most easy as well as the most equitable principle that could be adopted, your Committee have found reasons in support of continuing the existing mode (both as a matter of convenience and as producing a degree of equality between the countries by which our importations of wood are furnished), sufficient to prevent their proposing to the House to relinquish it; in preserving the mode, however, they are of opinion, that an improvement may be introduced into the scale now in use, by admitting a gradation of duty, between the deal ends and deals of the largest class, which, it appears to your Committee, would attain more effectually that advantage by which the existing mode of levying the duty is chiefly recommended.
Your Committee have abstained from entering, in this report, into details upon the subject of battens, oak-plank, staves, deck-plank, paling-boards, masts, spars, and the other various denominations under which timber is imported, to which their attention has beeen directed. The duties on these will be influenced by those on the more important articles, and will make a necessary part of any measure that may hereafter be submitted to the House.
The policy of a legislative preference being given to the importation of timber in the log, and the discouragement of the importation of deals, seems to your Committee very doubtful, both because they are of opinion that any advantage to be expected from the conversion of timber into deals in this country, will not be sufficient to compensate for the corresponding disadvantage to the general consumer (to whom the deals would come with a considerable increase of cost), and because it is founded on a principle of exclusion, which they are most averse to see brought into operation in any new instance, without the warrant of some evident and great political expediency.
Your Committee have discovered in the accounts before them, that the protective duty in favour of British shipping, has been made to operate in different degrees on the importation of wood of different descriptions, varying from 2½ to 5 per cent, and in some unimportant instances falling below, as in others considerably exceeding these rates, on the value of the particular article imported; for this inequality, which introduces much perplexity into the collection of the duty, there does not appear to be any sufficient reason, and they therefore submit to the consideration of the House, the propriety of making the same duty attach on all importations of wood in foreign ships alike, and that the amount of difference between the importation in the foreign ship and that in the British ship, should be fixed for the future at 5 per cent.
One only further recommendation has suggested itself to your Committee, which, in concluding their report, they are desirous of offering to the House. It has appeared in the evidence, that a great proportion of the timber which is imported from the province of Canada, is the growth of the United States, and has been permitted to be received into that province free from duty, and has from thence been exported to the United Kingdom, with all the benefits and immunities conceded to the produce of the British territory. To obviate the objection to which this practice appears to your Committee to be liable, they are of opinion, that with every exportation of timber from the British provinces in North America, a certificate of its being the produce of those provinces should be required, and that timber imported without such certificate should be hereafter charged with the same rate of duty as would be payable on it, if imported directly from a foreign state.
In submitting the result of what has occurred to them in the course of their inquiry into this important subject, your Committee have only to add, that in the recommendations which they have tendered, it has been their endeavour, to the utmost of their power, to conciliate the claims of adverse interests and the contending considerations of policy that demanded their attention. If what they propose falls far short of a recurrence to those sound principles by which all commerce ought to be regulated, they trust it will appear to the House, that they have proceeded as far as, under present circumstances, is consistent with an equitable regard to the protection due to extensive interests that have grownup under an established system, and which must be deeply affected by any material and sudden change to which that system is subjected.
9
th March,
FOREIGN TRADE OF THE COUNTRY.—SECOND REPORT
of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider of the means of Improving and Maintaining the
of the Country; Ordered to be printed
th May
The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider of the means of maintaining and improving the Foreign Trade of the country, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon from time to time to the House;—Have, pursuant to the order of the House, considered the matters to them referred; and have agreed to the following Report:
From the period of their submitting to the House their last report, the attention of your Committee has been directed to the commerce of the United Kingdom with India and China, and the trade between those countries and other parts of the world. The advanced state of the public business, and the additional evidence, yet to be received, before they can consider themselves as having completed their investigation into that branch of 1 heir inquiry, affords them no expectation of being able to produce a report, embracing a general view of the subject, in sufficient time to admit, of any measure being founded upon it, and receiving the approbation of parliament previously to the close of the session.
It has however occurred to your Committee, in the course of their inquiry, that there are some branches of the trade, in reference to which further facilities may be afforded, with great advantage to the interests of British commerce and navigation; and that such facilities cannot be delayed to a future year, without the risk of losing much of the beneficial results which, at the present time, may be expected from them This impression is founded rather upon general principles, and circumstances of general notoriety, than upon any particular evidence adduced before your Committee, however the tendency of that evidence may have been further to establish the expediency of the measures about to be proposed.
In adverting to the peculiar system of laws by which the trade of the East Indies is regulated, the House cannot but observe, that the subjects of foreign nations, whether European or American, are in possession of privileges far more extensive than those which are enjoyed by his majesty's subjects generally, and greater, as to many branches of circuitous and foreign trade, than have been accorded to the East India Company itself. To relieve the commerce and shipping of this country from a situation of such comparative disadvantage (for the continuance of which your Committee can discover no sufficient reason) they feel the expediency of some measure, the principle of which may be, to allow British subjects, as well private traders as the East India Company, to carry on every sort of traffic between India and foreign countries (with the exception of the trade in tea, and that with the United Kingdom and the British colonies, with which they do not propose any interference) which foreigners are now capable of carrying on; and have therefore come to the following resolution, which they submit to the House.
Resolved, "That it is expedient to permit his majesty's subjects to carry on trade arid traffic, directly and circuitously, between any
18
th May,
EAST INDIA TRADE—REPORT
relative to the
with the
and
from the Select Committee of the House of Lords, appointed to inquire into the means of extending and securing the
of the Country, and to report to the House: Ordered to be printed
th April
By the LORDS COMMITTEES appointed a SELECT COMMITTEE to inquire into the means of extending and securing the Foreign Trade of the country, and to report to the House; and to whom were referred the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee appointed in the last Session of Parliament for the like purpose; and also the several Petitions, Papers, and Accounts which had been referred to that Committee; and also the several Petitions presented in the present Session of Parliament on the subject of Foreign Trade:—
ORDERED TO REPORT,
That the Committee have met, and have proceeded in the inquiry, which had been entered upon by the said Committee appointed in the last session of parliament, into the state of British commerce with Asia, including as well that which is carried on with the territorial possessions of the honourable East India Company, as that with the Independent States in the same part of the globe.
In the conduct of this inquiry, the Committee have not thought it necessary to direct their attention to the commercial concerns of the East India Company, as administered by the Court of Directors with a view to the interests both political and financial of that corporate body, further than was necessary to elucidate the present state and future prospects of free trade, as affected by existing regulations.
This subject therefore naturally divides itself according to the various restrictions to which different descriptions of commerce in these regions are now subjected by law: that to the territorial possessions of the Company being carried on by licence only from the Company; that to other parts of Southern Asia (China excepted), and to the islands of the Indian ocean, by licence from the board of control; that to China being entirely prohibited to all British vessels but those in the actual employment of the East India Company, and the whole trade confined to ships of a certain fixed amount of tonnage.
The trade which is carried on by licence with the territories of the East India Company is confined to the presidencies of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, and the port of Penang.—Some inconveniencies and injury to individuals are stated to have arisen where circumstances have made it desirable to change the destination of vessels from one of these ports to another, after their arrival in the East, in consequence of the delay attendant upon obtaining a permission to do so from the local government. This, indeed, may be obviated by obtaining licences including the above-named ports generally, which have been sometimes applied for, and do not appear to have been refused. But the system of requiring licences does not appear to be attended with any public benefit; and a fee is charged for each of them.
A more material advantage might probably accrue to the free trader from being permitted to trade with other smaller ports on the coasts of Coromandel and Malabar, where the Company have already collectors of the customs established, who might effectually counteract an illicit trade; whereby a wider field of adventure may be opened, and an additional stimulus to commercial intercourse afforded to the native inhabitants. It would, however, be necessary in this case to provide by regulations, which it could not be difficult to establish, against any abuse of this extension of privilege by British vessels carrying on the coasting trade, in which there is every reason to believe they might successfully compete with the native ships, which have hitherto been considered as enjoying a monopoly of that trade, of which the East India Company could not reasonably be expected to deprive their subjects as long as they are precluded from carrying on the direct trade to Europe in India-built vessels. It must be observed, however, that the coasting trade is now open to vessels of other nations, those of the United States not being excluded from it, and instances having been stated to the Committee in which the Portuguese flag has been allowed to pass from one port to another carrying on trade, from which British European ships are excluded.
The Committee cannot dismiss this branch of the subject without observing, that although it is difficult from the great fluctuation which the free trade to the Peninsula of India has experienced since it has been admitted upon the terms of the renewed charter granted to the East India company in 1813, to estimate fairly the precise amount of its increase, it must be admitted that its pro-
l.,
l.;
If the restriction of trade to vessels of the burthen of 350 tons and upwards, in all seas and countries within the limits of the East India company's charter, has any tendency to check the operations of the private trader in a direct commerce with the dominions of the East India company, it can hardly fail to operate still more as an impediment to his exertions in seeking new channels of commerce, or extending those which already exist with other countries and islands in the same part of the globe. Here a field in a great measure new, would be opened by the free admission to trade of vessels of a smaller burthen. It is stated to the Committee, by persons who have been most interested in forming a correct opinion upon the subject, that in a trade with the native powers in the Gulph of Persia, along the Red Sea, and on the Eastern coast of Africa, as well as with the islands and countries to the east ward of the company's dominions in Asia, small vessels would be employed in preference to large, from the nature of the navigation, the great value and small bulk of some of the articles, as well as the description of markets where such trade would be carried on. Some apprehension indeed has been stated to exist that vessels of that description might be exposed to frequent depredations from pirates who infest those seas, but it does not appear that there is any difference in the rate of insurance required from large and small ships: if there is a risk, however, the private merchant might safely be left to consider, how far it applied to his particular case; while the American trade in those seas, which is carried on as well in vessels below as above the burthen of 350 tons, is not stated at any time to have suffered materially from such dangers. It may be remarked, that although the native governments of India have been generally supposed to be unfavourable upon system to foreign commerce, no recent instance of such disposition has been adduced: the French, on the contrary, are stated to have been remarkably successful in some recent attempts, to open a commercial intercourse with Cochin China; and the recent knowledge which has been acquired of the manners and habits of the inhabitants in some of the islands of the Malay race, leads to a much more favourable opinion of their character and aptitude for civil and commercial intercourse than was previously entertained.
The maintenance of a free port, eligibly situated amongst the Indian islands under British protection, which the magnitude of our establishments in that quarter of the globe may enable us to support at much less expense than any other nation may be attended with the greatest benefit to commerce and civilization. The importance of such a station, and the quick perception of its advantages, formed by the native traders in that part of the globe, may be estimated by the rapid rise of the port of Sincapore during the year that it has been in the possession, of the British government, and opened for the purposes of general trade. The population, which had before scarcely amounted to 200 souls, in three months increased to not less than 3,000, and now exceeds 10,000 in the whole; while 173 sail of vessels of different descriptions arrived and sailed in the course of the first two months.
The commerce with China is carried on by the East India company, in whom the sole and exclusive right of trading with the ports of that empire, as well as the sole and exclusive right of trading and trafficking in tea to and from all the islands and ports between the Cape of Good Hope and Straits of Magellan, is now vested by law. The value and extent of this trade has naturally attracted the attention of the private merchant; and
Of this description may be considered the trade in tea and other articles between Canton and foreign Europe; the tea trade within the limits of the company's charter, exclusive of the ports of the Chinese empire; and the trade between Canton and the western shores of North and South America.
The hopes entertained by merchants and others, who have the best means of information, of benefit to commerce from such an extension of its freedom, as well as the apprehensions, felt by persons of great experience in the direction of the affairs, and in the service of the East India company, of the risk with which such an extension may be attended to their political and commercial interests, will be found fully staled in the evidence and documents contained in the Appendix.
On the one hand it is confidently stated, that the low rate of British freight, and other advantages possessed by the British merchantmen, would enable the British free trader to enter into an immediate and successful competition with those of other countries, and more particularly of the United States, by whom these branches of commerce have been carried on for some years past with every appearance of progressive increase and prosperity; that thus a portion of Europe might be supplied with tea by the British trader; that the export of furs from America, which now takes place even from the British territories in American vessels, would be carried on by British shipping; and that at all events, that portion of the Eastern trade, which is carried on by the export of British manufactures in American vessels, would fall into the hands of the British merchant, with greater opportunities of extending it, afforded by a more direct intercourse; and on the other hand, it is stated to afford reasonable ground for alarm, that the seamen, who would be admitted under such circumstances to the port of Canton, might probably be a character so different from that of the seamen employed on board the vessels of the United States, and be subject to a discipline so inferior to that which prevails on board of the larger description of vessels employed in the service of the East India company, that disputes might take place and excesses be occasioned which might produce fatal consequences, by awaking the jealousy, or exciting the anger of the Chinese government of new competitors into the market might lead to some deterioration in quality, or enhancement in the prices of teas, which are now regulated by arrangements made previously to their coining into the market between the servants of the company and the Hong merchants, who enjoy a monopoly of the sale of that article.
To what extent such hopes or such apprehensions might be realized in the progress of a trade which has never yet been permitted to exist, it is difficult perhaps to form an accurate judgment. The most natural, and indeed the only means of forming one, must be derived from the circumstances and progress of the foreign independent trade, and more especially that of the vessels of the United Slates with the fort of Canton. That trade, although carried on in vessels of nearly the same description that would probably be employed by the British merchants, has continued to flourish without being productive of injurious consequences, either to trade in general, or that of the East India company in particular. It is slated that it would not have done so, had it not been for the protection and other advantages derived from the establishment of the company's factory at Canton; but no satisfactory reason has been assigned, why the British free trader should not derive the same benefit from its countenance and protection, to which he certainly would not be less entitled. It must also be observed that the circumstance which has principally been relied upon as constituting the difference between the character of the American and British seaman, namely the former having a share in the profits of the voyage, applies only to that portion (not a large one) of their trade with Canton, which is employed in the export of furs from North America, and might be expected to apply in the same degree, as far as respects that portion of trade, to British vessels, if permitted to engage in it. It is admitted also, that all danger arising from disputes is greatly-diminished, if not entirely removed, by the abolition of the custom which permitted seamen to go, at particular periods, in large bodies, and under no control, to enjoy liberty days on shore at Canton.
In the course of the last few years, the imports of the United States into China (comparing an average of the years 1804–5, 1805–6, 1806–7, with an average of 1816–17, 1817–18, 1818–19, being the last years of which the Committee have received an account) appear nearly to have doubled. It is alleged that the principal part of these imports consists of metals and other articles which the merchants in the United States have a greater facility in procuring than those of other countries; there can be no doubt, however, that articles of British manufacture are directly exported to China from this country by Americans; and it appears from an account procured at the Custom-house, that the declared value of those articles exported to countries within the
l.
What portion of the teas and other articles exported from China in vessels of the United States is destined for America, and what for European consumption, it is difficult precisely to determine. Although doubts have been expressed, whether the demand arising from the latter constitutes a permanent or a considerable portion of their trade, it may fairly be assumed that a contrary opinion prevails in America, as it is stated in the report upon American currency, laid before the House of Representatives in 1819, "that the annual exports in American vessels from the United States and all other ports, to China and the East Indies, can hardly be estimated at more than 12,000,000 of dollars, and it cannot be doubted that the sales of East India articles in Europe exceed that amount. The value of merchandise from China and India consumed annually in the United States is probably equal to 5,000,000 dollars; and if this be so, the consumption of East India articles by the United States is paid for by the mere profit of the trade."
On the whole, the Committee are inclined to the opinion, that regulations might be established at Canton, either by placing the free trade of Canton under the superintendance of a consul, or investing the principal servants of the company with some authority over the seamen engaged in the free trade, by which any apprehension or inconvenience might be removed; and without interfering with the monopoly of the British market enjoyed by the East India company, the British merchant might be safely admitted to a participation in a trade which has proved safe, lucrative, and capable of great improvement in the hands of the foreign trader.
In the event of these obstacles, however, being considered insurmountable, the maintenance of the establishment at Sincapore, to which vessels frequently come down from China in five days, or of any other free port as advantageously situated, might, considering the readiness of the Chinese to engage actively by every means, direct and indirect, in trade, prove highly advantageous to the interests of British commerce, if permitted to engage in the tea trade within the limits of the East India charter, exclusive of the ports of the Chinese empire.
The Committee cannot conceal from themselves, that in the present state of the law, no material benefit or facility to free trade in this quarter of the globe can be obtained, without infringing in a greater or less degree upon the privileges vested in the East India company, until the year 1834, when their present charter expires, and that their consent may be required to any measures which may be submitted for that purpose to the consideration of parliament. At the same time, considering that no propositions here suggested are intended directly or indirectly to affect the monopoly enjoyed by the company of the home market, to which the greatest importance is justly attached, but that their object is confined to procuring for the British free trader an access to markets entirely new, or the means of fair competition with the foreign merchant in those which already exist, the committee feel themselves justified in relying upon the liberality of the court of directors, upon the concern they have frequently evinced in the national prosperity, and the preference they may be expected to give to British over foreign commerce, for a disposition to meet, as far as may be consistent with their own essential interests, the wishes of their fellow-subjects, if sanctioned by the wisdom and authority of parliament.
At all events, there are some views of this subject to which the attention of parliament may be immediately directed; and the whole cannot fail to deserve its consideration, previous to the renewal of the East India company's charter.
The Committee have been informed, by the members of his majesty's government, who are members of the Committee, that a bill was prepared to be submitted to parliament in the course of last session, for extending the private trade between India and foreign Europe; and that the introduction of such a bill has only been postponed in consequence of the inquiries depending in parliament, connected with Asiatic commerce.
AGRICULTURAL REPORT.—REPORT
from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, to whom the several Petitions complaining of the depressed State of the
of the United Kingdom were referred: Ordered to be printed
th June
THE SELECT COMMITTEE to whom the several Petitions which have been presented to the House in this session of Parliament, complaining of the depressed state of the
Your Committee do not think it necessary to preface the observations which they have to make, upon the important matters referred to them by the House, by a recapitulation of the numerous laws which have been passed, at different, periods, for regulating the trade in corn. The most material of those Jaws have been brought under the consideration of the House by the reports of former committees on this subject. It is, therefore, sufficient to remark, that by the salutary law of 1806, a free interchange in grain of every description, was established between Great Britain and Ireland; and that the trade in foreign corn is altogether governed by the provisions of the acts of 54 and 55 Geo. 3rd, by which were, for the first time, enacted;—first, a constantly free exportation from the United Kingdom, without reference to price, or without such exportation being either encouraged by any bounty, or restrained by any duty whatsoever;—secondly, an absolute prohibition against the introduction of every description of foreign grain, meal, or flour, into the consumption of the United Kingdom, when the average prices, ascertained according to the mode established by former acts, are below certain specified rates;—thirdly,an unlimited freedom of importation, from all parts of the world, without any duty whatever, when the prices are above those specified rates.
