ADDRESS ON THE PRINCE REGENT'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION. (Hansard, 31 January 1817)

§ Sir Robert Heron

said, that the arguments which had been advanced in support of the amendment, remained yet wholly unanswered. A right hon. gentleman opposite had, indeed, made a great flourish on the last night of this debate. At one moment he appeared so taken with the amendment, that every body thought it would have had the benefit of his support. He hinted at the resignation of his office, probably making a merit of necessity, and wishing to do, with some degree of éclat, that which he foresaw must have been the natural consequence of that amendment being carried. At length it appeared that the right hon. gentleman's arguments, if such they could be called, were as foreign 165 to the subject matter of the address, as they were to the amendment. In the course of the right hon. gentleman's speech, he seemed for a time at a loss where to fix his points, until at last he struck upon the question of parliamentary reform. Then he was in his element—then he mounted upon his tripod, and agitated and filled by the inspiration of his muse, he launched into the ocean of his poetical fancy—he poured forth ensanguined clouds—orbs of day floated before his entranced vision until twilight momentarily obscured them—crowds of robbers and assassins peopled his fertile conception, and were associated with, and relieved by, reformers and hobgoblins. Of such materials was the right hon. gentleman's speech formed. In plain truth, it was evident that nothing could be urged against the strong grounds of the amendment. Its statement of grievances was not exaggerated, nor were its strong arguments refuted. Sir Robert said, he was not a man who wished to press despondency upon the people; but he could not refrain from expressing his belief, that if the government of the country persevered in the course they had of late years pursued, no man could be found so sanguine as to believe that the interest of the national debt could any longer be paid. The consequence, then, of a perseverance in this squandering system must be nothing less than a national bankruptcy. In such a state of things, what a just charge would not the people have against the House of Commons, if that House did not exercise and exhaust every possible resource that could be drawn from an extended system of economy, to avert such an evil as that to which he had alluded. An hon member (Mr. Bankes) on the former evening, had said, that neither the debt, nor the taxes which it occasioned, were the causes of the prevailing distress, and his argument for holding this opinion was in itself most extraordinary; it was this—that during the last year seventeen millions of taxes had been taken from the backs of the people. Now the hon. member happened to be wrong in his fact as well as his deduction. The House well knew, that ministers, finding it totally impossible to collect the amount of the property tax in the current account of last year's returns, allowed the half year's arrear to stand over until the present year. This was a sort of temporary accommodation to the people, and a necessary one; but it was any thing but an extinction of 166 the claim. If, however, instead of being a postponement of collection, it had been, as was insinuated, an abolition of the arrear, and that this abolition produced no relief, what would it prove but that the deterioration of the country had become, from the pressure of the times, more rapid in its effect than the operation of the relief which had been extended to counteract it?—His hon. friend (Mr. Curwen) had on the last night said one thing which reduced the effect of his otherwise excellent speech—he had said that which ought not to go abroad uncontradicted, namely, that the pecuniary benevolence of all ranks out of doors, in behalf of their fellow countrymen, did not amount to more than 200,000l. Now he knew it to be infinitely greater, for people of every sentiment, and of all situations and descriptions had come forward, and exerted their best energies for the sufferers, indeed their philanthropic feeling was only bounded by their means. Besides the large sums publicly known, there were several private and local subscriptions, exclusive of those which consisted of distributing food, raiment, and the articles of life, to the poor, at reduced prices—together with the numerous employments afforded to the labouring classes in different parts of the country, more out of commiseration for their situation than of necessity for their work; all these most laudable efforts must have amounted to large and very extensive relief. Though this was not the time, in strict order of debate, to talk much on the subject of economy, yet he could not avoid saying a little on that point. He would first allude to the army. Now, though a reduction in this branch of the public service would throw out of employment a number of men who deserved well of their country, yet no reduction could take place without its partial accompaniment of hardship; but the fact was, that a reduction in the army could not be effected without giving up that system of foreign policy to which our ministers clung with fond