Commons Sitting of 29 April 1817

SALT LAWS BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of the Salt Laws Excise Bill,
Sir C. Poleopposed the bill in its present state, as calculated to throw 20,000 of his constituents, who were fishermen, out of employment, and drive them to commit smuggling and other illegal acts. He recommended that the subject should be considered by a committee above stairs, with a view to some modification that might remedy the evils with which the bill was fraught. Unless this were assented to, he should feel it his duty to move that the bill be read a second time on that day six months.
Sir W. Lemonseconded the motion, and declared, that if the bill were to pass in its present state, the fisheries in Cornwall could not be carried on. If an opportunity were offered to the fishermen by the appointment of a committee above stairs, he was confident that they could show insuperable objections to the adoption of the measure.
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, that the bill was intended not to oppress but to relieve the fisheries, by giving them the liberty to use rock salt, and thus bring to a certainty those experiments which had been successfully made in several instances. The bill was not founded on the representations of commissioners of excise, but on the evidence of persons interested both in the salt trade and in the fisheries. The trials which had been made led to a sanguine belief that rock salt was perfectly applicable to the purposes of curing and preserving fish. He thought it absurd

49
that the law should be suffered to remain as it was at present, depriving the fisherman, even if he were inclined, of the right to use rock salt in his business. The use of it for this purpose had been already found productive of the greatest benefit in the Isle of Man. The effect of the bill, therefore, he had every reason to believe, would be to bestow relief to the 20,000 constituents of the hon. baronet, instead of driving them out of employment.
Mr. Davies Gilbertwas not averse to that part of the bill which went to authorize the free use of rock salt in the fisheries, but he could not consent to the Prohibitory duties on foreign mine salt, f the latter clauses were withdrawn, his objections would be removed; but he must otherwise remain of opinion, that the bill ought to be referred to a committee up stairs.
Mr. Grenfellwas desirous that the farther consideration of this question should be postponed. In his opinion, the surrender of the whole of the duties on salt would have been a wise measure, even though the condition had been the continuance of the entire malt duties.
Sir T. Aclandthought the matters of detail necessarily involved in a question of this nature demanded investigation before a select committee, where all the evidence might be fully examined.
Mr. Finlayconcurred in the same opinion.
Lord Cochranerecommended the removal of all restrictions on the refinement of salt; the consequence of which would be to render the importation of that article unnecessary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his willingness to allow the subjects respecting which there was so much difference of opinion, to undergo the examination of a committee above stairs. The question was whether the proper course would be to suspend the progress of the bill till the result of the inquiries of the committee above stairs could be known, or to transmit the bill in a perfect shape to the committee.
The Speakerstated, that in point of form there were one or two instances of a perfect bill being sent to a committee up stairs, but this was not the general practice of the House, neither was it convenient. It would be better to suspend the progress of the bill through the House during the sitting of the committee above stairs.
Sir C. Pole withdrew his amendment.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that being perfectly satisfied with the impression which the agitation of this question had produced on both sides of the House, it was not his intention to trouble them with any additional observations during this session. In the next session, however, he hoped to be able, with the assistance of those hon. members who concurred with his sentiments on this subject, to relieve the public from this most grievous, unjust, and impolitic tax. At present, he was perfectly satisfied with what had been done, anticipating that they should obtain that benefit in the next session. He could not sit down, however, without disclaiming the intention of recommending any commutation for this tax; and, least of all, that any additional burthen should be imposed on the article of beer.
The bill was then read a second time.

FINANCE COMMITTEE.
Mr. Tierneywished to know when the Finance Committee were expected to report on the income and expenditure of the country. They were at present occupied with the ordnance estimates of the army, and having disposed of them, they proposed to take up those of the navy, so that he apprehended some weeks must elapse before they would make another report. He could wish to ask the chancellor of the exchequer if he meant to take a loan in the present year, or if he had any intention of funding exchequer bills. It was rumoured that he did not propose to do either, and if this were the fact, the House must see how important it was that they should be made acquainted with the right hon. gentleman's new scheme of finance. That a large sum must in some way be raised for the service of the year could not be disputed, but he thought the House ought not to wait for the report of the committee on estimates not yet referred to them, before they were put in possession of the right hon. gentleman's plan. If they did this, he wished to press upon the House at what a very late period of the session they must enter upon the discussion of the finances of the country.
Mr. D. Gilbertsaid, it was true the committee were at present occupied with the ordnance estimates, but orders, in the mean time, had been given to the proper officers to prepare the estimates of the income and expenditure of the present and next year, to be laid before them. The

51
estimates it was necessary to go through with first, to form the ground-work of their subsequent proceedings, and these before them it would soon be in their power to report to the House.
Mr. Tierneysaid, it was clear what must be the result—a great issue of floating securities of some description or other. It was, however, proper that the House should know in what way the chancellor of the exchequer proposed to provide for the service of the year, and above all what amount of exchequer bills had been purchased by the bank, of which they had at present no account.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas desirous of expediting by every means in his power the proceedings of the finance committee. It was, however, obvious, while occupied with one particular branch of the inquiry, they could not give their attention to other parts of the subject, so as to be able to report on the probable expenditure and revenue of the country, till the estimates had been successively brought before them, and till they had had an opportunity of examining those persons who were capable of giving them that information on which their report must be grounded. They were now taking the course necessary to put them in possession of such information as would enable them to form an opinion on the subjects referred to.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that those examinations on which their report was to be made had not yet begun. Such was now admitted to be the situation in which matters stood. The House would remember how he had been scouted when this committee was moved for, on his proposing that two committees should be formed instead of one. Had the course he recommended been then pursued, at this day they would have had a general view of the state of the country before them. Now he would defy any man to say, that such a statement could be brought forward for discussion earlier than in the month of June.

THIRD SECRETARY OF STATE.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he now rose to renew, in point of substance though not of form, a motion which he had made last session of parliament; but in which motion he unfortunately had not succeeded. That motion was, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to represent to his royal highness,
52
that his majesty's faithful Commons, relying upon the gracious disposition of his royal highness to concur in all such measures of economy as may be consistent with the security of the country, humbly pray that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to give directions, that the division of the state offices made in 1794, (by which, in addition to the secretaries of state for the home and foreign departments, a secretary of state was constituted for the war department), be revised, and that the departments of the secretaries of state be, now that peace is happily restored, again placed with all convenient dispatch, upon the footing on which they stood in 1793." He now intended to move for a committee to inquire into that subject. He did not wish the House to suppose that there were any doubts now in his own mind as to the propriety of abolishing the office; but he had resorted to this course because he saw, in questions of this sort, he had not the smallest chance of success in any other way; for when assertion was met by assertion he found a deaf ear was generally presented to that of the one side, while gentlemen in office were more easily believed, it being supposed that they were more likely to be better informed, than their opponents. It was this circumstance that induced him to move for a committee, to inquire how far the office of third secretary of state was necessary, and whether the duties of that office could not be transferred to another, without any detriment to the public service. One great inducement for him to undertake this subject was, that he had the previous sanction of his majesty's ministers; for a committee of their own appointment was named by the lords of the treasury last year, for purposes under the description of which this subject particularly fell. Mr. Ryder, Lord Binning, and Mr. Sturges Bourne were appointed last year to inquire into all offices created since the commencement of the war in 1793, with a view to ascertain what reductions could be made. They were confined in their operations to the offices created since the war, as it was no doubt presumed that all those created anterior to the war were of too sacred a nature to be touched. Now this office of third secretary had been created since 1794; it had been created not only since the war, but expressly on account of the war. And how this office had escaped the notice of those three gen-