Such being the state of the law which affects, so far as legislative interference can affect, the important interests brought under the consideration of the House by the numerous petitions presented in this session, your Committee proceeded, in the first instance to inquire into the allegations of those petitions. It is with deep regret that they have to Commence their Report by stating, that, in their judgment, the complaints of the petitioners are founded in fact, in so far as they represent that, at the present price of corn, the returns to the occupier of an arable farm, after allowing for the interest of his investment, are by no means adequate to the charges and outgoings; of which a considerable proportion can be paid only out of the capitals, and not from the profits of the tenantry.
This pressure upon the farmer, is stated by some of the witnesses to have materially affected, the retail business of shopkeepers in country towns connected with the agricultural districts. But notwithstanding this diminution of demand in particular parts of the country, it appears, by official returns, that the total consumption of the principal articles subject to duties, of, excise and customs have increased in the last year, compared with the average of the three preceding years; and also, that the quantity of cotton wool used for home consumption, and of cloth manufactured in Yorkshire, was greater last year than in the year preceding, although the export of woollens in 1820 appears to have diminished; Your Committee have not the same authentic means of ascertaining the consumption of iron, but there appears every reason to believe that it has also increased.
The opinion of your Committee, in respect to the present pressure upon the tenantry, is formed upon the best documentary evidence which the nature of the case admits of, confirmed by the testimony of many respectable witnesses, as well occupiers of land as surveyors and land-agents: and it is further strengthened by a comparison of the difference between the existing price and the average price of the last ten years, the period within which most of the present engagements, affecting the tenant of the soil, may be supposed to nave been contracted. If the present price could, under all the present circumstances, be remunerative, the average price of that period must have afforded an excessive profit; which does not appear probable, nor warranted by any facts. The only fair inference perhaps, to be drawn from such a comparison, and from the state of our agriculture during the last war, is, that for a considerable part of that period, the returns of farming capital somewhat exceeded the ordinary rate of profit, and that at this time they are considerably below it.
However much this revulsion is to be lamented, both as it affects the public interest, and the interest, and immediate prospects of a most meritorious class of the community, it is a revulsion of the same nature (whatever may be its degree) as many which have occurred in different periods of our history; and it is no more than an act of justice to the tenantry of Great Britain to state, that so far as your Committee have been able to ascertain, the rents, with some exceptions in particular districts, have hitherto been collected, without more arrear than has occurred on several former occasions. This punctuality, whilst it is highly honourable to the character of the tenantry, affords (your Committee trust) a ground of hope, that the great body of the occupiers of the soil, either from the savings of more prosperous times, or from that credit which punctuality will generally command in this country, possess resources which will enable them to surmount the difficulties under which they now labour. The pressure of these difficulties has led, in many instances, to a diminution of rents, varying in degree according to the proportion in which such, rents had been increased between the years 1793 and 1814, which diminution is stated by several of the witnesses to have been made as well upon subsisting leases, as incases where farms have been recently relet.
Your Committee cannot allude to the state
of rents in this country, without observing, that a large proportion of the increase of the rent which has taken place within the last twenty years, is owing to the capitals which have been permanently vested in improvements, partly by the owners and in part by the tenants of the soil; by the judicious application of which capitals, in many instances great tracts of land, theretofore waste, or comparatively of little value, have been brought into productive cultivation.
A further proportion of the increase of rent is, unquestionably, to be ascribed to the diminished value of our currency, during a great part of the period when this rise took place. It may be difficult, upon an average of the whole kingdom, and still more difficult in specific cases, to determine what part of the increase of rents may have arisen from this cause; but it is certainly not inconsiderable, and was, during the war, sufficient probably to compensate to the landlords the effects of the derangement of the currency. The restoration of that currency will necessarily lead as existing engagements lapse, to new arrangements between landlord and tenant; in the adjustment of which the permanent effect of that restoration, however difficult exactly to ascertain, will have its practical effect.
But your Committee cannot omit to state their opinion, that any attempt to determine that effect at this moment, would give an erroneous, and possibly an exaggerated measure of its prospective influence. Having been long
below,
above,
below,
above,
It would be foreign to the immediate object of this report to pursue this subject farther; your Committee, however, cannot but ascribe a proportion of the depression of prices, which (as they will hereafter have occasion to observe) now generally prevails in other countries, as well as in this, to the measures which the restoration of our currency had rendered necessary; the general effect of which has been, in some degree, to derange the markets of every part of the civilized world; an effect which has been aggravated in those markets, as well as in our own, by the endeavours of other countries to revert to a metallic currency simultaneously with ourselves.
Whatever therefore may be the ultimate operation of the restoration of the currency upon the nominal rental of the kingdom, your Committee incline to believe that it will fall far short of some of the exaggerated predictions to which the present alarms have given rise; and they see no reason to apprehend that the diminution can ultimately exceed that proportion of the increase which, during the war, grew out of the depreciated value of the currency.
Under circumstances favourable to the prosperity of the country, which they trust may fairly be anticipated from the continuance of peace, they are disposed to hope that this diminution may not be carried even to that extent; although, as a general principle, your Committee cannot doubt, that, in so far as the alteration of our currency has contributed to lower the price of commodities, the productions of agriculture have been, and must hereafter, in common with all other articles, be affected by the improved value of our money.
But your Committee are also satisfied, by the result of their inquiries, that, in the present year, the price of corn has been farther depressed by the general abundance and good quality of the last harvest, in all articles of grain and pulse; more particularly in Ireland, in which part of the united kingdom the preceding harvest of 1819, was also uncommonly productive. Several of the witnesses examined have stated their belief that the prices of grain have further been depressed, in the present year, by the very large importations of foreign corn which took place before the ports were closed in the month of February 1819; but looking to the very high prices, and to the constant and brisk demand which prevailed in our markets so long as the ports continued open in 1817 and 1818, it may be inferred that the greatest part of those importations was necessary, and was disposed of during those years, to supply the daily wants of our consumption, and that it is therefore only in a remote degree that the present prices
can be influenced by the occurrences of that period.
It can scarcely be necessary for your Committee to remark, that the growth of wheat has been greatly extended and improved of late years, in all parts of the united kingdom, but principally in Ireland, since the year 1807.
Your Committee feel it an important part of their duty to recall to the recollection of the House, and the country, that, in the years 1804 and 1814, a depression of prices,—principally caused by abundant harvests, and a great extension of tillage, excited by the extraordinary high prices of antecedent years,— appears to have produced a temporary pressure and uneasiness among the owners and occupiers of land, and a corresponding difficulty in the payment of rents and the letting of farms, in some degree similar to the apprehensions and embarrassments which now prevail; and, also, that in many earlier periods, similar complaints may be traced in the history of our agriculture.
Among numerous instances of these complaints, which may be found in other publications, between the middle of the 17th century and the beginning of the late reign, two have been pointed out by one of the witnesses, in which the House will not fail to remark the great similarity between the arguments and alarms which were then current with those which prevail in many quarters at this period. That in these earlier and more remote stages of our agriculture these alarms were only temporary, and that the fears of those who reasoned upon their continuance and increase, were ere long dissipated by the natural course of seasons and events, is now matter of history. And it is impossible to look back to the discussions of the years 1804 and 1814, and more especially to the evidence taken before the Committee appointed by the House on the latter occasion, without being forcibly struck with the conformity of the statements and opinions, then produced, respecting the ruinous operation and expected continuance of low prices, with those which will be found in the evidence now collected. Indeed these statements, in some instances, come from the mouths of the same witnesses.
Your Committee will not lengthen their report, by inserting any extracts from the report of 1814, but they feel that, upon this point, they may confidently refer, on the one hand, to the general tenor of the examinations of the several surveyors and intelligent occupiers of land, whose evidence will be found annexed to that report, and, on the other, to the minutes which are now submitted to the House.
Your committee trust that this reference to past experience will not be altogether useless and unavailing to allay the alarm, and to dispel some of the desponding predictions which, by unnecessarily increasing anxiety for the future, tend to aggravate the severe pressure of our present difficulties;—that the reflections which such a retrospect is calculated to excite, may lead the occupiers of the soil, as it has led your Committee, to infer, that in agriculture, as in all other pursuits, in which capital and industry can be embarked, there have been, and will be, periods of reaction; that such reaction is the more to be expected, in proportion to the long-continued prosperity of the pursuit, and to the degree of previous excitement and exertion which that prosperity had called forth. They must add, as a further inference from the experience of former periods, to which the present crisis bears no distant resemblance, that there is a natural tendency in the distribution of capital and labour to remedy the disorders which may casually arise in society from such temporary derangements, and (without at all meaning to deny that it is the duty of the legislature to do every thing in its power to shorten the duration, and to palliate the evils of the crisis) that it often happens that these disorders are prolonged, if not aggravated, by too much interference and regulation.
It is by no means with the expectation that the suffering of our own community can be alleviated by the contemplation of a corresponding pressure upon other nations, that your Committee find themselves called upon to slate, that many commodities of general and extensive demand, the staple productions of other countries, such as corn, cotton, rice and tobacco in the United States of America; sugar and rum in the West Indies; tallow, flax, hemp, timber, iron, wool, and corn, on the continent of Europe, appear to have fallen in price, in some instances more, and scarcely in any less, in proportion to the prices of those articles prior to 1816, than the fall in the price of grain in this country:—with regard to several of which articles, and the countries producing them, some of the causes which have principally affected the value of grain in this country cannot be considered as operating.
The proofs of this great revulsion of prices, in other parts of the world, may be found, as to most of those articles, in the evidence collected by your Committee, and the remainder in other authentic information now before the House. The facts, indeed, are, from their nature, matter of such notoriety to the commercial classes of the community, that they cannot admit of a doubt. So far as this state of things tends to involve other countries in embarrassment, it must be matter not of satisfaction, but of regret; and this natural feeling of every liberal mind will only be confirmed by reflecting upon the intimate connection which must exist between the advancement of other nations towards wealth and improvement, and the growing prosperity of our own. Entertaining this feeling, your Committee trust, that their motive for noticing the present state of the markets in other parts of the world, will not be misconceived. The
fact is one which naturally came within the scope of their inquiry, as tending to affect the markets of this country, and it appeared not unessential to advert to it, for the further object of showing, that the causes which have produced this great change are not confined to any one country. It would seem that the influence of that general derangement which the convulsions of the last thirty years have produced in all the relations of commerce, in the application of capital, and in the demand
It is impossible to have watched with any degree of attention, the state and condition of agriculture, manufactures, and trade, under the influence of this depression in the prices of so many articles of general consumption, without being convinced that it has been attended with severe loss to several classes by whose capitals those articles have been either raised, or held for sale and distribution, to supply the wants of society; but as far as depression of price has been produced by redundant production, which, at this moment, appears to be one of the causes operating to lower the price of corn both in this and other countries, it admits of no adequate remedy, except that which must arise from the progressive adjustment of the supply to the demand, either by the diminution of the one, or the increase of the other, or more probably, by the combined operation of both.
In the article of corn, however, there is one consideration to be constantly borne in mind, most material to enable the House and the country to arrive at sound and safe conclusions on this important subject, namely, that the price of corn fluctuates more than that of any other commodity of extensive consumption, in proportion to any excess or deficiency in the supply. The truth of this proposition had not escaped several writers on this subject, and has been confirmed by many of the witnesses who have been examined; although it may be doubted, whether, generally, they were aware of its extent and practical operation in the present state of this country and of our corn laws.
The cause which produces this greater susceptibility in the corn market cannot be better explained by your Committee, than in the following extract from the answers of Mr. Tooke, one of the witnesses who was particularly examined to this point:—"Why should a different principle apply to corn than to any other general production? Because a fall in the price of any other commodity not of general necessity, brings the article within the reach of the consumption of a greater number of individuals, whereas in the case of corn, the average quantity is sufficient for the supply of every individual; all beyond that is an absolute depression of the market for a great length of time, and a succession of even two or three abundant seasons, must evidently produce an enormously inconvenient accumulation."—"Is there not a greater consumption of corn when it is cheap than when it is dear, as to quantity? There may be, and possibly must be a greater consumption; but it is very evident that if the population was before adequately fed, the increased consumption, from abundance, can amount to little more than waste; and this would be in a very small proportion to the whole excess of a good harvest or two."—"The whole population of this country and others do not subsist upon wheat, therefore when wheat becomes cheaper, those who were formerly fed upon other corn may take to feeding upon wheat? My remark was general as applying to corn. There is no doubt that if there is one description of corn applicable to human food which is abundant, and another that is deficient, then, the principle does hot apply; my principle applies to corn generally applicable to human food. It may be observed, that abundant seasons generally extend to the leading articles of consumption, and that it seldom happens, that in what are called commonly good years, there is a complete failure in any one great article."
In the substance of this reasoning your Committee entirely concur; and it appears to them that it cannot be called in question, without denying either that corn is an article of general necessity and universal consumption among the population of this country,— or that the demand is materially varied by the amount of the supply. This latter proposition, except within very narrow limits, altogether disproportioned to the fluctuations in production, is not warranted by experience. The general truth of the observation remains, therefore, unaltered by any small degree of waste on the one side, or of economy on the other; neither of which are sufficient to counteract the effect which opinion and speculation must have upon price, when it is felt how little demand is increased by redundancy, or checked by scantiness of supply.
In order to apply this leading principle, as affecting the trade in corn, to the present state of this country, and of our corn laws, your Committee will assume, what they believe is not far from our actual situation, that the annual produce of corn, the growth of the United Kingdom, is, upon an average crop, about equal to our present annual consumption; and that with such an average crop, the present import prices, below which foreign corn is by law altogether excluded, are fully sufficient, more especially since the change in
maximum
minimum
In mentioning a succession of abundant harvests as a contingency, which, by greatly reducing the price of corn, might ultimately force an exportation from this country, your Committee feel it incumbent upon them to remark, that an opinion, founded apparently upon long observation, has prevailed with respect to the continuance of favourable or unfavourable seasons, for considerable but irregular periods of years, or cycles, as they have been called by Mr. Burke; an extract from whose work, intituled, "Thoughts and Details on Scarcity," as also from the works of Dr. Adam Smith on this topic, will be found in the Minutes annexed to this Report.
If this doctrine, "That years of scarcity or plenty do not come alternately, or at short intervals, but in pretty large cycles and irregularly," should be well founded, your Committee need not enter into details or calculations to point out to the House, how hazardous and embarrassing must be the situation of the grower of corn in a country, where the lowest price which is considered to afford him a remuneration, shall habitually and considerably exceed the prices of the remainder of the world; although up to that price, he should be secured in the complete monopoly of that country.
Upon tins subject of a remunerative price, so far as relates to this country, your Committee apprehend that much misconception prevails, and particularly in the use and application of these words in the minds of the petitioners, and of several of the witnesses, who represent it as a fixed amount of 80 shillings for the quarter of wheat, and in proportion for other grain.
In the first place, it is obvious that what was deemed a remunerative price in 1815 under one state of things, may be more or less than a remunerative price in 1821 under a very different state of things. The sum of 80
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
If therefore the population of the country and its power of consumption should continue to increase, it would be necessary, in order to preserve in efficacy the principle and system of our corn law, from time to time to advance the import prices, even though all the charges of producing corn should remain the same.
The change in the value of our money is, virtually, such an advance; and the result of every such advance, supposing prices pot to undergo a corresponding rise in other countries, must be, to expose this country to greater and more grievous fluctuations in price, and the business of a farmer to greater uncertainty and hazard, according to the alternations of good or bad seasons.
This is the part of the present system of our corn laws, and of the principle involved in that system, which appears most to require earnest and serious consideration, with a view to the future interests and welfare of the country. The ruinously low prices of agricultural produce at this moment, cannot be ascribed to any deficiency in the protecting power of the law. Protection cannot be carried further than monopoly. This monopoly the British grower has enjoyed for the produce of the two last harvests; the ports (with the exception of the ill timed and unnecessary importation of oats during six weeks of the last summer) having been uninterruptedly shut against all foreign import for nearly thirty months.
Now the produce of the harvest of 1810 in the United Kingdom, does not appear to have exceeded an average crop; but that of 1820 was more abundant.
On the continent of Europe, the harvests both of 1818 and 1819 are stated to have been very abundant. Against the produce of those harvests our ports have been closed. The result is, an accumulation on the continent held at prices so low, that, whatever may be the depression which abundance may produce in this country, we can look to no relief in exportation, till that accumulation shall be disposed of by a scarcity on the continent, or a failing crop here; either of which will restore the markets to their natural level.
Upon a series of years, a general scarcity is, perhaps, less to be dreaded on the continent, taking its whole surface together, than in this country; because the United Kingdom, from its comparatively limited territory, is liable to greater fluctuations in the produce and quality of its harvests. The risk of these fluctuations must increase in proportion as the produce of Ireland (the part of the United Kingdom of which the climate is the most fickle) may become a more extended part of our general supply. It must, therefore, be manifest, that the evil of a failing crop would be aggravated as our dependence upon Ireland increased. It may, also, be a question, whether the produce of the poorer soils in England is not more likely to be affected by ungenial seasons; and it is certain, that the great magnitude of our consumption, as compared with former periods, must render the pressure of any deficiency created by those circumstances more severe, and the means of providing against it more difficult and more costly. A harvest which should be one-third below an average in wheat, would bring upon this country a very different degree of suffering, and would require a very different degree of exertion and sacrifice to supply the deficiency, from what would have been required under a similar failure fifty years ago.
If, on the one hand, the risk of a defective harvest is increased by these circumstances, so, on the other, will the occasional pressure of very inadequate prices be more severely felt by the grower, whenever an abundant harvest, or, possibly, more than one in succession, shall lead to a glut of produce, without the relief of a vent from exportation.
Taking therefore, as the basis of all wise regulations on the subject of the corn laws, the undeniable positions,—that the landlord, the tenant, and the consumer, have one great and common interest in maintaining a permanent and adequate supply of corn, at prices as steady as possible,—and that steadiness of price must depend, on guarding, as much as legislative interference can guard, against the effects of fluctuation of seasons;—your Committee have examined the practical operation of the present system of our foreign trade in corn, with a reference to these two points.
To prohibit the foreign supply altogether, so long as from the casualty of seasons, we are subject to years of deficient or damaged produce, has at all times been felt to be impossible. But, since the year 1815, we have had recourse to an absolute prohibition up to a certain price, and an unlimited competition beyond that price.
