Commons Sitting of 14 February 1817

IRISH SAVING BANKS BILL.
Sir John Newportrose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to extend the protection of parliament to the establishment of provident institutions for saving in Ireland. The House had already assented to the general principle of such establishments, by sanctioning, in the last session, a proposition of a right hon. gentleman for their encouragement in Great Britain; it therefore only remained for him to show why a separate bill should be passed for Ireland, to secure the sanction of the House to the present measure. A law of this nature for England must necessarily be encumbered with many provisions and clauses of detail, in consequence of the very complicated system^ of poor-laws existing in this country, all of which would be unnecessary in Ireland, and it would be attended with great confusion, to distinguish in the same bill what parts of it should operate in the one country, and what in the other; he was therefore anxious that such an encumbrance of detail should not endanger the advantages that Ireland was likely to derive from the enactment of such a measure. He stated that there existed a law on the Irish Statute Book, preventing bankers from paying interest for money lodged in their hands. This restriction should be taken off, as far as the money of these saving institutions was concerned. For the purpose also of affording every possible means of security to the depositors in the saving institutions, it was intended to provide in
358
this bill, that in case a banker, in whose hands the deposits may be lodged, should become bankrupt, the trustees of the provident institutions should have a paramount claim before all the other creditors on the property of the bankrupt, to the whole amount of the deposits. There was one point of considerable difficulty in the detail of the measure, created by the fluctuation in the public funds, which might seriously affect those persons whose deposits were lodged in them. In consequence of that, the bankers, to save themselves, allowed interest less by one per cent, than the legal interest; but he suggested to the hon. gentlemen connected with the finance department, the necessity of adopting some new principle of funds, destined solely for the money deposited in the provident institutions, which might be negociable in the way of exchequer bills. The right hon. baronet then stated the result of the establishment of a saving bank in Waterford, where, in the course of six months, the sum of 2,390 l. was deposited by about three hundred persons. Out of this sum there had been paid 560 l. leaving still a considerable amount in the bank, for which the depositors received interest. He had been in the office of the institution one day, when a man came in with five or six children. He deposited in the names of these, one, two, or three shillings each; and this man stated, that, since the establishment of the bank, he had regularly deposited some trifling sums in the name of each his children, and he felt confident that had such an institution been established earlier in the country, he might by that time have realised a considerable amount which had been dissipated, in consequence of there being no place for securing it. The right hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, for the protection and encouragement of provident institutions, or Banks for Savings in Ireland." —Leave was given.

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c
Lord Cochranepresented a petition from Dumbarton, complaining of the magnitude of taxation, the extravagant military establishments, and praying for a radical reform in the representation of the people. The noble lord took the opportunity of suggesting, that equal facility should be allowed to the transmission by the post of the petitions of the people as were to the communications of that most

359
benevolent committee at the London Tavern. It was a severe tax on a member of that House, solicitous to lay the prayers of the people before parliament, to be obliged to defray the great expense of postage from his own pocket.
Mr. C. Grant,jun. in answer to what had fallen from the noble lord, begged to say, that on a former session he had received petitions, to be laid before that House, for the postage of which he had paid three or four pounds, but which was subsequently returned on the application of the petitioners.
The Speakerbelieved that such petitions must have had reference to a measure actually before the House, and not simply in contemplation.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that the hardship required some consideration. He had himself received at various times petitions and other papers, transmitted to him as a member of parliament, for which he had paid on some occasions as much as five and six pounds, and which was never returned.
The Speaker—I find that there is a clause in an act of parliament, passed two years since, and where I should never have thought of looking for it, the act relating to East India shipping, by which ship-letters and other communications to members of parliament, of a weight not exceeding six ounces, pass free of postage.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that he held in his hand a petition from the inhabitants of Aid-gate, in the city of London. The petitioners set forth that the grievances of which they complain have sprung from the present administration of the country, and that the distresses now so generally afflicting every class of his majesty's subjects are to that source mainly attributable. They allege that these calamities could never have assumed so aggravated a character, but from the gross neglect of that House in checking the ruinous expense of the executive government. They pray that the system of exorbitant expenditure may be speedily diminished, and as a more permanent remedy, they call upon that House to correct its corruption. They state no specific plan of parliamentary reform, but require that the people should obtain their just rights, and fair weight in the constitution of parliament. There existed but one opinion throughout the country, in
360
attributing the great pressure of taxation to the long and ruinous war in which it had been engaged. At the proper time, when the subject of reform should be fully before the House, he would take the opportunity of giving his sentiments with that deliberation and coolness, which that most important question demanded. Many incidental conversations had already taken place in that House, arising out of the petitions for reform, but he might truly say, that there was but one opinion within those walls upon the absurd and impracticable doctrine of universal suffrage. What was felt here was equally expressed by all the enlightened, rational, and even moderately informed persons in the kingdom. Again and again he would ask, in what period of British history had this right been ever exercised? Where existed the authority either constitutional or legal, that has ever represented such a claim as a matter of right? How far the elective right might be extended; what the duration of parliament ought to be, would become more properly the subject of discussion, when the specific proposition should be submitted to the House. But he must repeat, that if there was one man in that House inclined to sanction by his support, the wild, delusive, and he must believe, not honest propositions, circulated with such perverse industry out of doors, it was his duty to come forward and avow himself. If there was any such opinion in the House, the member who held it, owed it to the cause of reform, and to the best interests of the people, to have the proposition canvassed; its absurdity exposed, and the delusion for ever dispelled from the public mind [Hear, hear!].
The petition was then brought up and read. On the motion for laying it on the table,
Mr. Lambdeclared, that although he differed entirely in opinion from the great mass of the petitioners who had lately approached that House—though he was persuaded that they attributed their grievances to a wrong cause—though he was convinced that they looked for benefit to that which would only aggravate the evils they endured,—yet, seeing that these sentiments were so generally entertained, and knowing that the petitioners were suffering the severest pressure, he would not take advantage of any inaccurracy or indiscretion in the language of the petitions, but understand them in the most fair and liberal construction; and dismissing from his