53
tlemen, was to him quite unintelligible, except on the supposition that there was an understanding in all such committees as the one in question, never to go before the wishes of the House, but carefully to keep back, till goaded on by the reiterated calls of the House.
He begged the House to consider that all he was now called on to do was to make out a strong enough case for referring the subject to the examination of a committee, and nothing more. It was sufficient for him to establish that the secretary of state for the war and colonial department had been created since 1793, to urge the authority of the treasury itself to induce gentlemen to consent to the inquiry. What had been the inducements to create that office? Whether it had been in consequence of this or that particular arrangement—with all this he had nothing to do—it was enough for him that it had been created since the war, in consequence of circumstances arising out of the war. He should follow therefore the course recommended by the treasury, and propose a committee to do that which the treasury committee ought by their instructions to have done, namely, to inquire whether that office was or was not unnecessary, and whether the business of it might not be transferred without injury to the public service, to other departments. He did not mean to say, that the business of the colonial department was not great, nor that the individual who had the management of it, had not executed all the duties confided to him bona fide, and assiduously, and was well entitled to all the salary which he enjoyed. It did not follow that because the office of third secretary might be abolished, that the country should be deprived of the services of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Goulburn): he and his plantation clerks might be transferred to another office, with great benefit to the public service.
And here he could not help alluding to some notable discoveries which had lately been made—it had been found out that two lords of the admiralty, who had nothing to do, were essential outposts and bulwarks of the constitution; but he did not expect to hear the same thing alleged of the office of third secretary of state. That office, which was called the office for colonies and war was an excrescence growing out of the foreign office. It was considered by Mr. Burke as one which was totally unnecessary at the end of the
54
then war, and the existence of which could only be justified by the exigencies of the war. The office was accordingly abolished, in consequence of an act of parliament, at the termination of the American war. To prove that it was necessary now would be a difficult case; and he should have but little difficulty in proving it unnecessary. The first thing he had to do was to quote the act of parliament by which it was created; for, since the termination of the war, one half of it had been done away. The office was established for war only. In 1802 and 1803, the business of the colonies was taken from the home department, and added to the war department, and called the war and colonial department. Of the two branches of which it was composed, the one was now entirely done away; but, by some unaccountable accident, it had escaped the treasury that one half of the salary ought to have followed. There was now a whole salary for half an office. The total number of clerks acting under sir Henry Bunbury was 19—eleven of them had been taken away, that was considerably more than one-half. They were now to consider, first, whether having got rid of half the duty, they were still to have the whole of their salary; and the next thing to be considered was, how the remaining half was to be got rid of, that remaining half being confined entirely to the colonies. The increase of colonies since 1792, was all that he had to meet; for if there had been no increase in the colonies since 1792, he should have had no difficulty whatever. There had been an increase of nine colonies since that time, without including Heligoland, a place of so little importance that there might be some gentlemen who did not even know where it was situated, and also not including St. Helena. There were in fact, nine additional colonies to be managed, and no more. Suppose these nine colonies had been obtained for this country by any specific treaty of peace, would any man have ventured to get up in the House, and say, that these nine colonies required the appointment of a separate secretary of state? The whole, however, turned on this—the whole turned on nine colonies. How, then, could any man defend the office by saying that the continuance of these nine colonies after the war required a secretary of state? What was the difference between the continuance and the getting possession of the colonies

55
by a specific agreement? Comparing the number of colonies now, with the number in 1792, there were nine more, but comparing it with the number in 1801, there were less. Now, the duke of Portland had executed the duties of the office from 1794 to 1801. During the whole of that time the colonies had been under the guidance of the duke of Portland; and when in answer to a proposition to transfer the colonial department to the home department, it was stated that this would occasion a grievous increase of business to the latter, it might be proper to look back to what the duke of Portland did, and what was now the state of the home department. The duke of Portland had, and that during a time of war—a circumstance which made a material difference —during a most arduous period, the management of all the colonies; he had the management of the internal government of Britain—he had all the Alien office, a labour which not only did not exist now, but which had not existed for many years;—he had the raising of the militia which were then embodied—he had the important business cast on him of corresponding with Ireland while it was not united to this country, while the secretary was not resident here, when there was not an Irish officer here, and when Ireland was in a state of rebellion.
He should be told, perhaps, of the trouble occasioned by the state of the interior of the country; but the Habeas Corpus act was suspended then, and it was then stated, and stated truly, if we were to believe them then as well as we now believed his majesty's ministers, that it was impossible there could be a greater rebellion reigning more in the heart of the country than there was at that time. Was he to understand—no he would not understand that lord Sidmouth would profess himself less competent to discharge the duties of his office than the duke of Portland; and yet he did not understand how he could refuse taking upon himself the same business which the duke of Portland discharged, without making such a profession. Now see what the advantages of an inquiry would be. Lord Chichester was appointed to the home department in 1801, and if lord Chichester would say that the colonies were taken from him on application of his own, he would be contented never to open his lips again on the subject except in favour of a third secretary of state. The truth was, that the
56
patronage arising from the colonies made them the fairest flower in the garland of the home department. The colonies were not joined to the war department, because the business of them was too much for the home department to sustain. The business of Ireland, as far as the home department was concerned, lay in a very small compass. The Alien office business was now trifling, according to the confession of ministers themselves, for only two aliens had been sent out of the kingdom for some years. The militia could not be considered as giving now any trouble. The only thing which could be urged was the state of internal disturbance; but this point could easily be got over, by making the transfer conditional, on the restoration of tranquillity, which could not be considered as at any distance. The truth was, that the home department was nothing but an office of police.
He was sure that the result of the investigation would be that there was not the smallest occasion for any additional strength to the home office. He had no objection however to propose, that the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) should be transferred to that department. He would tender him to lord Sidmouth, and as he was pretty sure that the proposal would not be disagreeable to the hon. gentleman the home office would then have the benefit of three undersecretaries. The saving to the public by the abolition of the office could not be set down at less than 12,000 l. a year. Was not that a saving worthy of attention? An extraordinary circumstance had taken place since he had spoken last on this subject; they had had a declaration from the opposite side of the House, with respect to the great advantage to the public, from the existence of high offices of state, not absolutely necessary. The committee of finance, acting in the spirit of this doctrine, had assumed that three secretaries of state were absolutely necessary; and laid it down that each of those secretaries might be entitled to receive a pension of 2,000 l. a year at the end of two years services. He would, therefore, put it to the House, whether, taking this pension in to consideration, the saving, in consequence of this abolition, would not be more than all the savings together proposed by the ministerial commissioners? If it should be said that the home department was at present so burdened with work, that it could not take the additional business, why then

57
they must wait till this pressure should be at an end, which would be soon. Take a case in point—The master of the Mint had not, for instance, till last month, been much troubled with business; since that time he had had, no doubt, a deal of business to do, which he had executed much to the satisfaction of the public. But then this business being over, he would soon be enabled to say as before, "I have no particular department: I answer for all the departments." The suggestion which he was making to the House was founded on the conviction that the whole of the old colonies should be transferred to the home department. During the first years of peace the business of the colonies might be attended with more difficulties than at other times, but every year would lessen the difficulties. He had stated that there were nine additional colonies, but of these colonies there were several which it was to be recollected formed no part of the system. Four of them were in the West Indies, two in the Mediterranean, and three in the East Indies. Those in the East Indies were nowise connected with those in the West Indies; and those in the Mediterranean had no connexion either with the West Indies or East Indies. The home department might be allowed to keep the four new West India colonies. The board of control might be put over the three in the East Indies, namely, the Cape, Ceylon, and the Mauritius, and they might add St. Helena, though it could not give much additional trouble, as it might rather be considered a gaol under the care of the police of Europe— With respect to the Mauritius, the management of it might be attended with a little more difficulty; but as to the Cape and Ceylon, as we had happily overturned the king of Candia, they would be as quiet as Gibraltar. These colonies might already, in some sort, be considered as under the board of control, for no material step could be taken with respect to them, without consulting the board of control—As to the remaining colonies,—Malta must be considered as more connected with the foreign secretary. Of the Ionian islands he hardly knew how to speak, whether they were ours or not—all he knew was, that they were placed under our protection, and that sir Thomas Maitland was governor of Malta, and that he exercised a superintendence over these islands. He apprehended, however, that the nature of the connexion with the
58
Ionian islands was not colonial, but purely political;—and that it must be with the foreign department that sir Thomas Maitland carried on nearly his whole correspondence. There remained, therefore, but four new colonies to be given to the home department. On the face of the transaction 12,000 l. might therefore be saved, if such a transfer could take place without injury to the public service. The result of an inquiry would be to set these questions at rest. Lord Chichester might be examined, and lord Spencer, and an honourable gentleman in the House who had been under secretary under lord Spencer. An irresistible body of evidence would be brought before such a committee, proving that the office of third secretary of state was unnecessary. Parliament was bound to save every farthing to the country which they possibly could; and 12,000 l. a year, and the pensions of 2,000 l. a year, and retirements to the higher clerks, formed an object well deserving of their consideration.
He could not conceive how it was possible to make a more effectual appeal to the House than this case amounted to. But he had heard it whispered, that if they pared so very closely, they might reduce too much the influence of the Crown. How stood the case with respect to the influence of the Crown, since 1792? When the board of control was instituted it was to have no influence—it was to be executed by the treasurer of the navy, without any other salary than that of treasurer of the navy. Two young gentlemen, sons of privy counsellors, were to have offices without any salary. They soon found Mr. Dundas, however, taking 2,000 l. a year, and the two young gentlemen 1,500 l. each. Soon after that again, the president obtained 5,000 l; and so fruitful was the soil of the board of control, that at this moment it-furnished a crop of four members to the House, with abundant salaries. It was to be remembered too, that in 1792, and for many years after, it happened that many offices were executed by the same person, and it was made a rule, that when one individual held several offices, he was not to hold several salaries. For instance, lord Grenville held the office of auditor of the treasury and that of secretary for foreign affairs. The salary of one office was 6,000 l., and of the other 4,000 l., but from both lord Grenville only received 6,000 l. per annum. Lord Melville held the offices of treasurer of the navy, of president of the board of