This system is certainly liable to sudden alterations, of which the effect may be at one time to reduce prices already low, lower than they would probably have been under a state of free trade, and at another, unnecessarily to enhance pricesalready high;—to aggravate the evils of scarcity, and to render more severe the depression of prices from abundance. On the one hand, it deceives the grower with the false hope of a monopoly, and by its occasional interruption, may lead to consequences which deprive him of the benefits of that monopoly, when most wanted;—on the other hand, it holds out to the country the prospect of an occasional free trade, but so regulated and desultory, as to baffle the calculations and unsettle the transactions, both of the grower and the dealer at home;—to deprive the consumer of most of the benefits of such a trade, and to involve the merchant in more than the ordinary risks of mercantile speculation. It exposes the markets of the country, either to be occasionally overwhelmed with an inundation of foreign corn, altogether disproportionate to its wants; or, in the event of any considerable deficiency in our own harvest, it creates a sudden competition on the continent, by the effect of which, the prices there are rapidly and unnecessarily raised against ourselves. But the inconvenient operation of the present corn law, which appears to be less the consequence of the quantity of foreign grain brought into this country, upon an average of years, than of the manner in which that grain is introduced, is not confined to great fluctuations in price, and consequent embarrassment, both to the grower and the consumer; for the occasional prohibition of import, has also a direct tendency to contract the extent of our commercial dealings with other states, and to excite in the rulers of those states a spirit of permanent exclusion against the productions or manufactures of this country and its colonies. In this conflict of retaliatory exclusion, injurious to both, the two parties, however, are not upon an equal footing;—on our part, prohibition must yield to the wants of the people; on the other side, there is no such overruling necessity. And inasmuch as reciprocity of demand is the foundation of ail means of payment, a large and sudden influx of corn might, under these circumstances, create a temporary derangement of the course of exchange, the effects of which (after the resumption of cash payments) might lead to a drain of specie from the Bank, the consequent contraction of its circulation, a panic among the country banks,—all aggravating the dis-
That the present system of our corn law has a tendency, according to circumstances, at one time to reduce prices lower than they would probably have been under a state of free trade; and at another time, to enhance those prices, when already perhaps too high, will not appear paradoxical to the House, if it be considered that the practical operation of this system, in its sudden and desultory transitions, maybe, not only slightly at variance with, but in direct opposition to, the Principle on which it is founded;—that principle being, to shut out foreign corn from home consumption, in seasons of sufficient or abundant crops, and to give every facility to its introduction, in years of scarcity. For example, let it be supposed that on the 15th of August next, the average price of wheat, ascertained in the usual mode, should be 79
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
But if the second supposed case (that of out ports being opened at a fraction above 80
s.
The case here assumed, is precisely what occurred in the month of August last, so far as relates to oats. Your Committee think they cannot better illustrate the possible operation of the present law, than by inserting a short extract of a dispatch, which will be found in the Appendix from his majesty's consul at Hamburgh, to the marquis of Londonderry, on this occurrence:—"Agricultural produce has progressively declined during two years, the demand for export unusually small, and there has been no stimulus to animate the agriculturist. The only great change which took place during that period was in the article of oats. On the opening of the English ports in August last for this grain, an immediate rise of from 30 to 50 per cent occurred; the shortness of the time allowed for importation, occasioned shipments to
a much greater extent
"The result, therefore, of this transaction, has been a ruinous depression in the markets here, and a very heavy loss to all engaged in the importation."
Your Committee cannot but remark that this importation, large as it was, amounted to no more than 726,872 quarters; and that our annual consumption of oats has been estimated, for Great Britain only, at near 30 millions of quarters; thus forcibly illustrating the effect of a comparatively trifling excess in a market of grain already abundantly supplied.
If such be the consequences of the present system, they sufficiently point out the nature of those inconveniences to which it may expose the grower, the dealer at home, and the foreign importer in his speculations abroad. When your Committee find, for instance, in the seventeen months which passed between January 1816 and June 1817, the price of wheat varying from 53
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
With respect to the effects which may be produced in this country, all the internal and commercial transactions of which so mainly depend on circulating credit, by a sudden revulsion in the foreign exchanges, the experience of the last thirty years is a sufficient warning. Your Committee therefore feel a confident assurance, that when the attention of the House is called to the subject, it will examine with a jealous care for the public interest, how far the present system of the corn trade has a tendency to bring upon the country the renewal of this calamity.
They are the more anxious to press upon the attentive consideration of the House, the possible tendency of this system of alternation between absolute prohibition and unlimited competition, from feeling that it is not founded upon a principle which has the sanction of long usage in its favour. Both the alternatives of the present system, in their present full extent, may be said to have been introduced, for the first time, by the act of 1815. Until that period positive prohibition was unknown to our corn laws, and importation was never permitted without the payment of some duty. The amount of that duty, it is true, when grain was above certain prices, which were reckoned the incipient indications of an inadequate supply from our own growth, was very little more than nominal; at prices somewhat lower, it was very moderate; and it was only when the prices had fallen, and remained for some time below that second stage in the scale, that any duty sufficiently high to check the importation attached, but subject to that duty the trade still continued to be free. The scale, for instance, by which importation was regulated in the article of wheat, up to the year 1815, was as follows:—When the average price was at or above 66
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
This was the principle of our corn law, as far as relates to importation, ever since the year 1773, although the scale at which the different rates of duty commenced had more than once been raised. Its practical operation appears to have been as follows:—That from the year 1773 to the year 1814,—during which period the total imports of corn have greatly exceeded the total exports, the former amounting to 30,430,189 quarters, and the latter to 5,801,440 quarters,—the ports have been constantly open and the trade free, upon the payment of a duty merely nominal, with the exception of a few short intervals when the high duty was demandable:—that from the year 1773 to the year 1792 (with the exception of the years of the American war, in which freights and insurance might be somewhat increased) the only advantage of protection which the British grower had over the foreigner, was in the amount of this nominal duty, together with the ordinary expense of peace freights, and other charges of conveyance in bringing the foreign grain to market;—and that from the year 1792 to 1814, that protection continued the same, so far as related to the duty, but was, in fact, considerably enhanced by the high rates of charge incident to the late war, and particularly by the peculiar circumstances of the continent, during the last ten years of that war. It is also to be remarked, that, up to the year 1806, the trade in corn with Ireland was under restriction; and that, since the operation of the wise law passed in that year, the importation of grain from that part of the United Kingdom, free from any charge or duty, has amounted, up to the 5th of Jan. last, to 12,304,730 quarters, whereas the whole import from Ireland in thirty-two years, between 1773 and 1806, was only 7,534,202 quarters.
The necessary consequence of the trade in corn having been virtually open with the continent, and the importation allowed at duties merely nominal, during this period of forty years, has been, that the general price, at the shipping ports on the continent, has hot, upon an average, been materially lower than the price in England, except to the amount of the charges to be incurred in bringing the foreign corn to the markets of this country. The price, at a distance from those shipping ports, and in the districts which have not the benefit of good roads or internal navigation,
The severe scarcities which we have experienced, have furnished us, therefore, with something like a measure of the degree in which they could be relieved from the surplus produce of the continent, within the prices which those scarcities respectively occasioned: whilst the mode in which every rise in the price at home adds to the power and inducement of increasing the foreign importation, shows that any increase of the rates, at which the import commences under the present system, would only tend, whenever the ports should open, to aggravate the fluctuation, and the other inconveniences which appear to your Committee to appertain to the principle of alternate monopoly and free importation.
Your Committee are the more anxious to impress upon the attention of the House the real state of our trade in foreign corn, between the years 1773 and 1814, as it appears to them, taken in conexion with the progress of general prosperity in the country, and more especially with the great improvements in agriculture, and its highly flourishing condition during that period, to suggest to parliament, as a matter highly deserving of their future consideration, whether a trade in corn, constantly open to all nations of the world, and subject only to such a fixed duty as might compensate to the grower the loss of that encouragement which he received during the late war from the obstacles thrown in the way of free importation, and thereby protect the capitals now vested in agriculture from an unequal competition in the home market,—is not, as a permanent system, preferable to that state of law by which the corn trade is now regulated. It would be indispensable, for the just execution of this principle, that such duty should be calculated fairly to countervail the difference of expense, including the ordinary rate of profit, at which corn, in the present state of this country, can be grown and brought to market within the United Kingdom, compared with the expense, including also the ordinary rate of profit, of producing it in any of those countries, from whence our principle supplies of foreign corn have usually been drawn, joined to the ordinary charges of conveying it from whence, to our markets.
In suggesting this change of system, for further consideration, as a possible improvement of the corn laws at some future time, the Committee, are fully aware of the unfitness of the present moment for attempting such a change, when, owing to the general abundance of the late harvests in Europe, and to the markets of this country having been shut against foreign corn for near thirty months, a great accumulation has taken place in the shipping ports on the continent, and in the warehouses of foreign corn in this country; and when that accumulation, from want of any vent, is held at very low prices, and might tend still further to depress the already overstocked markets of this country, if allowed to be introduced at this period, except at such a high rate of duty as it would be inexpedient to attempt, and moreover very difficult to determine. The present market price of the corn thus accumulated, is not the measure of the cost at which it has been produced, or of the rate at which it can be afforded by the foreign grower, but the result of a general glut of the article, of a long want of demand, and of extreme distress and heavy loss on the part of those by whom it has been raised, and of those by whom it is now held, either in the warehouses of the continent or of this country.
Assuming, therefore, that under the present circumstances of the case, parliament would not now deem it expedient to abandon entirely the principle of the existing law, your Committee have anxiously directed their attention to the possibility of, in some degree, modifying its operation, so as to remedy that inconvenience to which they have more particularly referred in the earlier part of their Report;—which consists in the sudden and irregular manner in which, in many cases, foreign corn may be introduced upon the opening of the ports, under circumstances inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the law. They conceive that this object might be attained by the imposition of a fixed duty upon corn, whenever, upon the opening of the ports, it should become admissible for home consumption. It would, however, be necessary, in case this suggestion should be carried into effect, that the present import price should be fixed at a lower rate, because it is obvious that the duty would otherwise not only check the sudden and overwhelming amount of import, but also enhance the price beyond what it might reach under the present law; an effect which your Committee are so far from desirous of producing, that they think it would probably be expedient additionally to guard against it, by providing, that, after corn should have reached some given high price, the duty should cease altogether.
If such a change in the operation of the corn laws should have the effect of checking extravagant speculation and extensive import, it would be equally beneficial to the grower and the consumer. It would apply some remedy to the evil of which almost all the petitions referred to your Committee so loudly complain, and it has no tendency, either hastily or prematurely, to affect the principle upon which is rested that protection which
It is not the province of your Committee to specify any precise permanent duty for the protection of the British grower; nor should they, perhaps, be adequately prepared so to do without further inquiry; nor until the obstacle to that inquiry, created by the present accumulation and glut, shall be removed. At the same time, they incline to the opinion, that leaving to every part of the United Kingdom the inestimable public benefit of the most full and free competition in the home market, without regard to the difference of fertility in the soil or of expense in its cultivation, either from a difference in the price of labour, or in the amount of local and public burthens directly affecting the land; it may, perhaps, be difficult, if not impossible, putting rent out of the question, for the occupiers of some of the poorest and most expensive soils now under tillage in Great Britain, to bring their produce to market in competition with the more fertile lands of this country, and especially of Ireland. Your Committee would be anxious to suggest, for the consideration of parliament, as the principle and basis of the trade in foreign corn, such a protecting duty upon the produce of other countries, as would not aggravate to the occupiers of such soils the present difficulty of that competition. The general question, how far the forced cultivation of some of those inferior lands may have been expedient or advantageous for the public interest, is one upon which it is unnecessary to offer a positive opinion. They can, however, have no difficulty in stating that, within the limits of the existing competition at home, the exertions of industry and the investment of capital in agriculture, ought to be protected against any revulsion, but that the protection ought not to go further;—and that, if protected to that extent, the growth of our population, the accumulation of our internal wealth, affording increased employment to that population, and consequently increased means of purchasing all those articles of consumption and enjoyment, which must be derived from the soil of this country, will continue to give, as they have given during the last 60 years, the most effectual stimulus and encouragement to the progressive improvement of our agriculture, and to the consequent value of the landed property of the kingdom;—that, under such a system, there can be no apprehension that either will permanently retrograde (except in so far as rents may be nominally affected by the resumption of cash payments) or even be for any time stationary,—so long as our institutions continue to afford, to capital and industry, that superior degree of security and protection which they have hitherto found in this country,—so long as public credit and good faith keep pace with that security and protection, and as we avoid any course which, in a time of peace, and possibly of improving confidence in the stability of the institutions of other countries, might drive capital to seek a more profitable employment in foreign states. It is under the impression that the present corn law, together with the amount of our taxation, by diminishing the profits of capital, have such a tendency, that your Committee suggest the modifications which have been pointed out, as fit for further inquiry and investigation; and that they feel it their duty, also, to accompany that suggestion with a most earnest recommendation, that every opportunity should be watched, and every practical measure adopted, for reducing the amount of the public expenditure; as the only means of approximating to a state of finance, which, without impairing the credit of the country, may lead to a diminution of the existing burthens of the people.
Your Committee have abstained from urging, in favour of an open intercourse in foreign corn, those general principles of freedom of trade, which are now universally acknowledged to be sound and true, in reference to the commerce of nations. If it be for the wisdom of the House, on the one hand, to endeavour to revert to those principles as far as practicable, in this, and in all other cases; on the other, it is also for its prudence and its justice to take care, in that application, to spare vested interests, to deal tenderly with those obstacles to improvement which the long existence of a vicious and artificial system too often creates, and sometimes even to modify and limit that principle, in reference to considerations of general policy connected with the institutions, or the safety, of the state. Looking to the possible contingencies of war, your Committee are not insensible to the importance of securing the country from a state of dependence upon other, and possibly hostile, countries, for the subsistence of its population;—looking to the institutions of the country, in their several bearings and influence in the practice of our constitution, they are still more anxious to preserve to the landed interest, the weight, station, and ascendancy, which it has enjoyed so long, and used so beneficially. Their first wish, therefore, is, that, whatever general suggestions they may offer, should be scrupulously examined with a due regard to these two considerations.
As they have adverted to the state of the country between 1773 and 1814, as connected with the important subject of their inquiry, it may perhaps assist others, in their researches and reflexions, to state, that your Committee selected that period, because the year 1773 was, in fact, the commencement of a great change in the practical operation, if not in the avowed policy of our corn laws. From that date, the aggregate balance of our imports of grain, taken upon a series of years, began to exceed the balance of our exports.
l.
*
These compulsory laws (all of which it may be observed preceded the introduction of that act which laid the foundation of the system of our poor laws), appear to have been principally suggested by a wish to find employment for the population, and to relieve their misery, by enforcing an extension of cultivation beyond the wants of the country. But, neither under those laws, nor under the subsequent attempt to augment the produce of our agriculture, by the creation of a fictitious foreign demand, excited by a large bounty on exportation, did the agriculture of this country make any advance, at all to be compared to that unparalleled prosperity, which began with the decline of that system, about the beginning of the last reign, and which, with some few temporary interruptions, has marked its progress up to the present time. In comparing the two periods, each of nearly equal duration, between the peace of Utrecht and the commencement of the seven years war,—and between the years 1773 and 1814,—and recollecting that the first period was one of almost uninterrupted peace; and that nearly thirty years of the latter, have passed away in the exertions of two most expensive wars:—that, during the former period, the market interest of money was generally much below, and during the latter, frequently as much above the rate fixed by law;—that during the former, the aim of the legislature was, by artificial means, to divert the applica-
*
If, from agriculture, your Committee look to the permanent improvements, which have been made in the country itself within the same period, the bridges which have been built, the roads which have been formed, the rivers which have been rendered navigable, the canals which have been completed, the harbours which have been made and improved, the docks which have been created,—not by the public revenue, but by the capitals and enterprize of individuals; if they look, at the same time, to the unexampled growth of manufactures and commerce—in the contemplation of this augmentation of internal wealth, which defies all illustration from comparison with any former portion of our history, or of the history of any other state;—your Committee may entertain a doubt (a doubt however, which they wish to state with that diffidence which a subject so extensive naturally imposes upon their judgment),—whether the only solid foundation of the flourishing State of agriculture, is not laid in abstaining, as much as possible, from interference, either by protection or prohibition, with the application of
If these questions should be answered in the affirmative, it follows, that the present solidity and future improvement of our national wealth depend on the continuance of that union by which our agricultural prosperity is so closely connected with the preservation or our manufacturing and commercial greatness.
It will be for the House to appreciate this view of the subject, to watch the progress of events affecting any of the great branches of our industry, and, in its wisdom, to determine, according to circumstances, how far, and by what arrangements, it can best reconcile those considerations of state policy which make it desirable that this country should not become too habitually or extensively dependent for the subsistence of its people on foreign supply, with the necessity of guarding, as much as possible, against creating, by artificial means, too great a difference between, the cost of that subsistence here and in other countries;—not only in regard to the people themselves, but also from the risk which must be in proportion to that difference, of driving much of the capital, by which their industry and labour are supported, to seek employment in other countries. For there cannot be a doubt that this difference operates, in the same manner as taxation, to diminish the profits of capital in this country, and there can be as little doubt, that though capital may migrate, the unoccupied population will remain;—and remain to be maintained by the landed interest, upon whose resources, diminished in proportion to diminished demand, this additional burthen would principally fall.
In some of the petitions referred to your Committee, the depression and distress of all those concerned in agriculture, are mainly ascribed to the extent of our public burthens coupled with their diminished means of bearing them.
The general influence of taxation upon the state of the country, is a subject too extensive to be entered upon by your Committee, without exceeding the bounds prescribed to them by the nature of the reference made to them by the House. They lament its weight, because, however imposed, taxes must necessarily abridge the resources and comforts of those by whom they are ultimately paid. But the question for more immediate consideration is whether, in the distribution of this unavoidable evil, the profits of farming capital have been theretofore, or can permanently be more affected, than the profits of capital engaged in other branches of industry. They cannot discover any grounds for believing that, during the war, when taxation was carried to its greatest amount, the profit of farming capital was lowered in its relative proportion to the profit of other active capitals; and whatever may be the temporary effect of a casual derangement, it is obvious that this proportion must permanently be maintained, because the application of capital would otherwise be changed from one mode of employment to the other, until the proper level was restored.
So far therefore as taxes fall upon the profits of the active capitals of the country, whatever may be the objects upon which they immediately attach, or the parties by whom they are, in the first instance, paid, they operate, in their ultimate effect, as an abatement of those profits, equally affecting the trading, the manufacturing, and the farming interests, by diminishing their means either of enjoyment, or of accumulating further capital by savings from their annual incomes.
The manner and extent hi which other classes of the community and other sources of income may be affected by taxation, do not come directly within the scope of the present inquiry; but your Committee think it necessary to notice a doctrine which has prevailed in some quarters,—that the price of corn in this country, in order to remunerate the grower, must increase in the same ratio as the amount of our public revenue, so that if the latter be doubled, the price of corn must be doubled also. If this assumption were well founded, it would follow, that, exclusively of any change in the value of money, the remunerating price in 1821, would be nearly one-third lower than it was in 1814, taxes not much short of that proportion to the whole of our revenue having been taken off in Great Britain since that year. But, without deny-
In fact, no rise in the price of corn appears to have taken place during three of the wars in which this country was engaged during the last century, compared with the prices of the years preceding and succeeding those wars; and during the last of them, the American war, prices were lower than during the peace. This circumstance is the more to be remarked, as there never was perhaps a period at which the burthen of taxation appeared to press more heavily upon the resources of the country, and in which an annual increase of taxes, accompanied with an annual diminution of revenue, and a general stagnation of improvements indicated more strongly that a part of these taxes must have been paid out of the capital, and not out of the income of the nation.
