Commons Sitting of 29 January 1812

POPULATION OF IRELAND.
Sir John Newport,in pursuance of previous notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to ascertain the amount of the Population of Ireland. He expressed his surprize that a measure should have been so long deferred which would enable parliament to ascertain the number of persons for whom it was to legislate. Twice since the Union had the population of Great Britain been calculated, but in this respect, as well as in others, the natives of Ireland had been totally neglected. The only reason he
400
could imagine for this omission was a species of timidity on the part of certain persons, who were afraid even of letting themselves know the real amount of the inhabitants of the sister kingdom. It appeared to the right hon. baronet a solecism, that all the public bills introduced were not made to include the whole united kingdom; leaving it to the persons bringing them in to point out what parts should be excepted; but Ireland was uniformly excluded from the provisions in the first instance. He illustrated this position by alluding to the 50th Geo. 3, for taking securities from public officers, which applied only to England and Wales, and to an act of last session for liberating persons confined for small debts in Great Britain, omitting all notice of Ireland.—He then went on to notice the difficulties stated by Mr. Rose on a former night, which, in the right hon. baronet's opinion, might be overcome, by adopting partially the system of ascertaining the population in Ireland, and by employing the officers appointed by the Grand Juries in Ireland. Above all, he deprecated in obtaining the census any distinction being made between persons of particular religious sects and opinions, which could only have the effect of ranging as it were in hostile array those who being kindred in blood and nation, differed only in religious creeds; he was perfectly confident, that at present, the natives of Ireland were actuated by the warmest zeal to maintain the independence of the empire, whatever pains had been blindly taken to disunite them in the support of their common interests.—Another main object in view was, that the measure should not be temporary, but permanent; and that, at the conclusion of every seven years, the census he proposed should be taken. The disadvantage resulting from bills of this nature, which were only made to answer an immediate object, was exemplified by the boasted returns, which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) had laid upon the table, of the comparative numbers of the population of Great Britain in 1801 and 1811, for it never could be credited that the immense apparent increase of a million and a half was owing to natural causes; it was only to be accounted for by supposing, that the people in 1801 thought that the census was required for purposes of taxation, and therefore then, designedly, omitted a great number of persons, whose names were inserted in the returns of 1811. He concluded

401
by moving, "for leave to bring in a Bill for taking an account of the Population of Ireland, and of the increase or diminution thereof."
Mr. Rosewas anxious to give the proposed Bill every support, and rose merely to vindicate himself from the implied accusation, that he ought before to have brought forward the measure. The truth was, he felt himself incompetent to so arduous a task as it appeared to be, on the very statement of the right hon. baronet; but he denied that there was any design to conceal the extent of the Population of Ireland. He was as far as any man from wishing that any religious distinctions should be made to sever a people, whom he was fully convinced were zealously attached to the existing government; and he concurred not less in the propriety of the census being taken at stated periods. With regard to what had been said on the returns of 1801 and 1811, he could not admit that the difference was owing to the cause assigned by the right hon. baronet, for the accounts themselves bore internal evidence of their accuracy. In a few days the House would be put in possession of the returns, of the separate parishes, where the amount of burials and christenings would be stated, although they did not, he admitted, exactly keep pace with each other.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.

ORDER FOR LIST OF POLICE MAGISTRATES.
Mr. Secretary, Ryderobserved, that it would be recollected that in the last week, on the motion of an hon. baronet (Sir Francis Burdett, see p. 239) a return was ordered of the number of Police Magistrates, in which it was required also that they should state where their qualifications are, and what they "are." By an act of parliament passed for the most wholesome purposes, all magistrates were required, before their appointment, to deliver in a statement of their qualifications, under severe penalties, and the House would observe, that if this order were complied with, it would be demanding of the magistrates that they should furnish evidence against themselves, which, he apprehended, even the hon. baronet himself would not wish to enforce. This objection had been suggested by the Attorney General, without any communication from any person interested, and he begged therefore to move, that that part
402
of the order be expunged. He had written a note to sir F. Burdett, informing him of his intention the day before yesterday, and was sorry not now to see him in his place.
Mr. Whitbreadthought that it would be much more advisable to delay the motion until it was ascertained that the hon. baronet had received the communication just referred to, that he might at least have an opportunity of stating his objections. He thought that it could be no very severe hardship upon the magistrates, even if the order retained its original form: it might be the object of the hon. baronet to point out to the House certain magistrates who had not complied with the provisions of the statute.
Mr. Secretary Rydersaid, he had no doubt that his note had been received, for it was left at the house of the hon. baronet, who might afterwards, if he pleased, revive the order by taking the sense of the House.
Sir John Newportstrongly objected to this last proposal. It would lead to this absurdity, that the House would be employed one day in making an order, next day in rescinding it, and afterwards in reviving it. For himself, he could see no harm in making the magistrates give in an account of their qualifications. What would be the result? merely that the legislature should interfere to take cognizance of their conduct, instead of the quitam informers. At all events, the debate ought to be deferred till the hon. baronet came down to the House.
Sir T. Turtoncould by no means agree with the last speaker, that it was the duty of this House to compel magistrates to render accounts which might criminate themselves.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that it did not follow because the hon. baronet had not answered the communication, that he therefore assented to it. What was the meaning of the present motion? An order was made for magistrates to state their qualifications; and the right hon. secretary moved to alter it, because he found that some magistrates will be criminated by it. (No! no! from the ministerial benches.) Why, really, that was the result of his reasoning, when he stated, that it might produce great inconvenience to some magistrates. He himself thought the order very useful. If any magistrates had evaded the act, it was fit they should be animadverted upon; if any should be found to have acted un-