59
control, and of secretary of state. From all these offices he received 8,000 l. a year, viz. 2,000 l. a year as secretary of state, 2,000 l. as president of the board of control, and 4,000 l. as treasurer of the navy. Now these offices were executed at an expense of 15,000 l. a year. The secretary of state had 6,000 l., the treasurer of the navy 4,000 l. and the president of the board of control 5,000 l.
Under these circumstances, did they ask too much when they desired some inquiry to know whether the great additional expense thrown upon the country could be avoided by some consolidation of offices? He should despair of any substantial good, unless the House itself took up the subject. Of the finance committee they had a specimen from the first report. It was made a great matter of boast that they had abolished all sinecures. Why, as far as the committee had abolished sinecures, they had already been abolished. It was, in fact, nothing but an old report vamped up, to which was added, as an appendix a bill which had been thrown out in the Lords! As to offices which it would have been within the power of the House to have reduced, what had they done? They had said that one of the joint pay-masters of the army might be abolished. This was, indeed, a new discovery, and in contradiction to the arguments which had been urged in the House as to the inexpediency of abolishing the moiety of an old established office. But, on the other hand, the committee discovered that another officer required assistance, viz. the vice-president of the board of trade, and that for his service he should receive precisely this 2,000 l. a year in that capacity, which he was to lose in his capacity of joint pay-master. Why was his salary fixed at this sum—was there one examination?—No. Then, on the other hand it was said, that it was advisable that the two joint post-masters should remain, and what was the reason given?—That the sum to be managed was so large. If this had been a good reason, it would also have been a good reason for continuing the two pay-masters, for the sum they had to manage was undoubtedly greater than that managed by the post-masters. Thus an office was to be preserved, and a new one created without any ostensible reason, but solely on the alleged opinion of this committee of finance.
It would be urged, perhaps, that the House would have an opportunity of re-
60
vising the work of the finance committee; but when it was considered that the chancellor of the exchequer, and the secretary of state were members of that committee, he must be a very audacious person who would reject what they suggested. It became the duty therefore of the friends of economy and retrenchment to bestir them-, selves in the House, if they hoped ever to effect any real saving to the country; for it was idle to sit patiently and rely on committees of finance. He now called on them to undertake an inquiry, which would lead to real economy. But while he contended that no efficient saving could be produced until the salaries of offices were proportioned to their efficient duties, he was aware it might be urged, that it would be impossible to form future administrations if the Crown were bereft of this appointment. If we made war first on the lords of the admiralty, and then on the secretary of state, what situation could hope to escape, and what would be left for future administrations; and what administration could do without such appointments? He could only say, that if no administration could hereafter be formed on that principle of economy, he hoped the present administration would be the last. And certain he was, that it was in vain to talk of economy or retrenchment, if we stopped short of any measure that did not go at once to draw some proportion between the appointment of salaries and the duties to be performed for them. Where those duties were real and effectual, the salaries ought to be commensurate with them; and he must protest against that miserable expedient by which it had been attempted to satisfy public clamour with the appearance of a sacrifice, the expedient of reducing 10 per cent, out of the salaries of offices the duties of which were real and important. There could be no doubt that such offices should be liberally paid, and the House should see that the duties of them were efficiently performed; but where the duties performed were important, would it not be much better to leave the gentlemen officiating in the discharge of them in the full enjoyment of the salaries they deserved, than to abridge the wages of real service for the sake of paying those who had nothing to perform? It was a declaration that those offices were overpaid, which he did not believe to be true. The amount of the 10 per cent, contribution from the offices of the cabinet, could not be more than

61
7,000 l. a year. He had now pointed out a way in which 12,000 l. a year might be saved, which was 5,000 l. more, and was it not a better way of coming at it? It was mean; it was an insult on the country to think it would be pleased with an offering of 10 per cent, from efficient offices, unless, indeed, they permanently resigned that proportion of their salaries, from the conviction that they were overpaid. But while he was willing to see efficient officers well paid, he was also of opinion that no salary should be paid to any officer whose services were not required by strict necessity.
This was the view of the subject which every liberal man, which every friend to real economy would take. He had shown that the duty of the office of colonial secretary did not require a distinct officer to perform it; he had shown that the home secretary was not entitled at present to 6,000 l. a year, but he had also shown how he might earn it. He begged the House not to believe, because there was a rise in the stocks, that the country lost sight of the great question of economy. The necessity of the most rigid economy was now striking, when there was a difference between our income and expenditure of 14 millions, at the very lowest calculation, which how it was to be made good, God only knew. Though 12,000 l. fell very short of 14 millions, it was a saving not to be disregarded, and it was beginning at the right end. It was easy to disband poor clerks, or to reduce the inferior departments, which had grown out of the war, but what must be the feelings of the individuals who had held them when they beheld the great office of all, which had grown up under the same circumstances, still flourish in high splendour? What would be the feelings of reduced officers, who had barely a pittance to support existence, when they saw that the heads of the departments with which they had been in correspondence during the war were not abolished, but retained all the emolument, although the service was at an end; when they found that, if ever one of these greater functionaries fell from one place, another immediately started up for him. If he saw such a proposition adopted as that which he (Mr. Tierney) now suggested, the reduced officer might acquiesce with patience in the lot that was awarded him; but at present, the inequality between his treatment and that of the higher department could not afford him
62
any very consolatory reflections in effect, it was high time that government should do something to show that they were willing to relinquish a little of their own, and in reality to make some sacrifice to the necessities of the country, the only sacrifice he required was the abolition of offices that were no longer necessary. There was not a person in the country who would not understand the motive of a vote (if such should that night be given) to preclude the inquiry for which he was now contending. If all investigation was to be refused, and this office retained, on the bare assertion of government that it still continued to be necesary, it was impossible that any conviction or satisfaction could be the result of such an assertion. It was not only on the finances, but on the feelings of the country, that this show of economy would have its effects. When he had before talked of the abolition of sinecures, the chancellor of the exchequer had smiled, and well he might. They were very properly to be abolished at the expiration of the existing interests. This was a benefit only in expectancy; but it was their duty to do something like a sacrifice, something which they might themselves feel. If they refused to inquire into this office, no man could misunderstand the reason. During all former investigations, the treasury had made a special exception in favour of this office. It had been excepted by the treasury committee and by the finance committee, from their general inquiries; but was the House, on the mere assertion of this committee, to abstain from interfering? It was his conviction the office was unnecessary, and he declared most solemnly, that he would not vote for the abolition of one office from which he would not also exclude his own friends, if they were ever placed in the way of making such appointments. If they were to consider them necessary, he would not hesitate to assert that they ought not to come into office. On no other terms but those of the most rigid economy should any ministry be allowed to enter, office, or to continue in it. Certainly he had no chance of ever becoming first, second or third secretary of state; but, if it were not so, if he were to be called on to-morrow to form a part of an administration, he would not consent to do so unless this office was abolished, or that it was shown, that the public business could not be carried on without it. He was persuaded much might be done in the way of eco-