On the other hand, however immense the expenditure of the last war, it is impossible to review the vast private undertakings, begun and completed during that war, in every branch of industry, without feeling that those funds by which alone the productive powers of the country can be put in motion, must have been greatly increased, and that the accumulation of national capital, however impaired by loans, or retarded by taxes, has, upon the whole, been large and progressive during that period.
If in the same space of time the national capital of some other country has not increased, or has increased only in a much smaller proportion, the mere comparison of the nominal amount of the public revenue of that country with the public revenue of this country, as they stood at the commencement of the period, and as they now stand, might lead to an unfair inference inrespect to the degree in which each country has been affected by increased taxation. If the weight of the public burthens of a country be considered in reference to its population only, then (with the exception of Holland perhaps), England is the most taxed portion of Europe; but if it be measured by the aggregate of national capital, or income arising from capital, divided by the total number of people among whom that capital of income is distributed, it may then be doubled, whether, upon such an average, the proportion of tax to the income or capital of each individual, be not less in England than in several states of the continent, or even in Ireland; and whether it be materially greater now than at former periods, when both the capital, the population, and the public revenue of England, were far below what they now are. But whatever might be the consolatory result of such a comparison, if the means of making it could be accurately ascertained, and however sanguine a hope your Committee may entertain that peace will afford increased facility and encouragement to further accumulation, it is not less the duty of government directly to aid that accumulation, by diminishing our expenditure, and thus both to improve the comforts and to stimulate the skill and enterprize of those classes, by whose industry and savings the capital of the whole kingdom is augmented. This duty, important at all times, appears to your Committee to be still more so, under the present circumstances of the country; for, whilst they are desirous of correcting the mistaken opinion, that the depression under which our agriculture now labours, is either exclusively or principally to be attributed to taxation, they cannot disguise from themselves, that the weight of the public burthens of the country, their nominal amount remaining the same, must be more severely felt, in proportion as the money incomes derived from trading, farming, and manufacturing capital and industry, are diminished. No exertion, therefore, should be omitted to endeavour to reduce those burthens, as nearly as circumstances will permit, in the degree in which such incomes may have been reduced; for, in considering this subject, it is important to bear in mind, that the general amount and real pressure of taxation nave been positively increased in the proportion of the improved value of our currency.
Your Committee cannot conclude the observations which they have found it their duty to submit to the House, without observing, that most of the petitions referred to them, complain of the inadequate and injurious operation of the present corn law, and pray generally for protection, not for grain only, but for all the productions of our agriculture, equal to the protection given to the manufactures of this country.
Within this principle, the petitioners appear to be friendly to an open trade; but in the application of it, as expounded in some of the petitions, and illustrated in the examination of some of the witnesses, your Committee cannot but apprehend, that the duties
It cannot be necessary to enter into any statements to show, that, practically, this would be the result, in all but seasons of scarcity, of a fixed duty of 40
s.
s.
d.
The suggestions with respect to duties equally prohibitory on every other article the production of the soil of this country, all come under the same principle, and are open to the same objection. The principle would, in fact, go far to annihilate commercial intercourse altogether; and is moreover founded, as it appears to your Committee, upon a mistaken statement, as well as an erroneous view of what is deemed protection to our manufactures.
In the first place, they feel the more warranted in affirming, that the argument of the petitioners rests in part upon a misconception of facts; as they observe, that one of the witnesses, in order to illustrate his ideas and the wishes of the petitioners, has furnished a table of the duties payable on foreign manufactured articles, of which several are subject to direct heavy duties of excise in this country; and upon which the importation duty, as for instance upon the article of glass, is imposed in a great measure to countervail the duty upon that article manufactured in this kingdom.
But the main grounds upon which your Committee are disposed to think that the House will look with some mistrust to the soundness of this principle, is—first, that it may be well doubted, whether (with the exception of silk) any of our considerable manufactures derive benefit from this assumed protection: in the markets of this country: for how could the foreign manufactures of cotton, of woollens, of hardware, compete with our own in this country, when it is notorious that we can afford to undersell them in the products of those great branches of our manufacturing industry, even in their own markets, notwithstanding that cotton and wool are subject to a direct duty on importation, not drawn back upon their export in a manufactured state, as well as to all the indirect taxation, which affects capital in these branches, in common with that capital which is employed in raising the productions of the soil? Secondly, that there exists this most essential difference between the effect of protection' given to the manufacturer (even if he did Hot enjoy from natural causes, a preference in the home-market) arid the attempt at a similar protection and monopoly to the produce of the soil;—that in all employment of capital, either, in trade or manufactures, profits are limited by competition. If, for any length of time, or from any circumstances, profits are increased, in any particular branch, above the accustomed average, additional capital seeks employment in that branch, and profits are again speedily reduced to their former level. This would equally be the case if the demand for that particular article were doubled; and it may further frequently happen, as we have witnessed of late years (in all goods, for instance, wrought of iron and cotton), that, owing to discoveries in mechanical and chemical science, and improvements in the manufacture, an immense increase of consumption may be concomitant with, and probably, in a great degree, the result of, a great fall in price.
The same principle, it is true, applies to the capital and business of the farmer; but with this important distinction, that the price of corn, taken for any series of years, is necessarily regulated by the expense of production upon the lands which, at that price, make no return beyond the charge of raising it, together with the ordinary profit of the capital employed upon those lands. The cultivator of such lands, for the time, is upon a fooling with the merchant and the manufacturer; but if the demand for corn were doubled, it would force into cultivation poorer lands, requiring a larger capital to raise the same quantity of produce; the price of that produce would determine the price of the whole, or those poorer lands could not be maintained in cultivation; for there cannot permanently be two rates of profit in the same occupation. It is sufficient for your Committee to point out this ground of difference, and to leave it to the judgment of the House, in connection with the observations which they have already submitted in a former part of this report.
Another wish expressed by some of the petitioners, and some of the witnesses, is for the repeal of that clause in the last act, which allows the warehousing in the United Kingdom of foreign corn, when it cannot be taken out for home consumption.
The grounds upon which this alteration of the law is suggested, for the relief of the British grower, are two-fold. 1st. That the foreign corn absorbs the capitals of the dealers which would otherwise be employed in speculating in corn of British growth; and, secondly, that it enables them to warehouses of this country, a large stock of foreign wheat, the notoriety of which de-
s.
The first objection proceeds upon two assumptions, both of which appear to your Committee doubtful; 1st, that the capitals of the dealers are absorbed in this foreign speculation; and 2ndly, that, if not so employed, they would speculate with them in British corn. Your Committee conceive that there is no fixed amount of capital assigned to this trade, and that it is governed by the same principles which stimulate the application of capital in all other branches of foreign or domestic commerce. The value of all the foreign corn now in this country, which cannot be sold for home consumption till the price shall, for some weeks, have exceeded 80
s.
s.
s.
Upon the second objection, your Committee have only to remark, that it is unquestionably true, that the present accumulation of a great quantity of foreign corn, the surplus of the two or three last harvests on the continent, would have a considerable influence upon the prices here, in the event of the ports being opened in consequence of a deficient harvest. But the question is, whether that influence would not be nearly, if not altogether, the same, under that contingency, if that accumulation were altogether at the shipping ports of Holland, or other parts of the continent, instead of being divided between them and the warehouses of this country? Should the prices here be fluctuating between 70
s.
s.
Having stated the grounds upon which your Committee are of opinion that the expectations which have been entertained of advantage from the repeal of this clause, are not likely lore realized, they conceive that the views in which it was introduced of making this country a deposit of foreign grain, from which cither our own occasional wants, or those of other nations, might be supplied, are, independent of other considerations, too much in unison with our general warehousing system, from which this country, derives such important commercial advantages, to be abandoned, without further proof of their prejudical effects to our agriculture, than any which your Committee have been, able to collect from the evidence.
It is material to observe, also, that the warehousing of foreign corn in this country, has this great advantage, that it places the supply of our wants, to the extent of the quantity warehoused, out of the reach of foreign states, putting it out of their power, in a season of scarcity, to aggravate the pressure of those wants, either by prohibiting the export of corn, or by imposing a heavy duty upon that export. The fact of upwards of 100,000 of quarters of wheat having been recently sent from the warehouses of this country to the Mediterranean, further shows that this facility of deposit is not a matter of indifference to the commerce and navigation, of this country.
An impression prevails in many quarters, that large quantities of corn, imported since February 1819, have recently been introduced into home, consumption. This could only have occurred by a fraudulent evasion of the law. Of the, existence of this practice to a great extent, your Committee have received many intimations. They appear, however, to rest upon, vague rumours, which the parties, when called upon, have not come forward, or not been able to substantiate, except in one instance, the particulars of which your Committee forbear to state, as it is understood that the persons concerned in the attempt, are now under prosecution. They will only observe, that the quantity stated to have been withdrawn was inconsiderable, and that it appears to them if further security be requisite against the recurrence of this fraud, that regulations for that purpose may easily be devised and introduced into the bill, now before the House, for better ascertaining the averages.
Instead of expressing doubts with respect to the remedies which have been suggested by others, it would have been far more satisfactory to your Committee, to have been, enabled to conclude their labours by pointing out some immediate measure of alleviation, which would have been efficacious at once to mitigate the distress, and to allay the alarm which prevail among the agricultural classes of the community.
If such an expedient could have been found, even in a temporary departure from any sound and recognized principle of general, policy on this subject, or in any modification of the existing law which could now be attempted, they might have been disposed to
So far as the present depression in the markets of agricultural produce is the effect of abundance from our own growth, the inconvenience arises from a cause which no legislative provision can alleviate; so far as it is the result of the increased value of our money, it is one not peculiar to the farmer, but which has been and still is experienced by many other classes of society. That result however is the more severely felt by the tenant, in consequence of its coincidence with an overstocked market, especially if he be farming with a borrowed capital and under the engagements of a lease; and it has hitherto been further aggravated by the comparative slowness with which prices generally, and particularly the price of labour, accommodate themselves to a change in the value of money.
From this circumstance, combined with other causes, the departure from our ancient standard, in proportion as it was prejudicial to all creditors of money and persons dependent on fixed incomes, was a benefit to the active capitals of the country; and it cannot be denied that the restoration of that standard has, in its turn, been proportionally disadvantageous to many individuals belonging to the productive classes of the community, and especially to those who had engaged in speculative adventures, either of farming or trade.
That restoration must also be accompanied with embarrassment to the landowner, in proportion as his estate is encumbered with mortgages or other fixed payments, assigned upon it during the period when land and rents were raised to an artificial value, in reference to the impaired value of the money in which those encumbrances were contracted.
From the cessation of public loans, the probability of large accumulations of capital, and the constant operation of such a sinking fund, as in the present state of our finances, may, henceforward during the continuance of peace, be regularly appropriated to the reduction of the public debt, your Committee trust that the rate of interest of money, may, in a short time, be so far reduced below the legal
maximum
REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.—
Copy of Mr. Lambton's proposed Bill "For effecting a Reform in the Representation of the People in Parliament."
See p.
A BILL for effecting a Reform in the Representation of the People in Parliament.
Preamble.
WHEREAS many boroughs and towns in England and Wales which now send burgesses to parliament have fallen greatly into decay, and contain but few voters to return such members to parliament: AND WHEREAS many other towns and places of great wealth population and consequence do not return burgesses to serve in parliament: AND WHEREAS many persons inhabitants and householders in various parts of England and Wales have no right to vote at and have no voice in the election of any members to serve in parliament, and yet are liable to all payments rates and taxes granted by parliament equally with persons voting in the election of members to serve in parliament, and are therefore equally interested and concerned with them to be truly and faithfully represented in parliament; by means whereof the representation of the people of England and Wales in the Commons House of Parliament has become and is greatly defective: AND WHEREAS it is just and equitable that that which affects all should be imposed only by the common assent of all, and that none should be taxed but by their representatives duly and fairly chosen and returned by themselves: FOR remedy whereof therefore, and for the promoting and maintaining the prosperity of the crown and the satisfaction and contentment of the people,
Boroughs returning members at present not to return after the present parliament, except the two Universities.
BE it enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the termination of this present parliament, the several cities towns boroughs cinque ports and other places within England and Wales, which have heretofore been accustomed to return citizens burgesses and barons to serve in parliament, save only the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, shall from thenceforth cease to return such citizens burgesses and barons as aforesaid to serve in parliament as heretofore.
England and Wales divided into districts for the purpose of returning members to parliament.
And for the providing more fully and equally for the due representation of the people of England and Wales in the Commons House of Parliament, Be it further enacted, That the several counties cities boroughs towns and other places throughout England and Wales, shall, for the returning of members to parliament and for the purposes of this act, be divided into the several districts of boroughs contained in the schedule to this act annexed marked (A); and that from and after the termination of this present parliament each of the said several districts shall in all future parliaments to be holden in and for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland return such one or more member or members to represent such districts respectively in parliament as are set and placed against such districts respectively in the said schedule hereunto annexed marked (A) to be elected and returned in manner hereinafter provided.
When the town at which the election is directed to be held, is in the jurisdiction of any sheriff, all places in that district to be held to be within his purpose of this act.
And whereas certain parts of some such districts are situated in separate and distinct shires counties or jurisdictions, Be it therefore further enacted, That for the purposes of this act every parish village hamlet or other place whatsoever forming part of any such district shall be taken and held for all the purposes of this act to be in the same shire county and jurisdiction wherein the place whereat the election for such district is hereby directed to be held as hereinafter provided shall be situated, and shall from and after the issuing of the writ for holding any such election as hereinafter provided be taken to be subject in all respects, for the purposes of such election and for the preservation of the peace during the continuance of the same, to the authority control and jurisdiction of the sheriff or sheriffs and all magistrates of that shire or county wherein such place appointed for holding such election as hereinafter provided shall be situate, and to the jurisdiction of the returning officer of such district, in like manner as if such parish township village hamlet and other place forming part of such district had been actually situate in the same shire county and jurisdiction and subject to the same control and jurisdiction as such place appointed for holding such election.
Writs to be issued by lord chancellor on new parliaments.
And be it further enacted, new parliament shall at any time hereafter be summoned or called, that in lieu of the writs heretofore issued by the lord-high-chancellor of Great Britain for the; election and return of citizens burgesses and barons for cities boroughs towns cinque ports
On a vacancy speaker to issue his warrant.
And be it further enacted, That during the sitting of any parliament which shall be held after the termination of this present parliament, when any vacancy shall occur in the representation of any such district or districts throughout England and Wales as aforesaid by the death or other removal of any member or members having represented such district or otherwise, such writ or writs as aforesaid shall be issued for supplying the vacancy or vacancies thereby occasioned, directed to the sheriff or sheriffs of the county or counties respectively wherein such districtor districts shall be situated respectively, in like manner as writs for the choosing and returning citizens burgesses and barons are now issued during the sitting of the high court of parliament, according to the ancient jurisdiction and authority of the Commons House of Parliament in that behalf accustomed and used, and the several acts made and now in force respecting the issuing of the same.
Who shall be returning officers.
Magistrates to be elected by overseers and churchwardens as returning officers.
And be it further enacted, That for the providing of fit and competent persons to be returning officers in the said several districts respectively, the churchwardens chapel-wardens and overseers of the poor of each and every parish township chapelry hamlet or other division in each and every of the said several districts shall on the fourth Monday next after Easter day, or in default thereof so soon after as they shall be required by public notice in writing signed by any two inhabitant householders of such district, or by any one magistrate having jurisdiction in such district, and published in some newspaper usually circulating in such district, in each and every year, after the passing of this act, meet in the vestry-room or other most usual place of holding vestries within the principal town village parish township chapelry hamlet or other division of such district whereat the election for such district is hereby directed to be holden as hereinafter provided, and after electing a chairman of such meeting, who shall have the casting vote in such meeting, on all questions put to the vote at such meeting where there shall be an equality of votes on such questions, but who shall not otherwise vote thereon, shall proceed to elect by a majority of voices of those present at such meeting some one acting magistrate within such district or within some borough town or other separate jurisdiction within such district, if any such there shall be, and if not then some acting magistrate within the borough town hundred riding county or other division wherein such district shall be situate, such magistrate not being a peer of the realm or clerk in holy orders, to become and act as returning officer for such district for which he shall be so chosen as aforesaid, for the year commencing from the first day of June next after such day of election, and until some other person shall be duly chosen in his stead as such returning officer, and such magistrate shall be and become, when so chosen and elected as aforesaid, the returning officer of such district for the year commencing from such first day of June next after such day of election and until some other person shall be duly chosen in his stead as such returning officer, and shall after notice of such election by the chairman of such meeting, which notice such chairman is hereby required to give in writing to such magistrate and also to the sheriff or sheriffs of the county wherein such district shall be situate within twenty days next after such election, be bound to perform and execute all the duties of such returning officer, and to preside at all elections of a member or members to serve in parliament within the district for which he shall be chosen such returning officer as aforesaid, during the time that he shall be and continue such returning officer, and shall execute all such duties in like manner and shall take the like oaths and be subject to the like pains penalties rules laws regulations directions immunities and disqualifications as the returning officers of any borough town cinque port or other place now sending members to parliament, excepting as is herein otherwise particularly provided and enacted: Provided always, that no such
Returning officer giving notice to sheriffs may appoint a deputy, and office where duties of returning officer shall be executed.
And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for any such magistrate who shall be chosen and elected the returning officer of any such district to nominate and appoint some fit and proper person or persons as his deputy or deputies, and to name and appoint some place or office within such district, giving notice thereof to the sheriff or sheriffs of the county wherein such district shall be situate, where the duties of such returning officer shall and may be performed; and any person or persons accepting such nomination and appointment shall be bound to perform and execute all the duties of such returning officer (excepting the duty of presiding at elections in such district, which every returning officer shall be bound to perform in person excepting in the case of serious illness or some urgent and sudden necessity, in which case such deputy or deputies may act in his behalf in like manner as any returning officer would be likewise bound to perform the same; and all notices precepts and other proceedings served at such place shall be held to be good to all intents and purposes, and binding on such returning officer as if the same had been served at the dwelling-house of such returning officer, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding; and any returning officer or deputy returning officer and each of them who shall refuse or neglect to perform his duty as such returning officer or deputy returning officer, when duly required so to do, shall forfeit
£
Returning officer corruptly to be imprisoned, and rendered incapable of acting as a magistrate or holding any office under the Crown.
And for the purpose of guarding against Returning officer corrupt and partial conduct of returning officers at elections of members to serve in parliament for such districts, Be it further enacted, That every any office under returning officer or deputy returning officer who shall be by due course of law convicted of having acted corruptly or partially in the execution of his duty of returning officer or deputy returning officer of any such district, at any election of member to serve in parliament for such district, shall be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor, and be imprisoned for such time, not exceeding three years nor less than one year, as to the court, before whom such returning officer shall be tried, shall seem fit and meet; and such person so convicted shall from thenceforth be incapable of acting as a magistrate or of holding any office under the Crown.