affection. It could be only effected with an admission on the part of ministers, that the army was maintained for one of two purposes; either to contradict our solemn declaration, that we would not interfere in the internal policy of the nations of the continent, that we would not apply our military strength to maintain the new doctrine of legitimacy, or rather of despotism; that we would not make war against the people to keep down a spirit of freedom, and by our own acts 167 belie and subvert the stedfast principles of our own glorious revolution. Or, if it did not mean this, it must have been reinforced and upheld to keep down the rising indignation of the British nation, which was aroused by the enormous expenditure of that army, whose fine energies were so grossly misapplied. If the House meant to redress the bitter grievances of the people, the smallest military peace establishment that was ever maintained, would be amply sufficient for all domestic purposes; but if they did not mean to afford this redress, the largest war establishment that their hearts could wish, would in the end be found wholly and entirely insufficient to silence the voice of the country.—The next general head of retrenchment to which he would advert, was the abolition of sinecures, useless places, and pensions. Here again all the argument was on one side; for when you hinted the necessity of touching those delightful annuities, you were at once met by the bugbear of revolution. Did gentlemen, for a moment suppose, that those offices were conferred for real merit, or that they were any thing else than payments for past devotion, and retainers for future? The civil list was another branch of economy, to which he would direct the attention of the House. It had been well said, in the opening speech for the address, that the eyes of the people were now fixed on the proceedings of that House, and towards no proceeding were they more strongly directed than to those which animadverted upon the civil list, particularly to that part of it which related to the royal expenditure, than which there could be nothing more objectionable. The speech from the throne last session, pointedly pledged the government to a rigid adherence to economy and yet immediately after this pledge, to the disappointment and astonishment of the country, the civil list was found with an addition of 260,000l. to its already enormous charges, and this accumulated expenditure was incurred for the support of an extended household, with duplicate offices attached to it, to an extent that never before existed. There was nothing which produced so much pain and indignation, as the fact, that at a period when every sovereign in Europe was advised to diminish his expenditure, the Prince Regent of England, who, least of all, required that extension of pageantry should have been advised to adopt it. Another point to which be would glance, was that unfortunate, 168 narrow, and selfish policy, of endeavouring to obtain a monopoly for our commerce. He was always of opinion that trade should be free and unshackled: if it had been so, the mercantile world would not have now to complain of the paralyzing effects of continental system of exclusion, which was, in fact, but the counterpart of the absurd policy that this country had been the first to act upon.—These were his opinions, and as an independent member of parliament he felt it to be his duty to express them, and to confess his melancholy impression as to the approaching condition of the country, if some immediate and radical alteration in the conduct of ministers, did not take place. It was in vain for them to say that the evil was transitory; there was nothing in the complexion of the times to show that it was of this temporary character, or, what was still more foreboding, that they had any serious intention of departing from their fatal rule of action. "When we," (continued sir Robert), "impress upon them the necessity of economy and retrenchment, the ministers answer, 'Oh! certainly, but leave it to us'." Well, it was left with them, and what was the result? Why, that they did any thing but fulfil the promise they had made. What confidence, then, could be placed in a set of men, who, with retrenchment in their mouths, commenced, as the very first thing, to make an increase of offices, and never departed from their course until compelled to turn round by a vote of that House? What further assurance was there now that they would keep their promises better than they had last year observed them? The only change that they had adopted was the accession to administration of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning), who was in his own person one of the most flagrant and shameful instances of the profligate and wasteful profusion of his majesty's ministers—he who accepted an enormous sinecure situation as ambassador to the kingdom of Portugal, to represent his sovereign in a court where there was no resident king—to figure away at Lisbon, although the king of Portugal was then, as he has been ever since, a resident in his Brazilian territory. Was such a place-making system in conformity with the pledge of retrenchment? was it not rather in open violation of any such intention.