63
nomy by the consolidation of offices, if there really existed a treasury disposed to economy, and not one which never resorted to economical measures, except when driven to them by stress of weather. It had been said by the committee of finance, that it would be necessary to pay a salary of 2,000 l. a year to the vice president of the board of trade. Why might not the master of the mint perform the duties of that office? There were others who had seats in the cabinet, and nothing else to do—there was the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and the lord privy seal, to whom no laborious duty whatever was attached. It was not too much to ask that they should do something for their salaries. Whether they continued the names of the president of board of control, or of the third secretary of state, he did not care—it was not to the words, but to the multitude of offices that he objected. If it was necessary that the colonies should be subject to a separate officer, why might they not be placed under the president of the board of control? It had been objected to this arrangement, that the president of the board of control could not take the king's pleasure, which was frivolous enough, and also not true; for it was customary for him to take the king's pleasure on the appointment of a governor-general, and also of the ecclesiastical officers in India. This objection was therefore founded on a gross misstatement. There was in fact no more necessity for a third secretary of state than for a third archbishop. It was not to be got rid of however but by a motion in that House.
It was not pleasant to be obliged to bring forward motions which seemed to be directed against individuals. Though he was certain that the noble lord in the department of the third secretary of state could not impute any motives of personal hostility to him, (Mr. T.), yet he felt it exceedingly unpleasant to be thus attacking a particular office year after year, and to offer to throw such a load on lord Sidmouth as might perhaps kill him. At all events he should be consoled by the consciousness of having performed his duty. He hoped however that ministers would, for once, come forward themselves and spare an individual so disagreeable a task. Unless they did this, all temporary expedients were but vain; they might suspend the Habeas Corpus, but they could not suspend the spirit of inquiry and discussion that now pervaded every class of the
64
community; they could not by any other means lessen the burthens or alleviate the distress of the country. They might have recourse to coercive measures; they might for a season, silence the loud expression of public opinion; but by no other means could they tranquillize the spirit of the people, or persuade them that there was any wish to correct the abuses they complained of. If the House refused inquiry, they would forfeit the confidence of the country, and he trusted the people would manifest their sense of this dereliction of duty. He would conclude by moving, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the business now remaining to be executed by the secretary of state for the war and colonial department, and to report their opinion, whether the continuance of the same be any longer necessary; and whether the duties performed by the said department may without inconvenience to the public service be transferred to any other offices, and with what diminution of charge."
Mr. Goulburnwas perfectly aware, that every department of the state, might, with propriety, be called on for a statement of the nature of its services; and for himself, he certainly had no personal right to object to the motion of the right hon. gentleman. He had a little to add to what he had stated on this subject on a former occasion; but as he considered the motion of the right hon. gentleman had in reality for its object the abolition of the office of third secretary of state, though it appeared only to demand an inquiry, he must answer that part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, in which he imputed to his majesty's ministers a disinclination to adopt any measures of economy till they were compelled to them by the voice of the House. He was as willing as any gentleman on the opposite side of the House to agree in the reduction of useless places, but he thought it a pernicious parsimony to reduce such as were necessary and efficient. He did not think himself bound to show the inexpediency of appointing a second committee to inquire into the utility and efficiency of this office in particular, when a committee already existing had made the very investigations which the right hon. gentleman recommended. If the proceedings of that committee had not been such as to gratify hon. gentlemen on the other side, that was owing to their own refusal to join in the labours of the committee, and, as he thought, deprived them of any right of

65
complaint. It would have been open to call for evidence to examine into details, and then to have brought forward a motion on the result of such examination.
With respect to the motion now made by the right hon. gentleman for the abolition of the office of third secretary of state, before any one agreed in that motion, he must think, either that no circumstances could justify the existence of such an office; or, secondly, that the business of the office was not sufficient to justify its existence at present; or, thirdly, that the duty could be better performed, by being annexed to other offices. With respect to the first proposition, he did not impute to the right hon. gentleman the extravagance of having seriously advanced it. It was true, he did allude in one part of his speech to an act that had been brought in for the abolition of the office at one period; but the right hon. gentleman could not have so construed that act, as to believe it must prevail at all times and under all circumstances, or irrevocably bind the House for the future. With regard to the business of the office, he felt under some difficulty as to the mode in which he should make a statement of it to the House: if he entered into a detail of the number of letters received and dispatched, it might be deemed fallacious, and be urged that many of these were merely circular; besides the chance he might incur of being laid open to ridicule, as on a former occasion, when the right hon. gentleman had said that it was very easy to come bustling down to the House with large bundles of papers, tied up in red strings, for the very purpose of display. He therefore should not enter into any detail of the nature; but if he could succeed in showing, that at the time when the existence of this office was admitted to be necessary, there was not more business to be performed than at present, he hoped, he should have made out a satisfactory statement to the House.
The period that had elapsed since the first institution of the colonial department in 1768 and 1782, would form a fit subject of comparison with that which had elapsed between 1802 and 1816; and for that comparison he should take the pages of entry in the books of office, because he thought they afforded, on the whole, a fair criterion. In the fourteen years from 1768 to 1782, the number of pages filled in the books of entry for twelve colonies were 3,139, giving an average of about
66
224 for each year. The same twelve colonies in the second period, from 1802 to 1816, filled a number of pages to the amount of 6,098, forming an average of about 435 for each year; so that in the latter period, the business of those twelve colonies was nearly doubled. But if they took the whole of the business of the North American colonies (including that of a military nature) together with the twelve colonies, for 14 years, from 1768 to 1782, and opposed it, in the same way, to the business transacted in the office from 1802 to 1816, the disparity would be found infinitely greater. The number of pages written from 1768 to 1782 was 6,246—being, on the average, 446 pages per annum; whilst the number written from 1802 to 1816 was 27,968 or 1,994 pages per annum. It might be supposed that the increase in the latter period was occasioned by the war. But the fact was otherwise. The war had only made a difference of about 500 pages per annum; the remainder of the increase was occasioned by the influx of ordinary business.
Having adduced these specific facts to prove that the business had greatly accumulated, he should next offer a few observations on the general principle. In every business had greatly increased; and this must be attributed, in a great degree, to the extension of education in every quarter of the empire. At present, almost every person in the empire could address the different offices of government; and communications from individuals moving in various ranks of society were poured in on them—a circumstance hitherto unknown. No hon. gentleman could, he imagined, be ignorant of this fact, that the increase of education had greatly contributed to the increase of business in all the departments of the state. On this account every department was obliged to enlarge its establishment, and yet was oppressed by the additional weight of business. Since 1803, the business of the colonial office had most materially increased. Gentlemen must be aware, that the correspondence connected with the abolition of the slave trade alone employed an entire office. In the constant anxiety and vigilance that was necessary for the due enforcement of this measure to render availing the best efforts of humanity, and to convince the other powers of Europe that we were in earnest in our attempts at a general abolition, and that we