361
mind all prejudices on the subject, give to the whole of it as full, as anxious, and as dispassionate an attention as could be bestowed upon it by the most sincere friend of the objects which the petitioners had in view.
Lord Cochrane,in answer to those who maintained that universal suffrage was an impracticable proposition, observed, that in many of the petitions the means were pointed out, namely by taking the lists already prepared for the calling out of the militia whenever it might be required. Whenever the subject came to be discussed, he should take as his guide the wisdom of the people, who would not be influenced in their judgment as members of that House were. The people judged coolly [a laugh, and Hear, hear!]. He repeated it—the people judged coolly; and he sincerely believed that their opinions on every point were the best criterion of justice. He was very sorry that that House in its decisions too frequently differed from the opinions of the people. Whether it would be proper to confine the sufferage to householders, or to extend it to all males of twenty-one years of age, was a fair subject of discussion; but no member had a right to impute delusion to so large a body of the people, as that by which the latter proposition was maintained. He apprehended that the delusion proceeded from a different quarter, and was generated by different views. With respect to a change in the duration of parliaments, he was of opinion that the only effect of making parliaments triennial, would be to diminish the price at which seats were sold. In his opinion, parliaments ought to be annual, and all householders ought to have the elective franchise. Without these two things there would be no safety for the people. The members of that House would again be thrown into the hands of ministers, and be again made the objects of that shameful traffic, of the existence of which, but too full proof had been afforded. He would not delay the House any longer, but as an hon. and learned gentleman had cast imputations so serious on so large a mass of individuals, stating, that they were deluded and misled, he had felt it his duty to say thus much. He confessed, that he felt it difficult to conceive the frame of mind which could enable a member of that House to stand up, and, on his single opinion, or on that of a small circle of his friends, dare to throw out such imputations en so large a body of the people,
362
of whom he could not by possibility have any knowledge.
Mr. Warresaid, he could not refrain from observing that a pretty striking proof of the wisdom and coolness of the people was exhibited in the way in which the Hampshire petition had been got up, that was presented to the House by the noble lord on Tuesday. The noble lord was certainly an admirable channel for such petitioners. He appeared in that House every night like a busy trader, with his commodities under his arm. Not satisfied with that, he must hurry down into the country, watch petitions as they came into existence, and then return and serve them up hot and hot to parliament. The noble lord said that the Hampshire petition was signed by 20,000 persons. It had however been read, approved, and signed, all in an hour. So much for the coolness of the people! So much for the admirable example which they afforded to parliament! He was decidedly of opinion that the doors of that House ought to be widely thrown open to petitions, and that the language in which they were couched ought not to be hypercritically censured; but the dignity of the House required that they should at least be in a strain such as might be tolerated; for the House ought never to forget that the maintenance of proper respect for themselves was a duty which they owed to the people at large, whose constitutional representatives they were, until it was proved otherwise. In none of the petitions was to be found any clause of exemption in favour of any individual. The whole House was denounced as corrupt, and yet it was a curious fact, that the very members who had thought proper to avow their own corruption, were the persons chosen by the people as the channels through which to express their wish for reform! The noble lord had made a gratuitous avowal that to the bellman of Honiton that House was originally indebted for the accession of his talents. Another hon. member, who had been selected for the purpose of presenting a petition for reform, was a very innocent and unsuspicious individual, who had acknowledged his participation in the practices which that petition so strongly reprobated. That hon. member declared, that he was one of six persons who had the right of presentation to a borough; and though he drew in the same train, like one of six gray horses in the lord mayor's coach, he was a mere sleeping partner, and received none