Magistrates may decline, and pay 200
l.
And whereas it may happen that in some instances magistrates may be chosen returning officers for districts for which such magistrates may halve an idea of offering themselves as candidates for the representation thereof: and whereas such magistrates would be disqualified by the existing laws as such returning officers from representing the district for which they were respectively such returning officers, and might therefore be prevented from offering themselves as such candidates; Be it therefore further enacted, That if any magistrate shall be chosen or elected returning officer of any district for which he may intend to offer himself as a candidate to represent such district in parliament, it shall and may be lawful for any such magistrate, on giving notice to the sheriff or sheriffs of the county wherein such district shall be situate, and paying a fine of 200
l.
Sheriff to issue precept to elect on Monday next, after two clear days notice.
And be it further enacted, That from and
Public notices to be affixed on all churches and market places.
And be it further enacted, That besides the public notice to be given as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of every returning officer of every district, and they are hereby required respectively as soon after the receipt of such precept respectively is received as convenient may be, and not later in any case than by twelve o'clock at noon on the Saturday next preceding the day of election, to cause public notices in writing to be affixed in some conspicuous part on the principal door of every church or chapel, and also on the market place, or if none, then on some other most conspicuous place within every parish township chapelry hamlet or other place within the district whereof they shall be such returning officers respectively, stating the time and place of holding such election, and the places, if more than at the place of holding such election as hereinafter provided, where any votes within such district may be tendered and recorded, and shall for that purpose use the several forms contained in the schedule hereunto annexed marked (B) as the same may be applicable to such purpose.
Right of voting.
And be it further enacted, That from and after the termination of this present parliament the right of election of a member or members to serve in parliament for such several districts in England and Wales as aforesaid respectively, shall be and is hereby declared to be in the inhabitant householders within such districts respectively who shall have been
bona fide rated
Oaths to be taken.
And be it further enacted, That every person or persons before he or they is or are admitted to poll at any such election as aforesaid, shall, if duly required so to do, take and subscribe all the several oaths and make all the several affirmations and declarations directed by the laws now in force to be taken and subscribed and made by persons voting in the election of burgesses to serve in parliament at this present time, as far as the same may be applicable to such person or persons respectively, excepting only the oath generally called the oath of supremacy, and the declaration generally called the declaration of test, and such oaths and declarations as relate to the roman catholic religion; and every inhabitant householder before he is admitted to poll at any such election shall, in addition thereto, if required by any candidate at such election or any person having a right to vote at such election, first take the oath, or, being a quaker, the solemn affirmation following; that is to say
"I,
A.
signifying his trade or profes-"sion
or
as the case may be
stating his place of resi"dence
or
Which oath or solemn affirmation the returning officer of such election, or his deputy or any poll clerk, or person taking the poll, shall be and are hereby authorized and empowered and required to administer.
Persons now entitled to vote any Borough &c. to be entitled to vote for life.
Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any person or persons who may now have, or who shall before the termination of this Present parliament acquire, a perfect right to vote in the election of any citizen burgess or baron to serve iii parliament for any city borough town cinque port or other place now sending members to parliament, shall after the termination of this present parliament be entitled to vote in respect of such right of voting now had or before the termination of this present parliament acquired, and so long as such right shall continue vested in such person or persons, in the election of a member or members to serve in parliament for the district, or districts if more than one, wherein such city borough town cinque port or other place shall be situate, although such person or persons shall not be an inhabitant householder or inhabitants householders qualified to vote at such election or elections; any thing herein contained to the contrary
Oath to be taken.
"I,
A.
mentioning his trade or profes"sion
or
mentioning his place of re"aidence
mentioning the day on "which this present parliament shall ter"minate
or, town, &c. as the case may be
slating the
or
stating the right of voting
Place of election and duration of poll.
And be it further enacted, That the election for each and every of the said districts shall be had and held at such place and places within the said districts respectively as are put and placed opposite to the said several districts respectively in the said schedule hereto annexed marked (A) and named in the said schedule as the place of holding such elections respectively, and in no other place or places except in the case of any extraordinary and urgent necessity; and such elections shall respectively commence before the hour of twelve o'clock at noon on the first day of such elections respectively, and shall be proceeded in and conducted in all respects as elections for any burgess or burgesses for any borough or other place are now by law directed to be proceeded in and conducted, except as herein is particularly otherwise provided and enacted; Provided nevertheless, that when any poll shall be demanded at any such election, such poll shall commence on the day on which it shall be demanded, or on the next day at farthest, and shall be duly and regularly proceeded in from day to day, and shall be kept open for eight hours at the least in each day, except the day of demanding the same, between the hours of seven in the morning and eight in the evening, till the same be finished, but so that no election shall continue more than six days at most, including the first day, and so that every poll shall be finally closed at or before the hour of three in the afternoon of the Saturday next after the first commencement of the said election; and the returning officer of every such election shall immediately or as soon as conveniently may be, and within one hour after the final close of the poll if kept open till the sixth day, truly fairly and publicly declare the name or names of the person or persons, who have the majority of votes on such poll, and shall forthwith make a return of such person or persons, unless such returning officer, upon scrutiny being demanded by any candidate or any two or more electors, shall deem it necessary to grant the same, in which case the same shall be proceeded in according to the laws now in force relating to the election of members to serve in parliament at this present time.
Proper places to be provided for polling in.
And be it further enacted, that at every such election the returning officer shall appoint make hire or erect, or cause to be appointed made hired or erected, such numbers of convenient booths or polling places separate and distinct from each other, not being fewer in districts where one member shall be directed to be returned than four, and in districts where two mem-
Overseers to make and send lists of persons rated.
And be it further enacted, that the churchwardens chapelwardens and overseers of the poor respectively of every parish hamlet chapelry township or other division having separate church or chapelwardens or separate overseers of the poor within any such district, shall respectively, and they are hereby required within one fortnight next after the publication of any and all poor or church or chapel rate or rates for such parish hamlet chapelry or township, to make out and deliver at the dwelling house of the returning officer or at the office appointed for executing the duties of returning officer of such district, an alphabetical list or lists, containing in alphabetical arrangement the surname of every person rated in such rate or rates to the church or poor respectively within such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division, together with the Christian name if known and the place of abode of every such person within such parish hamlet chapelry or township; and every collector of assessed taxes collecting any such taxes within any part of such district shall within one fortnight next after the receipt of any warrant to collect such taxes, make out and deliver at the dwelling house of such returning officer or at such office as aforesaid, an alphabetical list or lists containing in alphabetical arrangement the surname of every person from whom such collector shall be directed, in and by such warrant, to collect or levy any such taxes within any part of such district, together with the Christian name if known and the place of abode of every such person within such district; and every returning officer of such district shall upon any election to be held for such district deliver or cause to be delivered copies, to each and every poll clerk appointed by such returning officer of such district, of such part of such alphabetical lists respectively as shall contain the names of persons whose names commence with any letters for which the booth or polling place for which such poll clerk to whom the same shall be delivered shall be appointed shall be allotted or designed; and in case of any dispute as to any vote at any such election, the poll clerk to whom any vote shall be tendered at such election, shall, if required by any candidate or agent or by any elector, refer to such list, and if the name of the person tendering such vote shall not appear in such copy or copies of such lists or any of them, then such vote so tendered shall not be received by such poll clerk without a written or other authority, as hereinafter provided, from the returning officer at such election, after investigating such vote, to receive the same: provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to give power to any poll clerk or poll clerks to decide on any objection taken to any vote, other than the name of the voter tendering; such vote not being contained in. any such, list or lists.
In districts consisting of more than one perish where voters reside more than five miles from place of election, votes may be tendered to overseers of the parish where voters are resident.
And for the purpose of lessening the expense of elections, and for the greater convenience of voters, be it further enacted, That in any district consisting voters reside more of more than one parish hamlet chapelry township or other division for which there shall be separate overseers of the poor, and wherein any part resident of such district shall be more than five miles distant by the direct and nearest horse or carriage road from the place at which the election shall be directed to be held, it shall be lawful for any person or persons having a right to vote at any election of a member or members to serve in parliament for such district and residing above five miles from the place of such election, to tender and their vote and votes for such district, if he or they shall be willing so to do, to the overseers of the poor of such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division within such district wherein he or they shall be a householder or householders, or to some one or mere of such overseers or to their sufficient deputy appointed for that purpose, as hereinafter provided, at such time and place as shall be appointed for receiving such votes,
Returning officers to give notice to the overseers to attend to take votes in some place appointed by the returning officer.
And be it further enacted, That when the returning officer of any district consisting of more than one parish hamlet chapelry township or other division for which there shall be separate overseers of the poor, and wherein any part of such district shall be more than five miles distant by the direct and nearest horse and carriage road from the place at which the election shall be directed to be held, shall receive any such precept as aforesaid requiring such returning officer to proceed to the election of a member or members to serve in parliament for such district, such returning officer shall within forty-eight hours next following the receipt of such precept give notice in writing of such precept to the overseers of the poor, or any two of them, of each and every parish hamlet chapelry township or other division within such district having such separate overseers, whereof any part shall he more than such five miles distant from the place at which such election shall be directed to be held, and shall require the overseers of each and every such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division respectively to meet on the Tuesday next after the first day of election appointed for such district by nine o'clock in the morning, in the vestry-room or other more convenient place to be named by such returning officer, in each and every such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division respectively, there to receive by themselves or their sufficient deputy the vote or votes of any person or persons having a right to vote at such election, residing in such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division respectively above five miles from the place of election for such district, who shall be desirous of tendering his or their vote or votes to be there received for such election; and the several overseers of each and every such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division, or some one or more from each and every such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division, in pursuance of such notices (under the penalty of to be paid by each and every of them who shall make default therein, to be paid to the poor of such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division in case one or more of such overseers respectively shall not attend accordingly), shall attend at the time and places respectively appointed in and by such notices, and shall then and there by themselves or some one or more of them, or by their sufficient deputy which they or those of them attending respectively are empowered to appoint, and open a poll for such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division for the reception of all such votes so to be tendered as aforesaid; which said poll shall be kept open, for the purpose aforesaid for the space of five hours at the least from the hour of nine o'clock in the morning for three days theft next following, exclusive of the first day of such poll, provided the poll at the principal place of election for such district shall be so long kept open and not longer, and if such poll at the principal place of election shall be closed, or if all the persons entitled to vote at such election and residing in any such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division above five miles from the place of election for such district shall have been polled before the end of such three days, then the poll so taken before such overseers or their deputies respectively shall be closed as soon as the person taking any such poll shall receive sufficient notice or information of the closing of such principal poll, or that all such persons have been polled; arid such overseers respectively or their deputy taking any such poll as aforesaid shall on the daily close of such poll and immediately after the close thereof transmit the amount of the number of votes tendered to and received by such persons respectively in the course of such days poll for each and every candidate at such election, and at the final close of such poll shall transmit the original poll so taken for such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division, with the account of the numbers thereof, to the returning officer of the district wherein such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division shall be situate, by some messenger or messengers specially appointed by such overseers respectively for such purpose, who shall with all possible expedition convey the same; and if any person or persons shall molest obstruct or assault such messenger or messengers in the due execution of his or their duty in conveying such, parish hamlet chapelry township or other division poll, or the account thereof as aforesaid, such person or persons being thereof lawfully convicted shall be liable to be imprisoned for any time not less than months, as the court, before whom such person or persons shall be convicted shall think proper; and every returning officer, on the receipt of the account and amount of any such parish hamlet chapelry township and other division poll, shall accordingly add such num-
Overseers or their deputy shall have same power as returning officers.
And be it further enacted, that any overseer or overseers, or their deputy, before whom any such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division poll as aforesaid shall be taken, shall have all the same powers and authorities in taking such poll as shall by law appertain to, and shall take and have power to administer the same oaths as by law are and shall be directed to be taken and administered by any returning officer of any such district as aforesaid; save and except that if any dispute shall arise as to the validity of any vote tendered to any overseer or overseers or their deputy, objected to by any candidate or candidates at any such election, or by his or their agent or agents, or by any two or more persons having right to vote at such election, on any objection stated in writing by the person or persons so objecting, such overseer or overseers or deputy shall not receive or record such vote, but the question of the admissibility of such vote shall be referred to the returning officer of such district to whom the same may be again tendered at the place of holding such election, and who shall decide in some convenient place (to be appointed by him for that purpose on or before the first day of election) all disputes whether arising at the principal place of election or at any parish hamlet chapelry township or other division poll relating to votes tendered at such election; and if on investigating any such disputes such returning officer shall be of opinion that any such votes so objected to ought to be received, then such returning officer shall give a written authority to the proper poll clerk for receiving such vote, or shall personally direct such proper poll clerk to receive the same; upon which no further objection shall be made to such vote, but the same shall be immediately received.
For remunerating overseer's deputy, and messenger.
And be it further enacted, that for the remuneration of any deputy and of any messenger or messengers to be appointed by any such overseers to take such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division poll and to convey such poll and account, there shall be paid by such overseers respectively to every such deputy the sum of half a guinea for each and every day such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division poll shall be kept open, and to the messenger or messengers such sum or sums of money as shall appear to such overseers a reasonable and fair remuneration to such messenger or messengers for their trouble and the expenses attending the conveyance of such poll and accounts; which several sums of money shall be paid by such overseers or any of them out of and charged upon the poor-rates of such parish hamlet chapelry township or other division and included in the accounts of such overseers respectively.
Remuneration to deputy returning officers.
And whereas it would be necessary to make some provision for the remuneration Of the deputies of returning officers; but it would be desirable that such remuneration should be limited to such reasonable and proper amount as would not exceed a fair and adequate remuneration, for the trouble attendant on the situation of any such deputy returning officer; be it therefore further enacted, that there shall and may be paid to the deputy of any returning officer of any such district such sum and sums of money, for the several acts and things provided and directed to be done by such deputy returning officer by this act for and towards the holding and conducting of any such election, as the court of quarter sessions for the county wherein any such district shall be situate shall direct and appoint, upon a table of fees to be presented to such court of quarter sessions by the clerk of the peace for such county at the midsummer quarter sessions for such county in each and every year: Provided nevertheless, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to permit any such court of quarter sessions to grant any fee or remuneration whatsoever to any magistrate being such returning officer as aforesaid, but every such magistrate shall perform the duties of such office without any fee reward or remuneration whatsoever.
How expenses to be defrayed.
And whereas it is just and right that those who have the benefit of an election should pay the expenses attendant thereon; be it therefore further enacted, that all the expenses of any election, as well the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in providing or erecting polling places and procuring and paying poll clerks and other persons employed therein, as any other expenses authorized by this act and necessarily attendant on such election, shall be borne and paid out of the poors rates of the several parishes hamlets villages chapelries townships and other divisions in the district for which such election shall be held, and shall be paid by the overseers of such parishes hamlets villages chapelries townships and other divisions out of the poors rates of the same to the returning officer or his deputy, in such fair and rateable proportions in proportion to the amount of the poors rates of such parishes hamlets villages chapelries townships and other divisions respectively on a rack rent, as near as the same can be ascertained, as such returning officer and any other magistrate of the county wherein such district shall be situate, by warrant under their own proper hands and seals directed to the overseers of such
Sheriff to appoint more than one booth if necessary in each hundred.
And whereas it would be desirable to reduce as far as possible the expense of county elections; be it therefore further enacted, for the more easy taking of the poll and preventing confusion at county elections, that from and after the termination of this present parliament, at every election of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in parliament for any county within England or Wales, the sheriff or sheriffs of such county, or in his or their absence the under-sheriff or such as he shall depute, shall and he and they are hereby required, without request by any candidate, on the taking of any poll on such election to make erect or hire and appoint or cause to be made erected or hired and appointed at the principal place of holding such election, such number of booths or polling places separate and distinct from each other, and not being in any case fewer than the number of hundreds rapes lathes wapen takes wards or other divisions in such county, but more if they shall be required, as shall seem to him necessary and convenient, with good and free access thereto respectively for taking such poll without tumult or confusion; and shall appoint a proper clerk or clerks at each of the said booths or polling places to take the poll, who shall he paid not exceeding one guinea per day each clerk; and which said booths or polling places and clerks may be increased if necessary during such election, and which said booths and polling places shall be used respectively in like manner; and lists for pach of such booths or polling places shall be made out and copies thereof delivered in like manner as is now directed for booths or polling places erected for taking the poll in county elections under and by virtue of the laws now in force.
Poll to be open in counties only ten days.
And be it further enacted, that no poll taken for any county for the election of a knight or knights of the shire shall after the termination of this present parliament be kept open longer than ten days exclusive of the first day of such election, and if it shall continue open to the lentil day then such poll shall be finally closed at or before three o'clock on such tenth day in like manner as such polls are now required by law to be closed on the fifteenth day of such polls.
Freeholders of forty shillings in towns which are countries to vote for county members.
And be it further enacted, that from and after the termination of this present parliament every freeholder who shall have any freehold estate in any lands tenements or hereditaments of the clear yearly value of forty shillings over and above all rents and charges payable out of or in respect of the same, lying within any city borough town or other place in England or Wales which is a county of itself, shall be entitled to vote at all elections for knights of the shire to serve in parliament for the county at large within which such city borough town or other place which is a county of itself shall be situate; and such freeholders before they are admitted to poll shall if required take the like oaths as other freeholders for counties are now by law required to take.
Leaseholders to vote in Counties.
And be it further enacted, that from and after the termination of this present parliament, every person who shall hold any lands or tenements of the clear yearly value of forty shillings over and above all rents and charges payable out of or in respect of the same under or by virtue of any lease or leases, or for any term of years, which lease or leases shall be renewable from time to time for ever at the will of the lessee, and every person who shall hold any lands or tenements of the clear yearly value of forty shillings over and above all rents and charges payable out of the same under and by virtue of any lease or leases for any term of years whereof not less than twenty-one shall be to come and unexpired at the time of such person tendering his vote, shall be entitled to vote for the knights of the shire of that county within which lands or hereditaments are respectively situated; and every such person before he is admitted to poll shall, if required by the candidates or any of them, or any other person having a right to vote at the said election, first take the oath (or, being one of the persons called quakers, the solemn affirmation) following; videlicet,
"You shall swear, (
or, being one of the peo"ple called quakers, shall
stating the de"scription of the premises
or
Copy holders to vote counties.
And be it further enacted, that from and after the termination of this present parliament; every person who shall hold any lands tenements or hereditaments by copy of court roll of the clear yearly value of forty shillings
In counties votes may be tendered to the high constables of hundreds and &c. or their deputies at such place as shall be appointed; but any person who prefers it, to be entitled to vote at the principal place of election.