67
were actuated by no sinister motive in persevering to its accomplishment, there was ample demand for the exercise of great industry and talents, not only from Africa, but from every quarter of the globe where communications were poured in; and though, unfortunately in some instances, these reports had proved incorrect and unsatisfactory, yet the labour of attending to them, and distinguishing between those that might be relied on and those which were unworthy of credit, was by no means trifling. Besides this, there was the care of legislating for each separate colony. To all of them English laws and English principles were to be recommended, yet in such a manner as not to wound the feelings or clash violently with the prejudices of the place. To watch the times and opportunities, to select the proper modes and proper instruments for effecting these improvements and changes, required the vigilant exercise of considerable powers. It was this that had created the necessity for a third secretary of state; this that had increased the public business beyond all former precedent; and this that rendered it impossible to dispense with a separate department devoted to such purposes.
What he had urged with respect to the amount of business, showed why this department could not be conveniently transferred to any other office; that which had increased their business had increased the business of every other department; and though it might not become him to vouch for them, yet from the knowledge he had he was convinced that the duties could not be removed to any other quarter with any hope of their being duly performed. But it was not on these grounds alone that he thought it impossible to comply with the right hon. gentleman's motion. It was almost indispensable that there should be a responsible minister through whom the colonies might make known their wants, and who, by devoting himself solely to their service, might be competent to explain and support their respective interests. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he (Mr. Goulburn) was competent to this. He felt flattered by the right hon. gentleman's good opinion, but was convinced that such an arrangement would be impracticable; and there was no other office to which the proposal if feasible at all, was not equally applicable: and yet the right hon. gentleman could hardly contend for its application to the other great offices of state. But the
68
right hon. gentleman would do well to consider the necessity of having a competent minister in this as well as the other great departments; and if he looked to the relief from expense, he should also see whether there were not disadvantages to counterbalance the saving that could be effected. The great excellence of the British system of government, was the freedom of discussion in that House, and the advantage of having a cabinet minister competent to give information on every question, and to render those discussions availing to some end; there was the additional security, too, that no act of the Crown could take place without the consideration of these cabinet ministers; but the proposal of the right hon. gentleman would go to withdraw this security from one great branch of our empire and resources. The colonies, too, had an additional claim to the care of responsible ministers, exclusively devoted to their interests. All other parts of the empire had their own representatives, who could speak to and defend their local interests. It was not so with the colonies, and if they could not be heard by their minister, they must run the hazard of being neglected or sacrificed to the interests of others. The right hon. gentleman had limited the annual saving to be effected to 12,000 l.; but the colonies were greater now than at any former period; they were hourly becoming of greater importance, and he could not think so ill of the country as to think it would sacrifice the welfare of the colonies and the happiness of thousands for a saving of 12,000 l. a year. We were not to consider these colonies merely as the appurtenances of grandeur, and the gratification of national vanity, but to weigh the rights of the people, and their individual claims to happiness. On these grounds he should oppose the motion before the House. The abolition of the office in question would tend only to the mismanagement of the colonies, and the sum saved to the nation would be lost in the diminution of the happiness of the colonists. To those who thought that the colonies were only an incumbrance on the country, it might be that these reasons would not carry any great weight; but with those who, like himself, considered them one of the great sources of our glory, and one of the great supports of our power affording resources in war, and increasing our commerce in peace, with those who thought them important under every con-

69
sideration, it would not be doubted that they had a right to due attention, and that that attention could only be bestowed on them by a minister exclusively attached to their interests. For these reasons, he should give his decided negative to the motion.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he should support the motion, not only on the grounds which had been laid so ably by the right hon. mover, but in the hope that the abolition of the office of colonial secretary would lead to a revision of our whole colonial system. It was when the colonial secretaryship had been first appointed in 1768, that this country departed from the simple and wise course of experience in the government of its colonies, to lose itself in the mazes of experiment. A period of 150 years of previous prosperity bore testimony to the excellence of the system that had been established. The effect of the attempt to introduce direct taxation into our colonies was too well known. A long and expensive war ensued, which ended in the dismemberment of the empire, and the loss of colonies that were our pride and our glory, affording an unbounded opening to commercial enterprise, and a prospect for the future beyond the powers of anticipation to estimate. It might have been hoped that this melancholy result would have operated to deter from a similar experiment; but when in the late war the office of third secretary was revived, the system was soon renewed, and the effects would probably be not less disastrous. Trinidad had been made the farm of experiment, his majesty's ministers, like all other gentlemen farmers, had completely failed; and the colony had been reduced to the most ruinous condition. A despotic system of government had been introduced there—
Mr. Goulburnrose to order. He was prepared at any time to discuss the question of the treatment of Trinidad, but he could not imagine how it could have any bearing on the question before the House.
The Speakercalled on Mr. Marryat to proceed.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he should be able to show that the condition of Trinidad had a distinct bearing upon the question. The erroneous system of policy he complained of, had been adopted, not only towards Trinidad, but all the colonies ceded at the late peace. Instead of pursuing the wise policy of Rome, in extending its own laws and the right of citizenship and suf-
70
frage to all the countries it acquired, we had, in our several colonies, systems entirely different from each other, and we appeared to be consistent only in the determination to exclude all the colonists from participating in those advantages which were enjoyed by the integral part of the empire. In the Mauritius we had French laws—at Demerara and Essequibo we had Dutch laws—at Trinidad we had Spanish laws—we had Greek laws in the Ionian islands—in short, for each of our possessions we had a different system of laws. This was a most extraordinary species of policy. While we governed our new subjects by British laws, we held out to them the strongest inducements to study the English language, and to become acquainted with our manners and habits. But, under the present system, these inducements were lost:—we took no care to familiarize foreigners to our language, manners, and customs. The consequence was, that we made no progress in binding them to our interest—they remained foreigners to all intents and purposes. Was it not, he would ask, a matter of importance to consider the expediency of correcting such an anomaly? The neglect of introducing our laws encouraged the establishment of an arbitrary military government—and thus a taste for arbitrary government was infused into the minds of those who probably at one time or other would be connected with the government at home. An absolute command, quite independent of parliament, was, under this system exercised over the revenues of the colonies. A proclamation had been issued in Demerara, which set forth that the grants under the former government were null and void, — but added, that the Crown, in its grace, would suffer the proprietors to retain their possessions, provided each of them paid a fine of 100 l., and submitted to a quit-rent for life. As there were 1,600 of these proprietors, by this mode 160,000 l. was raised from the inhabitants of this small island; and if so large a sum could be extracted from it, what treasures, he would ask, might not be raised from other colonies, which were infinitely more rich? What immense resources were thus placed beyond the control or interference of parliament? This however was perfectly unconstitutional. Both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, on a memorable occasion, agreed, that if the Crown could control the public revenue, independently of parliament,

71
there was an end to the security of popular freedom. Yet parliament appeared to have really nothing to do with the government of our conquered colonies. He did not mean to complain of any individual; but of the general system pursued. As to the proposition before the House, he felt that it was entitled to his support, because the consolidation of business would serve to facilitate colonial transactions, which were at present conducted in a very circuitous manner. For upon any application with respect to our colonies, under the existing establishments, reference was had to so many departments before any answer was obtained, that very inconvenient delays very often took place. Letters were, for instance, addressed to the colonial department, from the West-Indies. They were copied, and subdivided into extracts, which were sent to the various departments with which the business was connected. Reports were drawn up on these extracts; and on these reports the colonial department framed their letters. So that the business was done three times over instead of being completed at once—to the great increase of labour and the augmentation of the public expense. Besides, in consequence of this confused system, mistakes were frequently liable to occur. But this inconvenience was likely to be obviated by reducing the number of departments; for replies upon business connected with the colonies would tints be more directly and promptly obtained, and thus great satisfaction would be given to the colonists. The expediency of such a system of consolidation was indeed confirmed by the authority of the lords of the treasury with respect to the affairs of the commissary in chief's office, which was transferred to the treasury as more convenient to the discharge of public business. The office of the commissary in chief was in consequence abolished, and on the same grounds as that stated by the lords of the treasury, as well as upon other grounds which had been urged, he saw no reason why the business of the secretary of state for the colonial department should not be transferred to the office of the home department. With regard to the objection of the hon. gentleman to the motion before the House, that it should not be countenanced because it involved an innovation, he thought such an objection of no weight; for to resist innovation where a strong case was made out, as in this instance, would be to resist
72
all improvement. From these considerations, particularly the political and constitutional ones, at the same time that he did not mean to undervalue the principles of economy and retrenchment, so ably advocated by the right hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion, he felt it to be his duty to give it his cordial support.
Mr. Anthony Brownesaid, that however disposed to concur with his hon. friend, in all his observations upon the anomaly of governing the newly ceded colonies, now the permanent possessions of the Crown, by any other than British laws, he was still of opinion, that the committee proposed by the motion of the right hon. gentleman, was not the proper place where that part of the subject could be most advantageously discussed; nor was the abolition of the important office of the secretary of state for the colonies the most advantageous mode of remedying the evil of which his hon. friend had justly complained.—The subject referred to by his hon. friend involved a question of grave responsibility on the part of those who advised the Crown to govern any part of its dominions by any other administration of law than that of our own invaluable code; but it was a question that could not be usefully discussed in an incidental way, or before a committee, such as the present motion went to establish. It was a subject deserving of the utmost attention of the House at large; and when his hon. friend might deem it desirable to bring it before the House in a distinct and substantive shape, he would give every support to his view of the case which it might be in his power to afford.
With respect to the motion which was the immediate subject of consideration; connected as he was with the colonies, and having many opportunities of knowing the nature and extent, and importance of colonial concerns, he had no hesitation in expressing his decided conviction, that the business was sufficient to engage the attention of a secretary of state, however enlarged in mind, and however devoted to habits of business; and that the transferring of those important concerns, and mixing them with the business of the home secretary, would involve a risk of great injury to those interests and abate much of that confidence, which, he believed, prevailed in most of the islands, in the manner in which their concerns were attended to, and administered by the noble lord at present at the head of the colonial depart-