363
of the money which was given for the borough, but was himself sold.
Sir. M. W. Ridley,as a professed friend to rational and deliberate reform, protested against the doctrine maintained that evening by the noble lord—doctrine calculated to plunge the people into the utmost ruin and distress. Nothing could be so contrary to the best interests and to the happiness of the people, as the notion of annual parliaments. Was it to be imagined that with annual parliaments the common affairs of the state could be duly canvassed, and the measures which it might be proper to adopt carried into effect? It was so absurd and visionary a project that he would not waste the time of the House by saying a single word further on the subject; but having heard the speech of the noble lord that night, he could not refrain from embracing the earliest opportunity of entering his determined protest against opinions so mischievous.
Mr. Wynnremarked, that the noble lord had asked how any hon. member could dare to set up his opinion against that of the great body of the people. When he saw what was alleged in the numerous petitions which had been presented to that House on the subject of reform— when he saw in them statements, of the falsehood of which he was persuaded that the persons by whom the petitions had been framed were perfectly aware—it was impossible not to feel and to declare that the people had been most grossly deluded. When it was stated that annual parliaments and universal suffrage were the birth-right of the people, who but must know that such a statement had originated in the most shameful delusion? The noble lord, as a kind of apology for this misrepresentation, had said, that before the elective franchise was limited to freeholders of forty shillings a year, there must have been some other description of suffrage, and that that suffrage might have been universal. To him (Mr. Wynn) it appeared more likely, that instead of a universal, it had been a very limited suffrage, confined to freeholders, who, it was well known before the subdivision of large districts, were comparatively few in number. Then there was the assertion in the petitions, that the abominable parliament (as it was termed) of 1694 had extended the duration of parliaments to three years. He did not believe there was a child in the country, capable of reading the history of England by way of question and answer, who
364
did not know, that before that period, the duration of parliaments was unlimited, and that the parliament of 1694, instead of extending the duration of parliaments to three years, actually limited it to three years ! But it was impossible to go through the various delusions, which, with unblushing front, were promulgated by these persons as incontrovertible truths. It was not surprising that such propositions going forth uncontradicted should have made a deep impression on the minds of the great body of the people; the more especially, as they issued from one manufactory in the metropolis; and were declared to involve in their consideration the only mode of redressing the grievances which the people endured. There was only one other point on which he would at present touch, to afford an additional proof of the character of the individuals by whom these petitions had been drawn up. It was asserted in them, that if the people had been fairly represented in parliament, the late war would not have taken place. He would not say any thing now on the policy or impolicy of the war itself; but this he would say, that if any great measure of state was ever demanded by the general voice of the people of this country, it was that war. The circumstance did not bear at all upon the argument that might be raised on the policy of that particular war; for it was a well-known fact, that at the commencement of any war the universal voice of the people was in its favour, however tired they might become of it in its progress. The assertion, therefore, that the late war would not have occurred had the people been properly represented in parliament, afforded an admirable specimen of the justice and fairness of these gentlemen.
Mr. Broughamspoke to the following effect:—Sir, after the very pointed manner in which my conduct has been alluded to by the noble lord, who has, in a very peculiar way, held up to public reprobation any hon. gentleman here who "dares" (for that was the word) put his opinion on any subject of great national interest in competition with the opinion of fifteen thousand, or of fifteen hundred thousand people out of doors, and who not only does that, but who slanders the people of England by intimating that they labour under a gross delusion, and by accusing their leaders of dishonest practices; I think the House will pardon me if I trouble it with a few words in my own