And for the purpose of lessening the expense of electors of knights of the shire for the several counties of England and Wales, and for the greater convenience of voters, be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for any person having aright to vote at any election of a knight of the shire or knights of the shire to serve in parliament for any counties in England or Wales, to tender his vote, if he shall be willing so to do, to the high constable or constables or other principal peace, officer for the time being of the hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division within such county wherein the property in respect of which such person shall be entitled to vote shall be situate, or to his or their sufficient deputy appointed for that purpose, at such time and place as shall be appointed for receiving such votes as hereinafter, provided; and all votes so tendered shall be received and recorded by such high constable or constables or other principal peace officer or his or their sufficient deputy to whom the same shall be tendered, in manner hereinafter provided, and shall be as good and valid for the candidate or person for whom the same shall be tendered, to all intents and purposes, as if such votes had been tendered and received at the principal place of holding the election for such county: Provided nevertheless, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent any person whomsoever, having a right to vole at such election, from voting at the principal place of holding such election, if he shall think proper so to do, in preference to voting at such place as shall be appointed for that purpose within such hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division as aforesaid.
Sheriff to issue precept to high constable to take votes tendered within their respective hundreds.
And be it further enacted, That when the sheriff of any county in England or Wales shall receive any precept requiring such sheriff to proceed to the election of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in parliament for such county, such sheriff shall within two days next following the receipt of -such precept give notice in writing of such precept to the high constable or high constables ear other principal peace-officer or officers for each and every hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division within such county, and shall require such high constable or constables or other principal peace-officer to attend on the day next after the first day of election appointed for such county by nine o'clock in the morning at some convenient place within the hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division for which he or they shall be high constable or constables or other peace officer, to be named by such sheriff in such notice, there to receive by himself or themselves or his or their sufficient deputy the vote or votes of any person or persons, having right to vote at such election, who shall be desirous of tendering and entitled to tender his or their vote or votes to be there received for such election, and the high constable and constables or other principal peace officer of each and every such hundred half hundred lathe wapen take ward or other division, shall, in pursuance of such notice, giving good and sufficient notice throughout the hundred of the time and place appointed, to be given forthwith on the receipt of such requisition, attend at the time and place respectively appointed in and by such notices, and shall then and there by himself or themselves, or his or their sufficient deputy whom he or they is and are hereby empowered to appoint, open a poll for such hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division for the reception of all such votes to be tendered as aforesaid, which said poll shall be kept open for the space of hours at the least from the hour of nine o'clock in the morning for five days then next following, exclusive of the first day of such poll, provided the poll at the principal place of election for such county shall be so long kept open, and no longer; and if such poll at the principal place of election for such county shall be closed, or if all the persons entitled to vote at such election in respect of any property within any such hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division, or so many as shall desire so to do, shall have been polled before the end of such five days, then the poll so to be taken before such high constables or other principal peace officers respectively or their respective deputies shall be closed as soon as the person taking any such poll shall receive sufficient notice or information of the closing of such principal poll or that all such persons so entitled and desirous to vote as aforesaid have been polled; and such high constables or other peace officers re-spectively or their respective deputies taking any such poll as aforesaid shall on the daily close of such poll and immediately after the close thereof transmit the amount of the numbers of votes tendered and received by such persons respectively in the course of each day's poll for each and every candidate at such election, and at the final close of such poll shall transmit the original poll so taken for such hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen-
High constables to take the same oaths and have the same power as returning officers, except as to disputed votes.
And be it further enacted, That every high constable or constables or other peace officer or their deputy before whom any such last mentioned poll as afore-said shall be taken, shall have and shall be bound by all the same powers and authorities in taking such poll as shall by law appertain to, and shall take and have power to administer the same oaths as by law are and shall be directed to be taken and administered, on such election, by the sheriff' of the county wherein such hundred half hundred rape lathe wapen take ward or other division shall be situate; save and except that if any dispute shall arise as to the validity of any vote tendered to any such high constable or constables or other principal peace officer or their deputy, objected to by any candidate or candidates at any such election, or by his or their agent or agents, or by any two or more persons having right to vote at such election, on any reasonable ground stated by the person or persons so objecting, such high constable or constables or other principal peace officer or his or their deputy shall not receive or record such vote, but the question of the admissibility of such vote shall be referred to the sheriff of such county, to whom the same may be again tendered at the principal place of holding such election, who shall decide all disputes relating to votes tendered at such election, and if on investigating any such disputes such sheriff shall be of opinion that any such votes so objected to ought to be received, then such sheriff shall give a written authority to the proper poll clerk for receiving such vote, or shall personally direct such proper poll clerk to receive the same, upon which no farther objection shall be made to such vote, but the same shall be immediately received.
For remunerating high constables, deputies, and messengers.
And be it further enacted, That for the remuneration of any high constable or other peace officer or any deputy of such high-constable or other peace officer taking such last mentioned poll in any county, and of any messenger or messengers to be appointed by any such high-constable or other peace officer to convey such poll and accounts, there shall be paid by the sheriff of such county to every such high-constable or other peace officer or his deputy taking such poll the sum of one guinea for each and every day such poll shall be kept open, together with the reasonable expense, if any, attendant upon giving notice of such poll and procuring a fit and proper place to take such poll in, and to the messenger or messengers such sum or sums of money as shall appear to such sheriff a reasonable and fair remuneration to such messenger or messengers for their trouble and the expenses attending the conveyance of such poll and accounts; which several sums of money shall be paid by such sheriff, and reimbursed to him in manner hereinafter provided.
How expenses to be defrayed.
And be it further enacted, That all the expenses of any election for a knight or knights of the shire to serve in parliament for any county in England and Wales, as well the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in providing or erecting booths and polling places as well in the several hundreds half hundreds rapes lathes wapen takes wards and other divisions as in the principal place of holding such election, and of procuring and paying poll clerks and other persons employed therein, as any other expenses thereof authorized by this act and necessarily attendant on such election, shall be borne and paid out of the county rate of the county for which such election shall be held, and shall be paid by the clerk of the peace or treasurer of such county to the sheriff of such county, on demand thereof, out of the county rate of such county; and in default of payment thereof one month after such demand, such sheriff may recover the amount thereof by action of debt or assumpsit in any of his majesty's courts at Westminster, to be brought against the clerk of the peace or treasurer of such county, in which it shall be lawful for such sheriff to lay the venue either in the same or some neighbouring county, and in case such sheriff shall recover, the full amount demanded of such clerk of the peace or treasurer, then such sheriff shall also recover and be paid double costs of suit.
1 Geo. 1. chap. 38. repealed; and parliaments to be triennial.
And whereas in and by an act of parlia-
Present parliament to expire on
And be it further enacted, That this present parliament shall cease and determine on the day of which will be in the year of our Lord unless previously dissolved by the king's most excellent majesty.
Oath to be taken by candidate.
And be it further enacted, That before any person can be returned to sit in parliament for any county shire or district within England or Wales, he shall take and subscribe the oath following, and which he shall repeat and again subscribe at the table of the House of Commons before he is admitted to take his seat:
"I,
A. B.
Persons guilty of bribery, and convicted by two persons, to suffer all the penalties, &c. now inflicted by law.
And be it further enacted, That every person or persons who shall be convicted, by the evidence of two witnesses, of having given or offered or of having promised to give or allow any sum or sums of money office or employment, to any person whomsoever, in order to influence the vote of any elector or his choice of a person to serve as a member in the high court of parliament, shall be held to be guilty of bribery, and be subject to all the pains and penalties enacted or inflicted in cases of bribery, and shall suffer all the pains and penalties disabilities and disqualifications now inflicted and attendant on persons proved to be guilty of bribery at elections of members to serve in parliament.
Ambassadors, &c. to be incompetent to sit in parliament.
And be it further enacted, That no ambassador or other person whomsoever having or accepting any office commission or employment under his majesty, whether civil or military, the duties whereof shall be executed out of the United Kingdom, shall be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons in any parliament which shall be hereafter summoned and holden; and if any person who shall be elected to serve as a member of the House of Commons in any parliament which shall be hereafter summoned and holden shall during such time as he shall continue a member accept or take any such office commission or employment, his election shall be and is hereby declared to be void, and the seat of such person shall be thereby immediately vacated, and a new writ shall issue for a new election in the room of such person as if such person so accepting was naturally dead.
Statutes now in force relative to elections, continued.
And be it further enacted, That all statutes now in force touching or concerning the qualification election or return of knights of the shire or of burgesses to serve in the high court of parliament, shall be held to extend and the same are hereby declared to extend to the qualification election and return of knights of the shire and members to be elected and chosen to serve in the said high court of parliament under or by virtue of this act, so far as the provisions of the said statutes shall be applicable to the same, and in so far as they are not varied or altered or repealed by the present act.
And be it further enacted, That this act and the provisions thereof shall extend to that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales, and no further.
SCHEDULE (A.)
A Schedule containing the several Districts throughout England and Wales, to return hereafter one or more Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament.
County within which the District is situated, and to the Sheriff of which the Writ to issue.
Name of District.
Parishes and Places Comprised in such District.
Place of Election.
Number of Members to be returned.
SCHEDULE (B.)
A Schedule containing the Form of Notices to be given of the Time and Place of holding Elections, to be affixed on Churches, &c.
No. 1.—A General Notice of the Time and Place of Election in Districts where no Votes are to be tendered to Overseers.
Election of a Member to serve in Parliament for the District of
NOTICE is hereby given, That an Election of a Member to serve in Parliament for this District, will be held on Monday next, the day of at the
(
naming the place of election
A. B.
No. 2.—Form of Notice to be added to the above in Districts where Votes are to be tendered to Overseers of Parishes.
And NOTICE is hereby further given, That any Persons residing within the several Parishes (
or
naming the parishes, &c. of which any part is more than Jive miles from the principal place of election
A. B.
PLACES for tendering Votes in the above Parishes, Hamlets, &c. respectively.
Parish of
A.
Hamlet of
B.
Hamlet of
C.
As the Returning Officer shall direct,
[
The following Report was accidentally omitted in the Appendix to the Debates of the last Session.
REPORT
from
of the House Of Commons appointed to consider of the means of maintaining and improving the Foreign Trade of the Country.
July
THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider of the means of maintaining and improving the Foreign Trade of the Country, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House; and to whom the several Petitions relating to the Commercial Restrictions, and to the Duties on Timber, presented in the present Session, were referred; and who were also empowered to report from time to time to the House;—Have, pursuant to the Order of the House, considered the matters to them referred; and have agreed upon the following Report:—
It has appeared to your Committee, that the means of attaining the object, to which their consideration has been directed by the order of the House, consisted less in affording any additional legislative protection or encouragement to the commerce of the United Kingdom with foreign states, than in relieving it from a variety of restrictions which the policy of a former period imposed upon it; and which, whether expedient or otherwise at the time when they were enacted, having ceased to be necessary for the purposes which originally recommended them, tend to embarrass its operations, and impede its extension and prosperity. Your Committee are satisfied that the skill, enterprize, and capital of British merchants and manufacturers require only an open and equal field for exertion; and that the most valuable boon that can be conferred on them is, as unlimited a freedom from all interference as may be compatible with what is due to private vested interests that have grown up under the existing system, and those more important considerations with which the safety and political power of the country are intimately connected.
Your Committee have therefore thought that they should best consult the intentions of the House, by directing their immediate attention to those regulations which, under the name either of restrictions or protections, operate in controlling the commerce of the kingdom, in order to estimate their nature and effects; and to judge in what degree it may be prudent to retain them, and in what instances (subject to the considerations referred to) their removal or modification may be recommended with safety and advantage.
In contemplating the range of the duty assigned to them, and the variety and importance of the objects of investigation embraced by it, your Committee were of opinion, that the most convenient course they could adopt, would be, to take the subjects up under distinct heads, and report upon them in succession; by which the House might be enabled, not only to form its judgment more easily on each subject, as separately submitted to it, but also more readily to give effect to its judgment, when formed, by such legislative enactments as in the respective cases might seem expedient.
Before, however, your Committee proceed to advert to the points which have been the principal objects of their inquiry, they are anxious to call the observation of the House to the excessive accumulation and complexity of the laws under which the commerce of the country is regulated; with which they were forcibly impressed in the very earliest stage of their proceedings. These laws, passed at different periods, and many of them arising out of temporary circumstances, amount, as slated in a recent compilation of them, to upwards of two thousand; of which no less than eleven hundred were in force in the year 1815, and many additions have been since made. After such a statement, it will not appear extraordinary that it should be matter of complaint to the British merchant, that so far from the course in which he is to guide his transactions being plain and simple; so far from being able to undertake his operations, and to avail himself of favourable openings as they arise, with promptitude and confidence; he is frequently reduced to the necessity of resorting to the services of professional advisers, to ascertain what he may venture to do, and what he must avoid, before he is able to embark in his commercial adventures with the assurance of being secure from the consequences of an infringement of the law. If this be the case (as is staled to your Committee) with the most experienced amongst the merchants, even in England, in how much greater a degree must the same perplexity and apprehension of danger operate in foreign countries and en foreign merchants, whose acquaintance with our Statute-book must be supposed to be comparatively limited, and who are destitute of the professional authorities which the merchant at home may at all times consult for his direction? When it is recollected, besides, that a trivial unintentional deviation from the strict letter of the acts of parliament may expose a ship and' cargo to the inconvenience of seizure, which (whether sustained or abandoned) is attended always with delay and expense, and frequently
The commercial restrictions to which the intercourse of the United Kingdom with foreign stales is subjected, may be classed under three heads; first, those intended for the improvement of its navigation, and the support of its naval power; secondly, those which arise put of the necessity of drawing from commerce, in common with other resources, a proportion of the public revenue; arid, lastly, those necessary to the protection afforded to various branches of our domestic industry, for the purpose of securing to them the internal supply of the country, and the export to its several colonies.
The head of restrictive protections, to which the attention and inquiry of your committee has been in the first instance directed, is, that which comprehends the acts intended for the support and extension of British shipping.
It would be superfluous to pursue the history of our laws for the promotion of British commerce and navigation, from the earliest period at which the subject appears to have occupied the attention of the legislature, to the reign of Charles the second, when they were brought nearly to with some subsequent have since continued.
Whatever may have been the principles which dictated, or the political benefits that have accrued to the country from the acts passed in the 12th, 13th, and 14th of Charles the second, and known by the name of the Navigation law and Statute of Frauds; it can scarcely be denied, that they have a tendency to cramp the operations of commerce, and to impede the growth of that opulence which may arise from foreign trade.
The provisions of these laws apply, first, to the regulation of the trade with Asia, Africa, and America; and the territories of the grand seignior and the duke of Muscovy.—Secondly, to that of the trade with the other states of Europe.
The leading principle in reference to the former, is, that no goods the produce of Asia, Africa, or America, and the territories specified, shall be imported into this kingdom, but directly from the place of their growth, and exclusively in British ships, owned by British subjects, and navigated in a certain proportion by British seamen. To the latter that goods enumerated, coming from different countries of Europe, shall be imported either in ships built in the states of which they are the produce, and owned and navigated by their subjects, or in ships of Great Britain; except from Germany and the Netherlands, which are by name partially excluded. From these last-mentioned countries certain articles are prohibited from being imported into great Britain, in any ship whatever, under the penalty of confiscation of the ship and cargo.
A just respect for the political wisdom from which the enactment of the navigation laws originated, and a sense of the great national advantages derived from them in their effects on the maritime greatness and power of the kingdom, have rendered them objects of attachment and veneration to every British subject. Nor can your Committee suppose that any suggestions they may offer, can lead to a suspicion of their being disposed to recommend an abandonment of the policy from which they emanated; or to advise, in favour of the extension of commerce, a remission of that protecting vigilance under which the shipping and navigation of the kingdom have so eminently grown and flourished. The only question which, on. this subject, they have entertained, is, whether the advantages hitherto enjoyed by our shipping, might not be compatible with increased facilities afforded to trade, and its relief from some of the restrictions which the provisions of these laws impose upon it. They are convinced, that every restriction on the freedom of commerce is in itself an evil, to be justified only by some adequate political expediency; and that every facility that can be extended to it, is a benefit to the public interest, as leading, amidst the incalculable changes and accidents occurring in the circumstances of nations, and of society, to the certain consequence of laying open new means of exertion to mercantile ingenuity and enterprize, and disclosing to commerce new sources of eventual advantage, far beyond the power of human foresight distinctly to appreciate.
This being the admitted principle, it must be regarded as subject to all the precaution in its application, which interests embarked under the faith of existing laws, and a due consideration of the difficulties attending an extensive change in a long established, though defective system, ought prudentially to inspire.
The prohibition contained in the act of the, 13th and 14th of Charles 2nd, c. 11, in respect to Germany and the Netherlands, was the first direct object of your Committee's examination, with a view of ascertaining whether the distinction, applying to those parts of Europe, might not be safely and usefully
With respect to the first point, it is to be observed, that no diminution of revenue could arise, unless from importations faking place in British shipping which had hitherto been made in foreign vessels, and the reduced rate of duty, in- consequence to be received: as, however, this contingency involves in it a certain compensation in the increased employment of British shipping, your Committee do not consider it as a material objection to an alteration, in other views appearing to be desirable. In respect to the remaining objection, that it was possible the trade might be conducted through the medium of cheap Greek and Genoese shipping; and the merchandize of the Mediterranean be thus carried to the neighbouring ports of Holland or the Netherlands, for trans-shipment and conveyance to the United Kingdom in British vessels; it is an apprehension in which, for reasons to be stated in a subsequent part of their Report (applicable to these as well as other ships of a cheap description) your Committee cannot participate, or be induced by it to entertain any greater doubt of the commercial safety and convenience, than of the political justice and utility of placing our commercial intercourse with every European state in amity with Great Britain, on a footing of equal facility and freedom.
Having satisfied themselves on the expediency of permitting the importation into the United Kingdom, in British ships, of articles the growth or produce of European states, from any European port, without reference to the place of their growth or production; the next subject which engaged the consideration of your committee, was the extension of the same latitude of importation to articles the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, to which the restrictions of the act of the 12th of Charles the second, have been stated principally to apply.
The evidence adduced before your Committee, on this point, is more at variance than that on the point before adverted to. Although it cannot be denied that every additional degree of freedom is generally beneficial to commerce, and no alarm seemed to be entertained by merchants engaged in general trade who were examined, in respect to the probable effects of such a relaxation of the law on the navigation of Great Britain; yet those whose interests were more exclusively connected with British shipping, expressed considerable alarm lest the proposed alteration should be followed by a change in the existing course of trade, by which their interests might be eventually affected; and represented, that if any benefit accrued to commerce by the increased facility afforded, it might be chiefly to the commerce of foreigners; and that the participation of British shipping in the conveyance of the produce of the distant parts of the world, might be confined to the transport from the ports of the continent to those of the United Kingdom, while the more valuable and extended navigation devolved upon the shipping of foreign states. Your Committee have felt the importance of this representation, and examined it with the attention it appeared to deserve. They are conscious that the commercial results they sanguinely anticipate from the establishment of a system more enlarged and liberal than that under which the British trade has been hitherto conducted (of which this relaxation of the navigation laws forms a part) could not be deemed a satisfactory compensation for any serious hazard to which the interests of our shipping might be exposed: but they have found no reason to believe, that the probable consequence of adopting the measure under consideration would be, to incur the danger described, or, to transfer to foreigners any of the advantages now possessed by British ships.
