Commons Sitting of 20 March 1817

TRINIDAD.
Mr. Goulburn, in presenting certain proclamations issued by the governor of Trinidad, said, he could have wished to vindicate that individual from the imputations cast upon him by an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), whom he did not then see in his place. As he was not present, however, he should merely make one observation upon the charge, that British hospitality was sold in that island for the emolument of the governor. It was the invariable rule of that colony, that no fees were paid for permission to reside there, and the hon. and learned member, therefore, who had made the accusation, was altogether misinformed.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he did not recollect that his hon. and learned friend had made any such charge; and he was the more certain that he had not (at least in his hearing), because, from the knowledge he had of the governor of that island, and the respect he felt for him, he should certainly have risen to state, that he believed him utterly incapable of the alleged conduct. The observation must have been directed, not against the governor, but against the assessor of the island, a Spaniard of the name of Gomez, and who, from all he had heard, was totally unfit to hold the situation.
Mr. Goulburnreplied, that having seen the charge so stated, in the usual channels by which the debates in that House were made public, and having made inquiries among the members, he was led to understand that what he had asserted was correct.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he found he had mistaken the hon. gentleman, in supposing he alluded to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham), instead of the hon. member for Sandwich (Mr. Marryat).
Mr. T. Courtenayobserved, that the hon. member for Sandwich certainly did say, that British hospitality was sold in the island of Trinidad, but he did not understand him to affirm, that it was sold for the profit of the governor.

EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Barnettwished to be informed, whether it was the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer, before he communicated to the House his view of the ways and means for the year, to add still farther to the unfunded debt of the country, amounting, as it did now, to fifty millions, what must be the effect of such a floating debt, in the event of a change in our relations? Unless the right hon. gentleman was assured, that the tenure of his office was in perpetuity, he surely ought to feel what would be the nature of his successor's difficulties, under any change of system, in consequence of the course he was pursuing. It might throw wealth into the coffers of the bank of England, but the country had something more to expect, under its difficulties, from a public minister, than this trifling game with any public body.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not think the House would object to the issue of exchequer bills, when they considered how much more advantageous such a mode of raising money was, than contracting a loan with the three per cents at 80. He admitted that it would be injurious to the country to continue such a system from year to year; but he approved of it as a temporary expedient, until an opportunity should arise of converting the unfunded into a funded debt, with more advantage than could be done at present.
Lord Cochraneobserved, that the exchequer bills were usually deposited in the bank of England, and bank notes, bearing no interest, issued on them; and that this was the cause of the present rise in the funds.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the noble lord had inquired in the city, he would have found that exchequer bills were disposed of in a very different manner, and that they bore a high premium in the market.
Mr. Broughamcensured the plan of finance, from hand to mouth, which the chancellor of the exchequer was pursuing, as one which had no solid foundation. Some other expedients, to which the right hon. gentleman would have recourse, were rumoured abroad, but they were of a nature that he could not credit, and he mentioned them solely to give him an opportunity of contradicting them. The House must be aware, that the West-India dock company were bound by an act of the 39th of the king, after their dividends had reached 10 per cent, to divide no more, but to reduce the rates of admission to the docks, in favour of the trade of the country. One would think that while the trade of the country laboured so excessively as it did at present, government would gladly resort to every means of affording it some relief; but the report stated, that instead of so doing, government, like spendthrifts, without even waiting for the expiration of the 21 years of the company's charter, were resolved to renew their lease, and receive from them a fine of about 5 or 600,000 l. This, it was said, would form one of the miserable expedients of raising money. But from what funds would it come? Not from the funds of the company, but from the commerce of the country, in favour of which the act had originally stipulated for the reduction of the rates. Similar rumours were in circulation with respect to other companies, to all of which lie anticipated a direct contradiction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it strange that the hon. member should censure ministers for a reputed act, which he acknowledged was without foundation. The hon. member was correct in saying that such rumours were wholly without foundation; no negociations had been entered into with the dock company concerning it. But he at the same time reserved on the part of the government and the country, a right of participating in their profits if they should find it necessary.
Alderman Atkinssaid, that there was a redundancy of floating cash in the market, of which the chancellor of the exchequer was perfectly right to take advantage. He hoped, however, that his right hon. friend would not think of inducing the House to continue the monopoly to the dock company against the best interests of the commerce of the country.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.

PETITIONS RELATING TO REFORM, &c
Mr. Broughampresented a petition from the inhabitants of the ward of Bishopsgate, praying for Parliamentary Reform. The subject had been so frequently before the House that it remained only for him to protest against the delusion, so much depended upon, by the opponents of the measure, that no weight ought to be given to the numerous petitioners in favour of reform, because the petitions had been set on foot by persons who were actively engaged in recommending that measure. Let those who advanced that doctrine accept the challenge he had before thrown out, let them in their turn set on foot petitions against reform, and see what number of signatures they could obtain. The result, he had no doubt, would establish the fact, that a very great majority of the people were solicitous for a constitutional reform in the representation. With respect to the manufacturing of petitions as it was called, it was to be recollected that Mr. Pitt and the duke of Richmond, both concurred (though it was due to the former to say that he never did proceed to the length of universal suffrage) in the propriety of circulating petitions in furtherance of their object, for the signatures of those who were friendly to reform.
Mr. Bankesdenied that Mr. Pitt had ever given his countenance to the doctrine of universal suffrage, and from the habits of intimacy in which he was with him, he could take upon himself to say, that he believed he never was a party to the manufacturing of petitions.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that either the hon. gentleman must have greatly misconceived what he stated, or he was not in the House at the time. He had particularly mentioned that Mr. Pitt did not go all the lengths of the duke of Richmond, as to universal suffrage; but it was curious, when the reformers were twitted and taunted with being enemies to their country, or jacobins, it was studiously kept out of sight, that Mr. Pitt was once a most strenuous and active reformer. He had only to refer them to the correspondence of the Rev. Mr. Wyvill, to see the notes that had passed between Mr. Pitt and the active reformers of that day. In the case of the king v. Frost, who was a respectable attorney, but certainly not of equal consequence with Mr. Pitt, it was proved, that Mr. Pitt had addressed him as a "zealous friend" to the public, on no other account
1210
than that of his active co-operation on the subject of reform.*
The Hon. J. W. Wardobserved, that the friends of reform appealed to the authority of Mr Pitt in his early life, while the opponents of that measure referred to his conduct in matured life, and particularly after the experience of the French revolution. Whatever had been the practice alluded to, he certainly would never admit that petitions manufactured in London, and sent down ready made to the country, perhaps imperfectly representing, if not contradicting, the sentiments of the subscribers, could be entitled to the same consideration as those which proceeded generally from the dictation of petitioners themselves; nor would it be just that they should, though such, it would appear, had been the sentiments of his hon. and learned friend.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that after his hon. friend had voted two or three times in favour of parliamentary reform, it peculiarly became him to be the apologist for Mr. Pitt's change of opinions. While he was on his legs, he begged to say, that as to the statement made the other evening of a petition from Dumfriesshire having been signed by children, he had that day received a letter from a very respectable gentleman on the spot, who directly contradicted that statement.
Mr. Sharpsaid, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ward) had, in his mind, misrepresented the nature of Mr. Pitt's support to the cause of parliamentary reform. He could assure that hon. gentleman, that so late as the Irish union, Mr. Pitt in the arrangement of the representation of that part of the united kingdom, had taken the utmost pains to secure to the people the power of returning sixty out of the hundred members who were to be returned to parliament.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.