403
intentionally, it would be in the power of the House to relieve them: He could not approve of the suggested method of reviving the order.
Mr. Kenrickthought that the House would exercise its inquisitorial power very improperly, if it forced magistrates to criminate themselves: nor would the order produce the desired effect. The present qualifications of magistrates might be very different from those which they possessed at first; they might have sold or changed their original qualifications; and it would be too inquisitorial for the House to demand an account of changes which it might be inconvenient to state.
Mr. Hornerasked, was it to be endured, that the House should be required to give up its inquisitorial power, because the parties examined before it would perhaps be found to have broken the law? Was it not rather the object of their inquisitions to detect such criminals? But he denied, that in this case the magistrates would be called on to criminate themselves. The proper officers appointed in every county would present the desired information to the House. At any rate, the present proposition was not to be endured. It was, indeed, a principle of law, that a man should not be called on to criminate himself, because his confession might be used to his conviction. But the evidence received in that House could not be admitted as evidence to criminate a man out of it. No court of justice would allow it. He insisted, therefore, that the House should not, by admitting the proposition just suggested, destroy at one blow their whole inquisitorial power. Admit it now, and it would be used hereafter as a precedent to check all inquiries into criminal abuses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that a magistrate might possibly be qualified at the taking of his office, and a list of such qualification might easily be furnished by the regular officer appointed for such purposes; but if he had changed his original qualification, the nature of that which he at present held could be obtained only from himself: and such inquiry, according to the present order, might lead him to criminate himself. As to the point of evidence insisted on by the last speaker, he conceived that the House might very possibly be disposed to allow an extract of its proceedings to be taken; and such extract would, undoubtedly, be received as evidence against a person in any court of law in the kingdom.
Lord Folkestonesaid he could not comprehend how the House could come at the qualification, unless the order stood as it was originally made. It appeared that a measure of great importance, namely, the qualification of magistrates, had been passed into a law; and now when it came to be inquired into, it was alleged, that if application was made to the clerks, they could not give the necessary information as to the exact situation of these qualifications. It was, therefore, incumbent on the House to ascertain this point according to the enactment of the law; and it appeared to him that that could only be done by suffering the order to stand as originally made.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the order as it stood must be productive of great inconvenience, without a possibility of coming at the truth. Police magistrates might have been duly qualified, and have given in a particular place, where that qualification lay at the time they became magistrates; and yet having parted with that property, there was no way of coming at the fact where their qualification now lay, but by compelling them to ascertain it. This did not apply to police magistrates alone, but to every justice of peace in the kingdom.
Mr. Bankesthought it would be easy to modify the matter effectually by an amendment of the present motion, in only adding a few words so as to reach that qualification under which the magistrate began to act. He was sure the House would ever be slow to exercise its inquisitorial power; but so far as this went he thought it might very fairly be done.
Lord A. Hamilton Lord A. Hamilton moved, that the debate be adjourned to Friday.
Mr. Secretary Ryderobjected to the adjournment, as he had given two days notice, and had also sent a private intimation of his intention, and of the purport of his motion to the hon. baronet who had originally brought forward the subject.
Lord Folkestonesaid, the right hon. gentleman gave his notice only on Monday evening, when almost all the members had left the House. For his own part, he knew nothing of it till he saw the notice yesterday afternoon, just before he came into the House. He should therefore vote for the adjournment of the debate to Friday.
The House then divided, when the numbers were, for the adjournment 21; against it, 53.