365
justification [Hear, hear!]. I will say nothing of the possible consequences to the person so pointed out by the noble lord. Nor will I impute any motives to the noble lord; for it would not be parliamentary so to do. Sir, I speak in the hearing of many gentlemen who have done me the honour to attend to my conduct in parliament, both recently, and when I had a seat in this House four or five years ago; and I think they will agree in allowing that there are few, if any individuals here, who have ever shown on all occasions a more determined resistance to any attempts, even of the faintest description, to oppress the people of this country [Hear, hear!]. I have in all cases gone as far as it was possible for me to go to assist in opening the door of this House to their complaints; and I have done all that I could—and not less than the noble lord— to discountenance, as far as my little influence would allow me, any proposition which appeared to me to be calculated to impede, cramp, and hamper the exercise of popular rights [Hear, hear!]. I therefore put myself on my country, in competition with the noble lord, as to which of us has shown himself to be the greater friend of the people of England. But, Sir, I will not show my friendship for the people, by telling them falsehoods. I will not be a party in practising delusion on the people [Hear, hear!]. I will not take advantage of the warmth of popular meetings, a great proportion of the individuals constituting which are necessarily ignorant of the nicer points of history, and antiquity, to induce the people to sign such petitions as those which have lately been presented to this House [Hear, hear!]. Sir, I do not blame the large body of the people who have appeared before us as petitioners, for the language in which they have expressed themselves; but I blame them, or rather I blame the fabricators of the petitions, by whom they have been palmed upon the people, for having the assurance to declare that universal suffrage was a right for which our ancestors shed their blood [Hear, hear!]. Sir, I would not be a party in telling the people (monstrous assertion!) that twelve hundred years ago this country enjoyed a free and perfect constitution. Gracious God! Twelve hundred years ago! Sir, we have heard of histories of England by various individuals and of various descriptions, but in what history of England is to be found, not only a trace of this country's having
†
366
enjoyed a free and perfect constitution 1,200 years ago, but a trace of its having enjoyed any constitution at all at that period? [Hear, hear!]. What do we know of the state of this country, in that respect, in the year 618! Why, Sir, we know little or nothing of the constitution of England half as many centuries back; and what can we possibly know of its constitution two hundred years before the different kingdoms of the Saxon Heptarchy were united under one monarch [Hear, hear!]? This, Sir, is a specimen of the historical knowledge, of the antiquarian research, of the acquaintance with constitutional law, of these wise-acres out of doors, who, after poring for days and nights, and brooding over their wild and mischievous schemes, rise up with their little nostrums and big blunders to amend the British constitution [laughter and loud cheers]! And then, Sir, we are pronounced ignorant and daring, who refuse to subscribe to the creed of these true reformers, who know accurately what happened in this country 500 years before authenticated history begins! [Hear!] and we are told that he who will not believe the self-evident propositions of these gentlemen, which it is said are so reasonable as not to admit of the least controversy, are dishonest as well as ignorant and daring. Sir, the noble lord says, I accused the people of England. I did not accuse the people of England. I accused those persons who deluded, or rather attempted to delude (for I am persuaded the experiment will fail in the main), the people of England, and in making that allusion, I referred to the monstrous absurdities contained in most of the petitions for reform, which have been recently presented to this House. I beg, however, to be distinctly understood. I do not think these delusions will spread far. The people of England have not, in my opinion, exhibited any symptom of participating in them. It is true, they have presented hundreds of petitions to this House. I believe above a million of people have declared to this House some opinion or other on the question of reform. These persons have been collected together at meetings, to which they flocked simply because they felt severe distress. The knew not from the false prophets and bad teachers who got among them, but from their own experience, and from the nature of their sufferings, that they in a great measure originated in the mal-administration of public affairs. So knowing,

367
and so feeling, they naturally vented their complaints in the petitions with which the table of this House groans, into which petitions many statements and propositions have evidently been thrust, to which the actual petitioners themselves were no parties whatever [Hear, hear, hear!]. There is one conclusion, Sir, which we ought to draw from all these considerations; namely, that severe distress is the real cause of this popular agitation; and that as far as the people call upon us for great retrenchments and some reform, the call is well-founded, and must be heard. I heartily hope that it may be heard before it is too late, and that the people may by that means be taken and kept out of the hands of those who would betray them into misery a hundred fold greater than that which they at present endure [[Hear, hear !].
Lord Cochraneadverting to the comments made by the hon. and learned gentleman on the petitions which had been sent down from the metropolis for the adoption of the people, said, that knowing, as he did, the honourable character of the individual in whom these petitions originated, he was sure that no attempt would ever be made, on that individual's part to deceive the people. There was not a worthier man existing than the gentleman to whom he alluded, major Cartwright, and he was perfectly certain that the sentiments which that gentleman expressed were sincere, and came from the bottom of his soul. With respect to himself, he should never resent personal allusions of any kind made to him in that House. They would fall as a blunt arrow, or as the stone which was thrown the other day, but never found. But this, in justice to himself, he would say, that he was not in habits of intimacy with any man base enough to entertain a desire to overthrow any part of our establishments. As to the petitions which he had presented, he felt it his dut3' to receive any person who might choose to call upon him on parliamentary business, and if a petition couched in proper terms, were put into his hands, he felt it his duty to present it to that House, without, however, considering that he was in any way responsible for the opinions which the petition might contain. The universal voice of the people cried for reform. He trusted that the House would not set up their opinion against that of the whole country besides. He should most sincerely deplore the day, should it ever arrive, on which by the vote of that
368
House, the reform which the people so loudly and unanimously required, should be refused to them.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.