In proceeding to state the grounds of this impression, your Committee are desirous of recalling to the recollection of the House, that the laws in question have been subjected to alteration at different periods, and their principle relaxed whenever a new state of political circumstances appeared to parliament to afford sufficient reasons for such a change. Under the regulations which the king in council was authorized to make, by the 23rd of Geo. 3, cap. 39, and subsequently by the 49th of Geo. 3, cap. 59, followed recently by the 59th of Geo. 3, cap. 54, the manufactures and produce of the United States of America have been admitted into the United Kingdom, not only in British ships, but in ships of the United States or condemned as prize to them, and owned and navigated by their subjects. By the 51st also of the late king a similar relaxation of the law was made in favour of the produce arid manufactures of the territories of the crown of Portugal in America, during the continuance of the treaty concluded with that power in the year 1810: the latter arising out of the changes that had taken place in the political situation of the Brazils; as the former did out of the national character acquired by the United State a of America, by their separation from Great Britain.
Both these relaxations may be said to have been a diminution of the protection afforded by the Navigation law to British shipping; but a diminution which political, considerations demanded, and which was indispensable to the continuance of our commercial relation with those countries.
The navigation laws have been also relaxed, in regard to the trade between the British colonies and the mother country, as well as in several instances with respect to particular articles of merchandize, which your Committee do not think it necessary here particularly to enumerate.
The principle of restriction laid down in those laws; having been thus relaxed, from considerations of political or commercial expediency, it will be for the wisdom of the House to judge, whether the same considerations may not lead to a further relaxation of it, and authorize the withdrawing of a restriction which, if not essential to the support of our shipping, is maintained not only unprofitably but injuriously to ourselves, as embarrassing the operations of our merchants, and contributing to the jealous and hostile feelings with which the prohibitory character of Our commercial system has long been contemplated by foreign nations.
The danger, stated in the evidence to be apprehended, seems chiefly to rest on the cheapness of foreign ships compared with those of the United Kingdom, particularly the ships of the northen states of Europe, where labour, wages, and the materials of building and equipment are at a rate much lower than in Great Britain. If the question was to be determined by the comparative cheapness of the ship alone, this fact would be conclusive: But it appears to your Committee, that other considerations must have their share in deciding the preference likely to be given to the foreign ship, the effects of which, as detailed in the evidence of Mr. Buckle, appears to your Committee sufficient to balance the admitted cheapness of foreign construction and equipment.
The importation of the produce of Asia, Africa, and America, into the United Kingdom, excepting the territories of Portugal and the United States; under the proposed alteration, is still reserved exclusively to British shipping, Which infers the necessity of a previous importation into the continent, if it should be brought to Europe by foreign ships. The difference between a direct and circuitous voyage, in the expenses and delays attending the entrance into, and trans-shipment of goods in a foreign port, and a second voyage to be performed in a British ship; the increased time (estimated at one-fifth) required for the performance of a distant voyage in a foreign ship beyond that required in a British one; the difference in point of security, and consequent increased charge of insurance on the cargo, appear to year Committee to attach a disadvantage to the employment of the foreign ship, fully equivalent to the difference of the rate of freight, as stated in favour of the cheaper ships of certain European states. And indeed it is repeatedly admitted, that wherever British ships are to be obtained, to them the preference (except under special circumstances) is universally given.
If in any case the argument, drawn from the comparative cheapness of the ship, could apply, it would be in respect to articles of great bulk in proportion to their intrinsic value, on which the rate of freight operates most heavily; of these articles cotton is one of the most considerable. Cotton, under the existing law, may be imported into the United Kingdom from any place whatever, in a British ship: But it does not appear to your Committee, notwithstanding the constant demand for it in the manufactures of this country, that foreign ships have been employed in a circuitous conveyance of it through the continent; or that any quantity has been imported, otherwise than in British ships, and directly from the place of its growth, except in a single instance, under very peculiar circumstances.
The trade with the United States of America, it is said, is carried on principally in American shipping; but if (as is alleged) the American vessel has no advantage ever the British one in point of cheapness, the competition in any other than the American trade cannot fail to be in favour of the British ship coming to the United Kingdom, in which the voyage is performed directly; while, by that in the American ship, the cargo can only reach its destination circuitously, subject to the additional inconvenience, delay, and expense of transshipment in a foreign port.
The danger therefore of a circuitous conveyance being generally substituted for the direct one, or the foreign for British shipping; in the trade with distant parts of the world, does not excite in your Committee any apprehension; and this observation, as well as the grounds on which it rests, in the opinion of your Committee, apply equally to foreign ships of the cheaper description, whether of the countries in the south or north of Europe, the Greeks and Genoese, not less than those of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
It has been represented to your Committee, that the effect of the suggested alteration might be, partially to reverse the course of the trade as now conducted between India and Europe. A great proportion of this trade is at present confined to British ships. The cargoes consist in an assortment of light and heavy articles, of which the heavy form the largest though least valuable part; the former are chiefly consumed on the Continent, the latter within the United Kingdom. Owing to a market for the lighter and more valuable part of the cargo not being afforded except in Great Britain, the prohibition on the importation of the produce of Asia from any European port, and the necessity of an assortment of
This this may happen occasionally, your Committee think far from improbable; but it is the permanent and habitual course of trade, and not the occasional or accidental deviations from it, that is the object to which the attention of the legislature should be directed. So far from feeling these occasional exceptions to be a matter of jealousy, your Committee are disposed to consider the denial of facilities of this kind to foreigners, as a policy of useless severity, which has already produced effects highly unfavourable to the general commercial interests of the country.
The probability of the circuitous course of trade becoming habitual, must arise from the comparative advantages it promises to those who may engage in it. These must be sufficient to compensate for the inconvenience and additional expense of the circuitous conveyance of the most valuable part of the cargo, and also its liability in the markets of the United Kingdom, to certain competition with a supply brought directly in our own ships: this is a considerable risk. It may be at the same time matter of some doubt, whether the conveyance of the bulky articles to the continent in a foreign ship, would be upon the whole much more economical than in a British one; and if to this, the inevitable risk described, bearing upon the most valuable part of the cargo, is added, there seems little reason to fear that such conveyance would be habitually preferred, even if no peculiar advantages existed in favour of British shipping in carrying on the commercial intercourse with India.
In all the ports of the British possessions in India (which include most of the principal ports of export), it must be remembered that a difference in the duties imposed on the exportation of goods, to the amount of five per cent, exists in favour of the British ship. The ships from the continent are understood to be in general chiefly dependent on their return cargo, to answer the whole charge of freight; whereas a British ship going out loaded with merchandize, is enabled to divide the charge of freight between the outward and home ward voyage; a circumstance which gives an obvious advantage in the expense of home ward freight to a British ship. Nor must we forget that a considerable portion of the funds of the Indian trade are supplied by the remittance of the acquisitions of British subjects, to be realized or expended in their native country that a great part of the export trade of India is through the East India Company; that the individuals through which the greatest proportion of the remainder is conducted are sprung from the United Kingdom whose commercial connexions are with British houses and British merchants, and whose feelings and interests are exclusively British. When all these circumstances are considered, without giving to them more weight than is justly due, your Committee cannot find reason for presuming that the great tide of the trade from India will he diverted from its accustomed course; and that, notwithstanding the proposed change in the law, the continent will not continue still to receive the proportion of its supply, hitherto furnished by British trade, through the ports of the united Kingdom. No real danger therefore to British navigation is contemplated by your Committee, as likely to result from the suggestion they are about to offer; nor do they doubt that the preference our shipping possesses will be as extensively and securely, as well as much less invidiously enjoyed, when arising from the advantages that fairly belong to it, than when apparently the effect of legislative protections and prohibitions. When they consider, too, that under the more general freedom it would establish, British merchants in every foreign port might make their purchases, assort their cargoes, and pursue their speculations, without any of the doubts and apprehensions by which they are now checked and embarrassed; and the still greater advantage of the recognition of a principle that would tend so much to introduce clearness and simplicity into the regulations of our commercial system, your committee feel it their duty to recommend to the consideration of the House, the relaxation of the principle of the acts of the 12th, 13th and 14th of Charles the second, to the extent of admitting the importation into the United kingdom, of the produce of every part of the world, without reference to the place of their growth or produce, provided such importation be made in British ships.
Not withstanding your committee are able to perceive no serious objection to the adoption of this measure, yet feeling, it impossible to calculated with certainty all the bearings and consequences of an alteration so extensive in its operation, they should offer it with more diffidence, if they were not convinced that it is easily susceptible of modifications, should circumstances hereafter arise to render such a modification essential to the protection of any of the great objects which every consideration of the national safety and power imposes the duty of inflexibly maintaining. Flowing as this concession will do, from the spontaneous and liberal feelings of the British legislature neither granted as the condition of advantages obtained from other states, nor guarded by any pledge of the public faith:— should it be attended with consequences
The warehousing or bonding system, appeared to your Committee so much connected with the subject of their preceding recommendation, that they have thought it right to include it in this part of their inquiry as well as in their present report.—If, contrary to their expectation, any of the apprehensions created by the proposed relaxation of the navigation laws should be realized, it is in the improvement and perfection of the warehousing system, they confidently anticipate an ample compensation to every interest connected with the shipping of the United Kingdom.
The origin and progress of the warehousing system is detailed at length in the evidence of Mr. Frewin, to which your Committee beg to refer. From that statement it will appear, that the privilege of being warehoused for re-exportation is confined to certain enumerated foreign articles; and that only certain ports of the United Kingdom, and those unequally, ate open to receive them.
The distinction made in respect to ports, arises only from the degrees in which they possess the means of affording accommodation and security to the collection of the revenue. Whenever it appears to the lords of the Treasury, that sufficient provision is made for these objects, every port becomes eligible to receive, the advantage of having goods warehoused within it. Your Committee do not feel any alteration to be required on this point; as they are not aware that the extension of this privilege to each particular port, and the limitations under which it should be done, can be better regulated than by the discretion of those to whose superintendance and responsibility the collection of the public revenue is intrusted.
To the Treasury also has been delegated the power of making additions to the list of such enumerated articles as may be admitted to warehouse; which they have occasionally exercised. The principle of the law is however restrictive; and, notwithstanding the articles admitted are numerous, has still a very extensive operation.
The result of the evidence received by your Committee on this subject, has been a strong impression of the advantages that would arise from giving the most unlimited extension to the warehousing system. They do not confceive the ports of the United Kingdom can be too widely opened to the importation of every description of foreign merchandize for re-exportation to any part of the world, exclusive of the British colonies; exempt (with few if any exceptions) from all duties in passing through them, as well as relieved from every charge and inconvenience, Which the safety of the revenue, justice to individuals, and the interests of commerce itself, do not impose the necessity of continuing. While we preserve to our own manufactures a preference in the home market, and the supply of our colonial possessions, additional facilities will thus be furnished, and all practicable inducements tendered, to foreign as well as British capital, to collect in the depositaries of Great Britain, materials for every variety of traffic with every quarter of the world.
The benefits the nation cannot fail to reap from such a measure, in the improvement of its commerce, and the augmented demand for its manufactures and shipping, are so obvious, that your Committee feel it unnecessary to occupy the attention of the House, by dwelling upon them in any detail. In the examinations to this point, it is readily acknowledged, that great general advantage is likely to arise from the facility which would be afforded to British as well as to foreign merchants, to make the assortment of their cargoes in this country; the effect of which, it is justly presumed, would be, to render the United Kingdom the place in which a great proportion of the commercial adventures of the world would take their origin. And while the assortment of British manufactures with foreign merchandize in the completion of cargoes for the respective adventures, whether on British or foreign account, would largely contribute to the demand for the productions of every branch of our own industry, the conduct of the enterprizes would be in a great measure through British intervention, and become the means of the increased employment of British shipping.
It does not appear to your Committee, that so long as their own markets are preserved to them in the United Kingdom and its colonies, the free importation of articles of foreign manufacture, for re-exportation only, can affect the interests, or ought to excite the jealousy, of our manufacturers. British ingenuity and industry, machinery and capital, may confidently meet competition, wherever the field is impartially open to our manufactures, in common with those of foreign states. Nor does that competition seem to your Committee to become more favourable to the foreigner, in consequence of his goods being permitted to pass through the ports of the United Kingdom; the effect of excluding him from them, would not be to obviate his competition, although if might change the place in Which it Would occur, and by such a change possibly render it less propitious to the interests of the British manufacturer.
A doubt has been expressed of the expediency of allowing articles actually prohibited from importation to be admitted and warehoused for exportation; and among the manufactures likely to be exposed to risk by
The policy of remitting the existing duty on the entry and re-export of foreign linens, imposed or the protection of the British and Irish linen trade, has, in reference also to this part of their inquiry, naturally occupied the attention of your Committee; it will be observed, that the testimony of several witnesses examined by your Committee principally applies to this particular question. Your Committee are fully sensible of the importance of every thing that may appear to effect the interests of so important a branch of the industry of both parts of the United Kingdom; and thinking that some further investigation may be desirable (which could not be completed previous to the recess of parliament), before they state to the House any opinion upon the effects of this duty, and the alleged necessity of its continuance; anxious at the same time to avoid the possibility of affording the least ground for alarm or misapprehension in the present state of the manufacture in Ireland, with which more than more commercial considerations are connected, your Committee beg to reserve this subject for a future stage of their proceedings, when they hope to be able to resume the consideration of it, and submit the result to the judgment of the House.
In the course of the evidence received by your Committee, several matters of importance have been incidentally brought under its observation; the most prominent are, the various charges and inconveniences incident to our present system, which may prove impediments to the success of the proposed general admission of foreign produce and merchandize to warehouse. The object of creating an emporium of trade is naturally cherished by every nation which entertains commercial views; and it will appear from parts of the evidence, that France and Holland are not insensible to it. The ports of these nations are accessible as dépôts for foreign merchandize, on much more favourable conditions than those of the United Kingdom. The charges to. which foreign merchandise is liable, and the facilities attending the deposit of it under the regulations in the ports of each country respectively, will be found detailed in the examination of Mr. Hall; from whose statement it will appear how great the advantages are of importation, for the purposes of deposit and re exportation, in the ports of the continent, in comparison with those afforded by ports of the United Kingdom; the effect of which is shown in the evidence of Mr. Thornton, who states, that on account of the duties and charges here exacted, a trade in which he is engaged as well as others, is now prosecuted, through foreign ports, by British subjects, and supported by the employment of British capital.
The investigation of your Committee will be hereafter necessarily applied to the burthens as to which foreign merchandize is liable, and the inconveniences which, under the existing practice, attach to it, in its importation into or exportation from the United Kingdom. The port charges, the demands, for pilotage, the dues for lights, the claims in consequence of different acts, for the maintenance of particular harbours, the manner in which payments are exacted and enforced;—are all subjects of discontent, and unquestionably may, under certain circumstances, have the effect of deterring foreign trade from our coasts, and be highly injurious to the character and commercial interests of the country. The advantage of removing any obstacles arising from these causes, if found to exist, is manifest; and the mode of effecting that object will constitute a fit subject for the future consideration of the Committee. In reference to the part of this question, however, which is connected with the regulation of the Customs, your Committee have the satisfaction of stating, that a commission has been instituted under the order of the Treasury, which has pursued its inquiries to a considerable extent, and suggested several important improvements. In consequence of which, some well-founded grounds of complaint to the merchant in respect to the delivery and re-weighing of goods, and charges for waste, from natural causes, &c. have been already removed in the port of London; and it is hoped it may be found consistent with the secure collection of the revenue, that similar relief should be extended to the out Ports of the Kingdom.
It has been suggested to your Committee, that an alteration in the law, favourable to the British ship-builder and ship-owners, might be usefully introduced. A British ship becoming the property of a foreigner, under the present provisions of the law, forfeits the British character it possesses, without becoming capable of acquiring in respect to the trade with this country, that of a ship of the foreign state to which it is sold. This appears to be a restriction on the sale and building of ships in the United Kingdom, wholly unsupported by any object of public utility: and your Committee are aware of no reason to prevent their recommending to the adoption of the House the suggestion received by them, that British-built ships or ships condemned as prize to Great Britain, should, if deprived of their British character and registry, by sale to a foreigner, be permitted to acquire the character of ships of any country, of the subjects of which they may afterwards become the property: But as it appears to your Com-
Your Committee having Stated the course of their proceeding, and the progress they have made in the inquiry committed to them, cannot help expressing their regret, that the latter has not been more extensive: and that the approaching recess precludes them from at present pursuing their investigation into the other important branches of the subject, to which their attention must hereafter be directed. At an early period of the ensuing session of parliament they hope to be able to propose to the House, the measures in their opinion best calculated to carry into execution the recommendation of this report; and to resume and pursue their inquiries into those branches of their investigation which they have now left unexamined, on the same principles which have thus far governed them in the performance of the duty assigned to them. To the judicious and prudent application of these principles, your Committee look (under the pleasure of the House) for the safe removal of all such restrictions on the freedom of our commerce and our intercourse with foreign nations, as the peculiar circumstances of our situation, the protection due to great interests embarked under the public faith, and the compacts into which the country may have entered, either with its own subjects, or with other states, do not render it indispensable to preserve. If in their recommendations any thing should be found more favourable to foreign interests than may seem consistent with the severe principles of our existing commercial system (which may to some be an objection to the suggestions humbly offered in the present report), your Committee beg to observe, that without now questioning the wisdom of a restrictive or protective policy, as necessary to the state of our trade at an earlier period of our history, as applicable to the circumstances of the present day, it appears very doubtful. The time when monopolies could be successfully supported, or would be patiently endured, either in respect to subjects, against subjects, or particular countries against the rest of the world, seems to have passed away. Commerce, to continue undisturbed and secure, must be, as it was intended to be, a source of reciprocal amity between nations, and an interchange of productions, to promote the industry, the wealth, and the happiness of mankind. If it be true, that different degrees of advantage will be reaped from it, according to the natural and political circumstances, the skill and the industry of different countries; it is true also, that whatever be the advantages so acquired, though they may excite emulation and enterprize, can rouse none of those sentiments of animosity, or that spirit of angry retaliation, naturally excited by them, when attributed to prohibitions and restrictions, jealously enacted and severely maintained.
Your Committee are, however, sensible, that at once to abandon the prohibitory system, would be of all things the most visionary and dangerous: it has long subsisted; it is the law not only of this kingdom, but of the rest of the European world; and any sudden departure from it is forbidden by every consideration of prudence, safety, and justice. No such sudden change is in the contemplation of your Committee, nor indeed the adoption of any change, without the utmost circumspection and caution. But they still feel, that a principle of gradual and prospective approximation to a sounder system, as the standard of all future commercial regulations, may be wisely and beneficially recommended, no less with a view to the interests of this country, than to the situation of surrounding nations. Upon them the policy of Great Britain has rarely been without its influence. The principles recognized and acted upon by her, may powerfully operate in aiding the general progress towards the establishment of a liberal and enlightened system of national intercourse throughout the world, as they have too long done in supporting one of a contrary character, by furnishing the example and justification of various measures of commercial exclusion and restriction. To measures of this nature her pre-eminence and prosperity have been unjustly ascribed. It is not to prohibitions and protections we are indebted for our commercial greatness and maritime power;—these, like every public blessing we enjoy, are the effects of the free principles of the happy constitution under which we live, which, by protecting individual liberty, and the security of property, by holding out the most splendid rewards to successful industry and merit, has, in every path of human exertion, excited the efforts, encouraged the genius, and called into action all the powers of an aspiring, enlightened, and enterprizing people.