KING'S HOUSEHOLD BILL.
Upon the question that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that the subject had been already exhausted, and that he did not rise to enforce what had been already said, but to explain the nature and grounds of his opposition to the Bill. It proceeded all along upon the violation of a great constitutional principle. The first duty of the Commons House of parliament was to stand between the people and the imposition of undue and oppressive burdens. In the present times, it was unfortunately but too often the duty of that House to impose heavy burdens upon the people, but it was their paramount duty, before they did so, to make themselves satisfied of that necessity, by previous and industrious investigation. If this principle was at all times practically true, never was there a period at which it ought to be more vigilantly acted up to, than at the present crisis, when the highest and most opulent orders of the community sorely felt that pressure, beneath which the lowest orders had been bowed to the very dust. How far, then, was this great constitutional principle observed or departed from, in the introduction and progress of this bill? No man would deny that this bill imposed additional and weighty burdens on the people; but had previous inquiry proved the necessity of these fresh impositions? and if they had not, was the House doing its duty towards that people that had entrusted them with the disposal of their property, when they voted away any portion of that property, without being first convinced of the necessity that called for it? He had listened with attention to the course of the debates upon this bill, and had heard much of what was due to the King, and much of what was due to the Regent, but nothing of what was due to the people. He had no wish to refuse every supply absolutely necessary; but he could not hear the proposition made to that House, as if the only fit subject of inquiry was, how much the executive demanded, and not how much an oppressed people could reasonably spare. It was putting the question as if the claims of the monarch were indefinite—as if the monarch was every thing and
406
the people nothing. He was the more jealous of any conduct that could give rise to imputation of that kind, because he knew how to value the monarchical part of the constitution, and it was because he was anxious that it might always find its root in the affections of the country, that he was at all times jealous of any misconduct of ministers that could have a tendency to soil it with suspicion; every day was pregnant with one great lesson, that monarchies had their best foundation in the reciprocal discharge of the social compact between the governors and the governed. But how had ministers acted up to this old constitutional principle? They had not only not produced but refused to produce the accounts sought for. There was, for instance, an additional 70,000 l. a year charged upon the people—was this necessary? Where were the documents—where the evidence to prove its necessity? The bill also empowered the Prince to reserve 70,000 l. a year from his exchequer income, for the purpose of paying his debts. Why not pay them at once? He was aware of his liability to be misunderstood, but that should not deter him from the frank avowal of his sentiments. The public had an interest in having the royal mind relieved from the degrading difficulties of pecuniary embarrassment. The royal mind should be devoted to, if not engrossed by the great care of providing for the security and honour of his people: but pecuniary pressures were of that nature, that where they existed, they must be peculiarly goading to every well-organized mind, whether the individual was a peasant or a prince. He thought it, therefore, a public duty to remove at once this unseemly load from the head of the government: but the measure proposed by ministers left this weight of debt to linger away by degrees, and not in a dignified manner to be dismissed at once. In 1803, he had voted for the increase to the Prince, but he had also, in the same year, opposed the motion of an hon. gentleman for the payment of the Prince's debts, because he thought, though no such declaration had been made to the House, that it was the general opinion, that a satisfactory arrangement had been made between the Prince and the executive, prior to the call upon parliament to increase the income. He, however, even then thought the arrangement of ministers most defective; a full inquiry

407
into the civil list expenditure was in his mind the only remedy: and after all, this measure did nothing decisive as to the Prince's debts. He understood that they might, at a rough estimate, be computed at 500,000 l. This could not be paid off in seven years. The whole had the air of a mean trick of the ministers, to keep the Prince dependent upon them; and though in that case the result must prove how miserably they had plotted, as far as related to the Prince, yet the late debates on the Droits of Admiralty shewed what an alarming fund ministers had at their disposal. The hon. gentleman then went into the question, as it affected, Foreign Courts. In alluding to the charges of Mr. Arbuthnot, of whom he was willing to think with all respect, he censured the abject policy of making presents at eastern courts. He spoke from his own experience at the court of the Sublime Porte, and certain northern courts, when he said that the plain unadorned integrity of the English character was more worthily represented by those who would present no other bribe to a foreign court than the discovery of her true interests, and flatter her with no other compliment than the sincerity of mutual plain dealing. As to marquis Wellesley's charge, he thought 16,000 l. for a few weeks stay in Spain exorbitant, however accurate the item of the expenditure. He concluded with strong and general exhortations to economy. Things could not long go on as they had done. Let ministers begin to think at last, before the time either for deliberating or acting was gone for ever.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the subjects touched upon by the honourable member, had already been so fully discussed, that he did not think it necessary to enter into any particular reply. One idea, however, he had advanced which was perfectly new, and that was respecting our embassies to Eastern Courts. He doubted whether it would be wise, to strip a minister, sent from a country like this on an Eastern embassy, of all that splendour and pomp (not over-splendour, but necessary magnificence) which were always observed by other courts, and especially by those of Russia and France. The expences of such missions were known to be greater than what were incurred on other occasions; but even as it was, we were vastly inferior in those expences to the courts he had already alluded to.
Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that as an opportunity would soon be afforded him to speak particularly to this subject, he should now say but a very few words. He should pass over every thing relating to himself; but he would inform the hon. gentleman, that of such importance did France deem her embassies to the Porte, that a fleet had been for some time lying at Toulon for the purpose of taking an ambassador in a suitable manner to Constantinople.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.