73
ment. He did not mean to say, that every attention would not he paid by the noble lord at the head of the home department, to colonial concerns, if the House should be pleased to commit that charge to his hands; but it was fair to suppose, that when his attention came to be divided between distant and immediate objects of his care, that the immediate would be attended to, and the distant ones neglected, if he found his mind, as he was persuaded he would, unequal to the conduct of both. The House was not to look at the mere amount of saving which would accrue from the abolition of the office, but in order to determine whether that amount of saving would be a measure of true economy; they were to look at the nature, the importance of those public interests which were under the superintendance of the office to be abolished, and see what risks these interests would incur by the change that was proposed. In order to form a correct judgment upon this part of the subject, it was not sufficient to look merely at the amount of business in the colonial department, which had been so accurately described by the under secretary of state for the colonies, but it was necessary to look at the nature of the business to be transacted, and its operation upon colonial interests. There was a time when two of the greatest statesmen of their day, however disagreeing in other matters, concurred in this principle, that the only means of retaining distant colonies, with mutual advantage to the parent state, and to the colonies themselves was, to enable them to govern themselves, by giving them a legislature of their own. Now the policy is different,—a new light has flashed upon the rulers of the present day; and without stopping to inquire which of the two is the best, it is sufficient to observe, that according to the present mode all the newly ceded colonies, or most of them at least, are governed by proclamations, directed by the secretary of state here. The business is not, therefore, increased merely, but it is of so important a nature as to make it necessary that the individual who is charged with this duty, should give his best and most anxious consideration to those circumstances of local policy upon which his conduct is to be regulated and his decision governed.—The House should bear in mind, that the security of property and of life too, both unhappily resting upon a very precarious tenure, are dependant
74
upon the law, the consideration, and the sound judgment, and discretion of the colonial secretary; and were these objects to be put to hazard for a saving of 12,000 l. per annum,—was this an office to be lightly dealt with, the duties of which were to be transferred from one office to another, as matter of no consequence, by whom they were executed, or whether they were executed at all? It was not a question now whether this was the best mode of governing the colonies, but it is necessary the House should bear in mind, that this is the nature and importance of the office of colonial secretary, before they determine that the office of colonial secretary should be abolished, and these important duties committed to one, whose time is occupied materially with concerns of a different nature, but important of their kind too; but he was not inclined to disturb the present arrangement, because of the general satisfaction which that arrangement gave to the colonies themselves. There was a time when much jealousy prevailed in some of the old islands, at the interference of the mother country in colonial concerns.—It was not necessary to go far back to learn the spirit of hostility which existed in some of the old colonies, to the general objects of the government at home; happily, that feeling is now at an end, and it has been succeeded by a confidence in the judgment and talent of the noble lord at the head of the colonial department, and his anxious attention to all objects of colonial interest. He happened to know, that in one of the old islands with which he was most connected, much objection prevailed, upon the principle of a registry bill; but those objections were removed by the confidence which was placed in the judgment of the noble lord, and by the conciliatory and persuasive tone in which he recommended the general adoption of a registry bill.—On this ground, too, he was unwilling to transfer the duties of the colonial office to that of the home department, at a time too when, more than any other in his recollection, the whole of the colonial system was exposed to mere than usual danger. For these reasons he should cordially vote against the motion.
Mr. Barhamrose, not to impute any blame to the official conduct of the secretary of state for the colonial department,

75
whose conduct indeed had been most meritorious, but to contradict the statement of the last speaker, that the confidence of the colonies in the disposition of the mother country, was likely to be abated by any such arrangement as that which the motion had in view. The present was not a question with regard to the merits of lord Bathurst, or lord Sidmouth, or any other noble lord, but whether the business of the colonial and home departments might not be transacted in one office, and and at a much less expense to the public. Upon this proposition, he confessed that he was quite convinced by the arguments of his right hon. friend who made the motion, and whose arguments had not at all been answered by the details of the hon. gentleman on the other side. These details would indeed, come more appropriately under the consideration of a committee, where the abilities of those who conducted such details would no doubt be duly appreciated; and upon any new arrangement he hoped that such abilities, especially those of the hon. gentleman, would be called into action for the public service. His wish was, that the colonics should not be unnecessarily burthensome to the mother state. Some objects the colonies desired, and others they deprecated; but they had never expressed a desire for the establishment of any particular office. On the whole, feeling that no injury would result from the proposed arrangement, to the colonies, in which he had a deep interest, while a considerable saving would accrue to the country, he would give his cordial support to the motion.
Sir M. W. Ridleydid not feel prepared to enter particularly into the question respecting Trinidad. The interests of the colonies he had always considered as closely connected with those of the mother country; but he conceived that the hon. gentleman's statement on the other side, as to the number of clerks employed or the quantity of business transacted in the colonial office, formed no argument whatever against the motion, because all those clerks and that business might be transferred to another office, without incumbering the country with the salary and emoluments of a third secretary of state. The statement of an increase of business in the colonial office, in consequence of the number of letters from this country, through the diffusion of elementary learning, was really ludicrous; as if the systems of
76
Mr. Lancaster and Dr. Bell, furnished an argument for burthening the country with the maintenance of a third secretary of state. Neither could he see why the consequences of the abolition of the slave trade should render the third secretary of state necessary. The increase of business that might have occurred, must fall on inferior persons in the office. His right hon. friend never meant to cut off communications with the secretary of state's office; yet a saving might be effected of 12,000 l. a year. The question for the House to consider was simply this, whether at a period of general distress, and on the restoration of peace, when the business of the office of secretary for war and the colonies must be so materially reduced, it would be right to continue an expensive establishment, rather than press upon the consideration of ministers the practice of that economy for which the country so loudly called, and which those ministers so often professed, but to which they seemed so little disposed.
Mr. Wilberforcedeclared, that from all he knew and heard, the office alluded to was overloaded with business, and from what he understood, such was also the case in the home department. The House, then, should duly consider whether the business of the colonies should be exposed to any neglect by acceding to the proposed arrangement. It was a duty which he owed to the colonies, to see that they were well governed; and he was of opinion that it required an individual of great consideration to look after concerns so important to the public interests: a person who should hold a high station in the public eye. He was disposed to take away offices which were without business to transact; but that did not appear to be the present question. Questions of the present description required specific consideration. With respect to the system of policy which prevailed in the government of some of our colonies, that was not at present the question before the House. But as to Trinidad, he had no hesitation in stating, that the Spanish law of that colony, as it applied to the larger portion of its population, was much more mild and humane than that which prevailed in any other colony. The saving of 12,000 l. a year which was proposed by the motion was, no doubt, a serious consideration, and the right hon. mover was entitled to thanks for the disposition to economy which such an object manifested. But