INDEX TO VOL. V.NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Agricultural Horse Duty Repeal Bill, 1505.
Clarence, Duke of; Grant to, 1504.
Economy in the Public Expenditure, 1464, 1474.
Foreign Trade, 150.
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill, 151, 626, 693, 853, 973.
Irish Stationery, 1214.
King's Speech at the Close of the Session, 1517.
Peterborough, Bishop of; His Examination Questions, 1166.
Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill, 1, 217, 279.
Slave Trade, 1285.
Timber Duties Bill, 881.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
African Company's Bill, 90.
Agricultural Horse Tax, 42, 1184, 1201.
American Loyalists, 1126.
Appropriation Bill, 1455, 1501.
Army Estimates, 85, 163, 208, 273, 464, 481, 487, 488, 490, 1001.
Army Extraordinaries, 1001.
Army Superannuations and Retired Allowances, 408.
Austrian Loan, 1280.
Bank Cash Payments Bill, 91, 203.
Bankruptcy Laws Amendment Bill, 588.
Barbadoes Fund, 858.
British Museum, 155.
Budget, 1073.
Burning of Hindoo Widows, 1217.
Burton, Mr. Christie; Creditors of, 1039.
Carlisle Election, 4.
Chancery; Delays in the Court of, 1025.
Civil Offices in the Ordnance Department, 180.
Clarence, Duke of; Grant to, 1125, 1150, 1204, 1310, 1460, 1474.
Commercial Intercourse with Ireland, 459.
Committees of Supply, 70.
Constitutional Association, 890, 1046, 1114, 1181, 1484, 1486.
Coronation of the Queen, 1460, 1474, 1514, 1515.
East India Sugars Duties Bill, 508, 1311.
Economy and Retrenchment in the Public Expenditure, 1345.
Elective Franchise, 170.
English Courts of Justice, 598.
Fining a Defendant during his Defence, 456.
Forgery Punishment Mitigation Bill, 893, 999, 1099.
Four and a Half per Cent Duties, 974.
Game Laws, 38.
Grampound Disfranchisement Bill, 1043.
Half-Pay Officers, 487.
Hindoo Widows, Burning of, 1217.
Hook, Mr. Theodore, 1343.
Husbandry Horses Duties Repeal Bill, 1201
Ilchester Gaol, 156.
Ill Treatment of Horses Bill, 1098.
Independence of Parliament, 1053.
"John Bull" Newspaper, 549, 589, 633, 656.
Ionian Islands, 1128.
Ireland, Commercial Intercourse with, 459.
Ireland; State of Education in, 1510.
Irish Bank Cash Payments Bill, 148, 655.
Irish Estimates, 1200.
Irish Revenue Inquiry Bill, 1193, 1314.
Irish Treasury Bills, 1041.
Irish Union Duties, 5.
Laybach, Declaration of the Allied Sovereigns at, 1254
Maitland, Sir Thomas; Conduct of, 1128.
Malt Duties Repeal BiII,6.
Manchester Meeting, 713, 719, 775.
Maxwell's Slave Removal Bill, 1068.
Metropolis Police Bill, 491.
Metropolis Roads Bill, 69.
Miscellaneous Estimates, 1017, 1163.
Navigation Acts, 1289.
Navy Estimates, 519, 541.
Newfoundland Courts of Justice, 1015.
Newington Select Vestry Bill Committee, 64.
New Lanark, 1316.
New Stamp Office in Edinburgh, 1339.
Occasional Votes Bill, 983.
O'Connell, Mr. 3.
O'Grady, Chief Baron; Conduct of, 1260, 1339.
Ordnance Department; Civil Offices in the, 180.
Ordnance Estimates, 681, 698, 846, 858, 1066.
Owen, Mr; His Plan, 1316.
Parliament; Motion for better Securing the Independence of, 1053.
Parliamentary Reform, 170, 359, 441, 603.
Poor Relief Bill, 572, 987, 1228, 1479.
Public Expenditure; Mr. Hume's Motion for Economy and Retrenchment in; 1345.
Reform of Parliament, 170, 359, 441, 604.
Roman Catholic Disability Removal Bill, 153.
Russian Army; March of the, 538.
Scotch Malt Tax, 20l.
Scotch Burghs, 1182.
Scots County Representation 65l.
Seditious Meetings Bill; Motion for Repeal of, 553.
Sicily; Affairs of, 1234.
Slave Trade, 1325.
Smuggling Prevention Acts, 215.
State of the Nation, 510.
State of Europe, 1222.
Steam Engines 439, 535, 654.
Timber Duties Bill, 50, 264.
Tobago; Administration of Justice in,
Turner James; his Petition complaining of his Imprisonment, 484.
Usury Laws, 175.
Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill, 983, 1192.
Wool Tax, 89.
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
Ashburton, Lord, 152, 355.
Bathurst, Earl, 697, 856, 881, 1239.
Buckingham, Marquis of, 248.
Calthorpe, Lord, 1180.
Camden, Marquis, 857.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 1180.
Carnarvon, Earl of, 151, 626, 695, 857, 1473, 1507
Chester, Bishop of, 253.
Darnley, Earl of, 282, 1244, 1464.
Donoughmore, Earl of, 1, 2, 220.
Eldon, Lord,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 838.
Erskine, Lord, 153, 853.
Fitzwilliam, Earl, 857.
Grenville, Lord, 319.
Grey, Earl, 217, 1180.
Grosvenor, Earl, 1471.
Harewood, Earl of, 857, 973.
Harrowby, Earl of, 152, 260, 854, 973, 1180.
King, Lord, 883, 1166.
Lansdown, Marquis of, 150, 347, 856, 884, 1180, 1217, 1285.
Lauderdale, Earl of, 632, 693, 857, 882, 1504, 1505.
Limerick, Earl of, 1217.
Liverpool, Earl of, 1, 263, 339, 629, 696, 853, 855, 857, 883, 973, 1468, 1506.
London, Bishop of, 241, 252.
Lord Chancellor [Eldon], 3, 152, 285, 629, 695, 853, 856.
Melville, Lord, 353, 854, 1472.
Mansfield, Earl of, 234.
Norwich, Bishop of, 256.
Peterborough, Bishop of, 1169.
Redesdale, Lord, 257, 698, 855.
Rosslyn, Earl of, 152.
Sidmouth, Viscount, 351, 1216.
Somers, Lard, 356.
St. David's, Bishop of, 279.
Sussex, His Royal Highness the Duke of, 245.
Westmoreland, Earl of, 629, 854.
York, His Royal Highness the Duke of, 281.
INDEX OF NAMES.—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Abercromby, Hon. James, 429, 570, 601, 1212, 1438.
Althorp, Viscount, 54, 173.
Arbuthnot, Right Hon. Charles, 1002, 1014, 1018, 1024, 1164.
Astell, William, 1091.
Attorney General [Sir Robert Gifford], 600, 837, 970, 1038, 1104, 1494.
Attwood, Matthias, 97.
Bankes, Henry, 155, 204.
Bankes, George, 39, 1453.
Barham, John Foster, 509, 624, 1124, 1312.
Baring, Alexander, 47, 55, 89, 91, 149, 179, 601, 650, 660, 1000, 1072, 1111, 1127, 1186, 1203, 1300.
Bathurst, Right Hon. Charles Bragge, 161, 199, 601, 623, 1220, 1489.
Becher, W. W. 781, 1475.
Beckett, Right Hon. John, 167.
Bennet, Hon. Henry Grey, 5, 52 67, 79, 87, 90, 149, 161, 162, 164, 204, 217, 272, 467, 473, 481, 491, 508, 545, 549, 597, 643, 658, 851, 864, 980, 1011, 1021, 1053, 1145, 1310, 1342, 1440, 1450, 1453.
Benett, John, 18, 41, 46, 445, 996, 1187.
Bentinck, Lord William, 1234.
Bernal, Ralph, 189, 210, 215, 491, 509, 522, 783, 979, 1340, 1349.
Binning, Lord, 1183, 1509.
Birch, Joseph, 1202.
Blake, Sir Francis, 1161.
Boughey, Sir J. 17.
Bourne, Sturges, 584, 677, 678.
Bright, Henry, 20, 717, 952, 1020, 1159, 1311, 1513.
Brougham, Henry, 277, 646, 676, 891, 1023, 1046, 1147, 1162, 1191, 1198, 1325, 1476, 1496, 1503, 1510.
Browne, D. 84, 162, 450, 1300.
Burdett, Sir Francis, 648, 719, 842, 862.
Burrell, Walter, 1187.
Burrell, Sir Charles, 40, 46, 1191.
Bury, Lord, 433.
Butterworth, Joseph, 1515.
Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 159, 546, 900, 1217, 1322.
Calcraft, John, 48, 69, 75, 178, 207, 582, 848, 1091, 1193, 1196, 1228.
Calvert, C. 536.
Canning, Right Hon. George, 5, 1221, 1324.
Castlereagh, Viscount, 22, 75, [
see
Chancellor of the Exchequer [Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart], 7, 46, 49, 83, 130, 148, 203, 216, 451, 463, 481, 655, 1073, 1189, 1202.
Chetwynd, George, 167, 168, 846, 983, 1192.
Chichester, Arthur, 464.
Cholmeley, Sir M. 162, 1118, 1491.
Clerk, Sir George, 202.
Clive, Henry, 495.
Cockburn, Sir George, 216, 523.
Coffin, Sir Isaac, 160, 1206.
Coke, T. W. 7, 31, 1186.
Coke, T. W. jun, 41.
Cole, Sir Lowry, 471.
Congreve, Sir W. 712, 877.
Copley, Sir John,
see
Courtenay, William, 672, 961, 1126.
Courtenay, Thomas Peregrine, 997, 1482.
Cranbourne, Lord, 38.
Creevey, Thomas, 70, 88, 163, 214, 465, 526, 858, 974, 982, 1198, 1436, 1451, 1474, 1501.
Cripps, Joseph, 145, 206, 986, 1186.
Croker, J. W. 528, 546.
Curwen, John Christian, 18, 42, 46, 49, 69, 1184, 1201, 1207, 1212.
Davenport, D. 46, 176, 1186.
Davies, Colonel, 85, 164, 197, 211, 471, 481, 487, 518, 681, 709, 1001, 1017, 1065, 1464.
Davis, Hart, 1112.
Dawson, J. 1320.
De Crespigny, Sir W. 271, 661, 780, 1322.
Denison, W. J. 69.
Denman, Thomas, 168, 459, 495, 541, 564, 762, 1108, 1118, 1200, 1209, 1212, 1314, 1461, 1478, 1493.
Dent, John, 1110.
Dickenson, William, 156, 160
Douglas, Keith, 19, 40, 53, 271.
Egerton, William, 782.
Ellice, Edward 84, 140, 203, 1097.
Ellis, Thomas, 3.
Evans, William, 1146.
Fergusson, Sir Rowland, 167, 202, 215, 659, 1133.
Fife, Earl of, 32.
Folkestone, Viscount, 34.
Forbes, Charles, 1160.
Gascoyne, I. 483.
Gifford, Sir Robert,
see
Gilbert, Davies, 69, 441.
Gipps, George, 47.
Gladstone, John, 272, 464.
Gordon, Robert, 91, 178, 216, 509.
Gooch, Thomas, 1186,
Goulburn, Henry, 90, 977, 1010, 1016, 1069, 1123, 1139, 1344.
Graham, Sir James, 172, 1212.
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 1200.
Grant, J. P. 178, 264, 1068, 1146.
Grenfell, Pascoe, 11, 133, 148, 206, 463, 783, 1198.
Gurney, Hudson, 139, 156, 1323, 1340, 1430.
Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 7, 31, 80, 83, 146, 484, 651, 1182, 1197, 1311, 1325.
Harbord, Hon. E. 41, 163, 443, 713, 987, 1161, 1453.
Hardinge, Sir H. 866.
Heron, Sir Robert, 177, 1020.
Heygate, Alderman, 147, 208.
Hobhouse, John Cam, 73, 171, 216, 395, 456, 799, 1181, 1315, 1448, 1484.
Hume, Joseph, 65, 81, 86, 90, 148, 162, 163, 166, 168, 180, 199, 209, 213, 273, 276, 467, 469,477, 478, 483, 486, 488, 519, 527, 532, 541, 544, 681, 699, 710, 711, 849, 850, 865, 868, 878, 981, 1002, 1012, 1019, 1022, 1097, 1123, 1148.1153, 1163, 1166, 1194, 1200, 1205, 1221, 1310, 1322, 1340, 1439, 1446, 1454, 1455, 1508, 1514, 1515.
Hurst, R. 172.
Huskisson, Right Hon. W. 84, 90, 173, 215, 484, 848, 1159, 1190, 1437.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H. 174, 510, 673, 1222, 1450.
James, William, 603.
Irving, John, 144.
Knatchbull, Sir Edward, 69, 1165.
Lambton, John George, 170, 173, 359, 451.
Lennard, T. B. 155, 156, 553, 571, 1148.
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 47, 162, 651.
Lewis, Frankland, 22, 69, 149, 935, 996, 1194, 1230.
Littelton, E. J. 204, 535.
Lockhart, J. 12, 40, 986, 1038, 1096, 1111, 1230,
Londonderry, Marquis of, 467, 475, 515, 538, 572, 582, 644, 663, 666, 671, 686, 823, 848, 865, 962, 987, 998, 1037, 1044, 1050, 1070, 1147, 1150, 1151, 1156, 1202, 1206, 1210, 1227, 1240, 1256, 1280, 1282, 1321, 1334, 1449, 1453, 1460, 1461, 1477, 1502, 1504.
Long, Sir Charles, 155, 466, 680, 861, 981, 439.
Lord Advocate of Scotland [Sir W. Rae] 485.
Lowther, Lord, 41, 173.
Lushingtou, Stephen Rumbold, 719.
Lushington, Dr. 160, 169, 956, 1114, 1323, 1482, 1490.
Maberly, John, 87, 655, 847, 1001, 1087, 1191, 1439.
Maberly, William, 446.
Mackenzie, Thomas, 202, 552.
Mackintosh, Sir James, 67, 653, 675, 677, 965, 999, 1015, 1071, 1099, 1124, 1247, 1258, 1335, 1449, 1450.
Mansfield, John, 586.
Marjoribanks, Sir J. 1341.
Marryat, James, 58, 270, 1125, 1300.
Martin, Richard, 168, 436, 955, 1112.
Maxwell, J. 486, 569, 1209, 1316.
Milton, Lord, 49, 169, 212, 436, 540, 716, 753, 849, 997, 1043, 1052, 1162, 1188, 1204, 1211, 1428.
Monck, J. B. 134, 174, 179, 202, 206, 586, 862, 864, 986, 1150, 1475.
Money, W. T. 1147.
Monteith, Henry, 486.
Morland, Sir S. B. 1127.
Newport, Sir John, 84, 174, 598, 602, 1092, 1193, 1199.
Nolan, Michael, 959.
Nugent, Lord, 662, 1119,
O'Grady, Mr. 1277.
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 175, 442, 459, 562, 715, 1038, 1310.
Palmer, Charles Fyshe, 432, 1310, 1455.
Palmerston, Viscount, 85, 87, 164, 209, 274, 466, 470, 478, 482, 1010.
Parnell, Sir Henry, 51, 70, 87, 148, 459, 1097.
Pearse, John, 144, 149, 206, 1110.
Peel, Right Hon. Robert, 1072, 1204.
Philips, George. 177, 464, 477, 586, 773.
Phillimore, Dr. 1198.
Pole, Right Hon. W. W, 84, 278.
Ramsden, J. C. 447.
Ricardo, David, 47, 57, 137, 178, 208, 271, 449, 587, 1092.
Rice, T. Spring, 153, 1260, 1315, 1510.
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, 53, 202, 441.
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick, 55, 163, 526, 533, 1061, 1197.
Robinson, Sir G. 450.
Russell, Lord John, 472, 604, 670, 672, 1045.
Scarlett, James, 204, 573, 587, 656, 665, 718, 830, 985, 988, 989, 990, 1050, 1189, 1316, 1323, 1462, 1479, 1483, 1485, 1499.
Sebright, Sir John, 38, 1051, 1311.
Shelley, Sir J. 8, 38.
Smith, R. 1280.
Smith, John, 15, 146, 161, 536, 588, 713, 954, 1110.
Smith, W. 168, 269, 672, 1039, 1123, 1159, 1199, 1325, 1455.
Smyth, J. H. 22, 174, 1315.
Solicitor General [Sir John Copley], 766, 893, 1051, 1498.
Speaker, The [Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton], 66, 68, 454, 1209.
Stuart-Wortley, John, 432, 841, 1039, 1044, 1203, 1254.
Sumner, Holme, 65, 67, 70, 458.
Sutton, Right Hon. Charles Manners,
see
Sykes, Daniel, 54, 211, 442, 1299.
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 439, 458, 537, 587, 650, 654, 1025.
Taylor, Watson, 1464.
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 77, 197, 1159.
Titchfield, Marquis of, 1429.
Tremayne, J. H. 441.
Twiss, Horace, 426, 785.
Vansittart, Right Hon. Nicholas,
see
Vivian, Sir H. 484.
Wallace, Right Hon. T. 50, 265, 1195, 1289.
Ward, Hon. J. W. 8, 668, 1282.
Ward, Robert, 189, 686, 687, 698, 703, 712, 850, 877.
Warre, J. A. 41, 540, 1050, 1282.
Warrender, Sir George, 520.
Western, C. C. 6.
Whitbread, S. C. 385, 455, 1486, 1500.
Whitmore, W. W. 622.
Wilberforce, William, 964, 1070, 1125, 1220, 1323, 1325, 1492.
Wilbraham, Bootle, 739.
Williams, William, 438, 983, 1158, 1212.
Wilmot, R. J. 386, 674, 757, 1110, 1436.
Wilson, Sir Robert, 64, 427, 488, 518, 582, 650, 716, 775, 994, 1072, 1147, 1227, 1447, 1480.
Wilson, Thomas, 63, 89, 147, 207, 450.
Wodehouse, E. 147, 650.
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 156, 212, 441, 1515.
Wood, Colonel, 21, 39, 473.
Wynn, Sir W. W. 46, 1187.
Wynn, C. W. W. 4, 66, 174, 645, 667, 960, 1040, 1043, 1052.
Wyvill, M. 441.
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 39, 524, 526, 1002, 1161.
END OF VOL. V.