77
the question was, whether the saving of 12,000 l. a year would not be much too dearly purchased by hazarding the good government of the colonies, and whether all the other public departments being already overcharged with business, the interest of those important settlements would not very materially suffer by agreeing to the proposed tansfer? In his opinion, however, it was essentially necessary, that the superintendence of our colonial concerns should constitute the business of a distinct, efficient, and dignified department, with a view to discharge the duty which was due to those great establishments, and to consult the best interest of the mother country.
Mr. J. H. Smythsupported the motion, observing, that while the duke of Portland presided at the home department, the business of the colonies was transacted in that department without any inconvenience to the public service, and during that period, namely, from 1794 to 1801, it was notorious that the colonial business was much greater than it could possibly be at present. The creation of the new office was unfortunate, as it was accompanied by the signals of rebellion. It did not appear that two secretaries might not do all the business. Mr. Burke proposed this in 1782, by a consolidation of the departments, declaring in his emphatic language, "that the inutility of a third secretary of state was as glaring as the burning light of day." He admitted that the duties of the office of his hon. friend opposite were very laborious, but yet he thought that a consolidation would diminish them.
Lord Miltoncongratulated his hon. friend (Mr. Wilberforce) on having added one to the numerous speeches he had made during the session, in which he commenced with professing economy, but ended with voting for prodigality. He did not attribute the speech and vote of the hon. gentleman to any but the purest motives, although he could not help observing, that they were quite irreconcileable. All who knew his hon. friend must know his sincerity; but he seemed too much caught by the speech of the hon. gentleman opposite respecting the number of letters, and pages of entries. These, however they might affect the clerks, &c. could have little to do with the responsibility of the secretary of state. His hon. friend appeared to make some mistake in his usual discrimination, between governing well
78
and governing much. He seemed to attribute too much importance to the bustle of an office. The third secretary of state had assumed a new character; and it appeared that to many of the colonies he was King, Lords, and Commons, and was to legislate every thing for them. The habits of arbitrary government abroad furnished no very good school for those who were to return and hold office at home. The secretary of state might, perhaps, as well be eased of some of his labours in making proclamations. He wished the House would inquire into the expenses of the colonies. He thought they displayed too much prodigality, and that much might be saved in that quarter to the country. Let it not be imagined that England had no interest in these expenses, because they were borne by the colonies themselves. When they exceeded the means of the colonists, they were to be made up by the mother country, and sometimes to a great amount. He thought that the finance committee had been guilty of a great dereliction of duty in not investigating this particular office. He should certainly vote for the motion of his right hon. friend.
Mr. Protheroesaid, he had opposed a motion similar to the present, when brought forward by the right hon. gentleman last year, and he did not think he should do his duty towards the colonies, if he did not give it his decided negative now. So far from concurring in the opinion, that it was necessary to abolish the office of third secretary of state, in consequence of the peace, he rather rejoiced that the cessation of war would allow the whole and undivided attention of the person filling that office, to be directed to colonial affairs. If the office of the third secretary of state were abolished, he was convinced that instead of proving beneficial to the affairs of the colonies, it would be highly prejudicial, and might ultimately lead to their total loss.
Lord Binningrose to say a few words in consequence of his understanding that the right hon. mover had imputed blame to the committee appointed last year, of which he (lord B.) was a member, for not having inquired into the necessity of continuing the third secretary of state. But he wished first to be sure whether he was right in understanding that the right hon. gentleman had imputed blame to that committee.
Mr. Tierneydisclaimed having imputed blame to the committee.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that some arguments had been urged against the motion of a nature so extraordinary that he could not refrain from noticing them. One hon. gentleman had stated an argument, not indeed for the abolition of the third secretary of state, but an excellent argument for the appointment of a fourth secretary of state; for he had said that the affairs of the colonies required the undivided attention of one secretary of state. He would be glad to know, if this were the fact, what became of the affairs of the colonies while the war was carried on—when the attention of the secretary of state was divided between the war and the colonies? Another reason for opposing the motion given by another hon. member was, that the secretary for the colonies had taken upon himself to act as legislator for the colonies. This was rather an odd reason; certainly it was a novel one. Another reason was, that the noble lord who now held the office in question, did last year write a most conciliatory letter to the House of Assembly of one of the colonies. That was certainly a most extraordinary act of condescension in a legislator, and exhibited great moderation of temper, great humility of mind, and great benevolence of nature. But, for his own part, he was inclined to think that the conciliatory effects alluded to proceeded not from the letter of the noble lord, but from the good sense of that House when it had under its consideration the disturbances in Barbadoes. It was not, however, to the character of any individual that the colonies should look; it was not from any individual they expected conciliation, but from the good sense of that House; it was not from the pleasure of a secretary they would receive laws, but from the wisdom of parliament; it was not to proclamations, and other documents of that nature, they were to attend, but to their own assemblies. Another hon. member seemed to imagine that the House ought to agree in permitting the office to remain, because he had a firm conviction in his mind that it was necessary to have a separate and distinct office for our colonies. No doubt that hon member's conviction was sincere; but it would have been more satisfactory if the reasons upon which that conviction was founded had been stated. But neither cause nor reason was assigned by the hon. gentleman for opposing the motion of his right hon. friend, whom, nevertheless, he had so highly complimented for
80
bringing forward the question, whom he loaded with thanks, and to whom, in short he would give any thing but his vote. And then, at the same time, that hon. gentleman dealt rather hardly with some of the members on the other side of the House. He said the person to whom our colonial affairs were entrusted should be an individual of the highest consideration. No doubt. And to whom did his right hon. friend propose that the duties of the third secretary should be transferred, in the event of its abolition? To the secretary of state for the home department, to the president of the board of control, or to the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. It was not for him to dictate to the hon. member the course he should pursue; but he thought he ought to have said, when speaking of the necessity of having a person of the highest consideration, that he meant nothing derogatory to the nature or abilities of those individuals; that he did not mean to insinuate, they were unfit to direct our colonial affairs. What would the noble secretary of state for the home department, the president of the board of control, or the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, think of this opinion of their merits? He was sure, for their consolation, that notwithstanding the opinion of the hon. gentleman, the colonists would consider them sufficiently qualified to transact the business of that department.—There was only one solid reason that could be urged against the present motion, and that was, that the departments among which the business of the colonies was proposed to be divided, were already overworked with their own separate concerns. But none of these persons themselves stepped forward to make such a declaration, because they knew full well, that the truth of the case would not bear them out in the assertion. The absence of this declaration was the strongest reason why they should vote for the present motion. What was the motion? Did it invite the House at once to abolish the office? All his right hon. friend wanted was, that they should go into an inquiry, to see if 12,000 l. a year could not be saved to the country. This was only met by a general assertion, that the inquiry was unnecessary, because the office was a fit one to be continued. Then, let the fact of its fitness be decided in the committee. If it should there appear to be an office that ought to be abolished, the House would perform its duty to the

81
country, by ordering it to be abolished; if, on the contrary, the office were really a proper one, then they would acquit themselves of all imputations by ascertaining that fact by a fair inquiry.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that the question for the House to decide upon was, whether the administration of the affairs of the colonies could be combined with such important objects as those which engaged the attention and occupied the whole time of the other secretaries of state. When the duties of each of the offices to which the business of the colonial department was proposed to be referred were considered, it would be allowed, that such a combination was impracticable. The fact was, that the duties of the office in question, could be executed only by a single individual; an individual of address and attention; who should take a particular interest in that province, and attend to its duties with undivided assiduity. All expressed themselves satisfied with the manner in which the present secretary discharged the duties of his office. This was gratifying to him; but the question was, whether it could be administered together with any other office. He put it to the serious consideration of gentlemen, whether the duties of such an office could be well performed in conjunction with any other office. His majesty's ministers were animated with the strongest desire to alleviate the distresses of the country. He would challenge any gentleman to point out one instance in which they had not attended to retrenchment, and promoted economy to the utmost of their power. Gentlemen who had had opportunities of thoroughly knowing the nature of the duties to be performed in the department in question, did not think the existence of it unnecessary. The occupation of mind it called for at present rendered it of the greatest importance. In a different state of the country it might perhaps be dispensed with. When all the effects and consequences of the war were at an end, it might perhaps be abolished without injury to the public service; but while the country was in its present state it was indispensable. A noble lord complained that the inquiry proposed by the motion now before the House had not been made by the committee of finance, but the truth was, that this office was not within the scope of that committee. The information which that committee would have required could be
82
given by none but the secretary of state himself; and therefore the inquiry was wholly beyond that which the committee was directed to make.
The House divided:

For the motion

87

Against it

190

Majority

103

List of the Minority.

Anson, sir George

Ossulston, lord

Atherley, Arthur

Pierse, Henry

Aubrey, sir John

Power, Richard

Bankes, Henry

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

Bastard, E. P.

Powlett, hon. W.

Burroughs, sir W.

Prittie, hon. F. A.

Barham, Jos.

Proby, hon. capt.

Baring, sir Thos.

Phillimore, Dr.

Barnett, James

Pym, F.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Ramsden, J. C.

Birch, Jos.

Russell, lord G. W.

Brand, hon. T.

Scudamore, R.

Brougham, Henry

Sefton, lord

Campbell, gen. D.

Sharp, R.

Calvert, Charles

Shelley, sir J.

Carter, John

Savile, Albany

Coke, T. W.

Smith, J.

Carew, R. S.

Smith, S.

Duncannon, visc.

Smith, A.

Ebrington, visc.

Smith, Wm.

Elliot, rt. hon. W.

Smyth, J. H.

Fazakerly, N.

Spencer, lord R.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Tavistock, marq. of

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Fitzroy, lord John

Teed, John

Grattan, rt. hon. H.

Walpole, gen.

Grenfell, Pascoe

Waldegrave, hon. W.

Grant, J. P.

Warre, J. A.

Gordon, R.

Wilder, gen.

Hamilton, lord A.

Wilkins, Walter

Harcourt, John

Wynn, C. W.

Heron, sir R.

Williams, Owen

Howorth, H.

TELLERS.

Knox, Thos.

Calcraft, John

Lamb, hon. W.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Lambton, John G.

PAIRED OFF.

Latouche, R. jun.

Barnard, visc.

Lewis, T. F.

Cavendish, lord G.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Cavendish, hon. H.

Marryat, J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Macdonald, J.

Curwen, J. C.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Douglas, F. S.

Martin, John

Foley, hon. A.

Mathew, gen.

Foley, Thos.

Milton, visc.

Folkestone, visc.

Monck, sir C.

Guise, sir W.

Moore, Peter

Hill, lord A.

Mosely, sir O.

Lefevre, C. Shaw

Norland, S. B.

Lloyd, J. M.

Newman, R. W.

Molyneux, H.

Neville, hon. R.

Parnell, sir H.

Newport, sir John

Philips, George

North, Dudley

Ponsonby, hon. T. C.

Nugent, lord

Russell, R. G.

Ord, Wm.

Western, C. C.

Osborne, lord F.

ACADEMICAL SOCIETY.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that after the conversation that took place last night, on the Petition of the members of the Academical Society, it was not his intention at present to press the particular motion of which he had given notice for that evening. He still, however, wished to state, that it was not unlikely that on a future occasion, he should feel it his duty to revert to that subject. The House would hear with regret, that the decision so lately referred to, was not a solitary instance of magisterial misinterpretation of the late act of parliament, even in the city of London. Another most respectable institution of very long standing in the metropolis, called the City Philosophical Society, had also received a refusal to their application for a licence. This society was established in the year 1808, for the discussion of questions of natural philosophy; and he was fully confident, that were the House in possession of the regulations of that society, they were such as it could not disapprove. On the 14th of April last, in conformity with the enactments of the act, they applied to the magistrates of the city of London for a licence. The House must be astonished to hear that this application was refused, not indeed on the exact grounds on which a similar denial was given to the Academical Institution, but on the principle, that it was necessary to be made acquainted with the names of every one of its members, and to be in possession of the list of questions submitted to their discussion. The House would hear with still greater surprise, that the recorder of London was consulted at this meeting of magistrates, and had concurred in the propriety of the refusal on such grounds. Here, then, was a second instance of what, unwilling as he was to impute any harsh or unfair motive to these magistrates, he must call a second flagrant mistake in their construction of the statute. If such, therefore, were the mistakes of men exercising judicial duties in the metropolis, men who, from their station in life and general intercourse, must be presumed to be well-informed, and enabled to have the fullest information, what, he would ask, would be the misconceptions of magistrates in the country, respecting the operation of that law, deprived, as they were, of such advantages? Indeed, it was not left for the House to surmise on this point, as he had heard that a bench of country magistrates had
84
already resisted the application of a Mineralogical Society, on the presumption that the investigation of such subjects led to blasphemy [A laugh!]. With such decisions before them, he could not help considering it highly expedient either that the ministers of the Crown should take the necessary steps to correct such mistakes, or that the legislature should lose no time in guarding its enactments from such flagrant and dangerous misinterpretation. Surely, if the noble secretary for the home department could And time to write a Circular to the whole magistracy of the land, when the object was to abridge the liberty of the subject, he might spare some little time from his other avocations to guard the remaining privileges of the people from being invaded by the misconceptions of that same magistracy. He concluded with moving, "That there be laid before the House the copy of the petition from the Academical Society in Chancery-lane, presented to the magistrates of London at the general quarter sessions held at the Old Bailey on the 18th of April last, with any order of sessions made thereon."
Mr. Bathursthad no objection to the motion, and would have abstained from any observation at present, had he not been called up by the allusion, which the hon. baronet had made to a noble relative at the head of the home department. It had been said, that the noble secretary might be better employed in writing letters to instruct the magistrates in the interpretation of the law, than in writing circulars to abridge the public liberty. The hon. baronet had here assumed two things which remained to be proved, and which he, when the proper opportunity offered, would show to be unfounded; namely, that the circular alluded to was contrary to law; and that the secretary of state was bound to instruct magistrates in the proper construction of the late act. Till the former of those points was proved, the noble secretary could not be accused of abridging the liberties of the subject. He had acted on the best advice, and what he had done would be found conformable to law and justice. With regard to the second point, he denied that it was the duty of the secretary of state to instruct the magistrates in the interpretation of acts of parliament. Such was the doctrine held by an hon. and learned gentleman last night, who had said that magistrates were to exercise their

85
own discretion in applying and understanding the laws, unfettered by the instructions of a minister. With regard to the case of the Mineralogical Society, the construction of the act was so absurd, that any law, however easily understood, might be perverted to any purpose by persons who could so far transgress the common rules of interpretation, as had been done in this case.
Mr. Brougham.— The right hon. gentleman has correctly represented the observation which fell from me on a former occasion. I then asserted what I now repeat, that the minister of the Crown has no right to interfere with the magistracy in the exercise of their judicial duties. But the right hon. gentleman reprehends my hon. friend, on the presumption that he attached blame to the noble lord at the head of the home department, in not issuing his instructions to the magistracy respecting the construction they should put on the law of the land. My hon. friend intimated no such opinion. He merely expressed his conviction, that it would be as well if the noble secretary had taken the same trouble to guard the rights of the people from invasion, as he took in writing circulars, when the object of such communications went to the abridgment of their liberties. It is not now the proper period to discuss the merits of that circular. It cannot be denied that, whether legal or illegal, its object is to abridge the liberty of the subject. What the strict law is, it is not necessary that I should in this stage give an opinion; but this I contend, that in point of fact, the practice, as recommended in that Circular, was different from previous usage. There might be found an isolated precedent or two, perhaps, but almost the uniform practice was different. The true question for the House to consider was, not whether that circular was compatible with the law and the practice, but whether the secretary of state for the home department, had a right to assume the province of expounding the law, of dictating to the magistracy of the county in the exercise of their judicial functions. And on what authority is this power assumed? Is it by an exposition of the law of the land, or by a declaratory act of the legislature—the only expounders that the constitution recognises? No—this extraordinary interference is assumed on the paid, legal, professional opinion of two hired servants of the Crown, on which alone the secretary
86
of state, also the paid servant of the Crown, dictates to the judicial authorities of the country. I rejoice to think that this proceeding will ere long be brought more fully before the consideration of parliament. When the time of discussion shall arrive, I am convinced it will be shown, that lord Sidmouth has been guilty of one of the most unconstitutional acts that a secretary of state has ever committed in the exercise, or rather in the breach of his duty. I trust also, that the exposure so promptly made of those unwarrantable decisions of the magistrates, will have the effect of preventing a repetition of such disgraceful scenes. It is, in truth, high time that they should be repressed, as already, and mainly attributable to that Circular, could be discovered indications of a very reprehensible alacrity in the perversion of their powers,—not indeed limited to the Bench, but to be traced also to their subordinate agents. I allude more particularly to the conduct of the town clerk of Liverpool, in a very recent instance, where a spirit had manifested itself that has excited, in every enlightened mind in the country, feelings of indignation and alarm.
Mr. Alderman Atkinsfelt it right to explain the particulars of the circumstance which took place before the London Sessions. An application had been made on the part of a society, who stated the subjects of their discussion to be of a quadruple nature, viz. philosophical, literary, historical, and political. This application was made at an hour when the judges had just retired, and some of the city magistrates were on the bench, while preparations were making for arraigning some of the London prisoners. In this interval, the application was made, and a casual objection started which might have been easily settled, if the gentlemen, deputed to make the application, had thought proper to comply with the desire of some of the magistrates, who simply wanted a definition of the historical and political subjects they meant to discuss. He was satisfied that the magistrates who were at the time on the Bench, acted to the best of their judgment, and meant any thing but a capricious rejection. They were men who would never swerve from the principles of strict justice, and the rejection on that occasion by no means excluded the applicants from their regular form of seeking a licence at the quarter sessions. The worthy baronet was under a mistake when he asserted that the Recorder concurred,

87
as he was not present at the time of the deliberation.
The motion was agreed to.