Commons Sitting of 9 February 1821

TIMBER DUTIES—PETITION FROM NEW BRUNSWICK IN FAVOUR OF.
Mr. Marryatrose and said;—Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a petition from the merchants, ship-owners, and magistrates of Miramichi, in the province of New Brunswick, setting forth the vital importance of the timber trade to the inhabitants of the British provinces in North America, and praying that this House will not suffer it to be placed on a footing less favourable to them than it is at present. It may be proper to premise, that such is the importance of Miramichi, that of 1,520 British vessels employed in the timber trade with our North American colonies, in the year 1819, no less than 297 loaded in that port alone—Statements from the inhabitants of the colonies themselves, how far their prosperity is likely to be affected by any legislative measures of the mother country, bearing upon their productions and commerce, are highly important, as they serve to correct misapprehensions and errors, into which, at this distance, we are apt to fall, for want of authentic information respecting interests so remote. The truth of this remark was never more strongly exemplified than in the present instance; for never was there a greater discordance than between the facts stated in this petition, and the report of a committee of the House of Lords, made in the last session of parliament. The variance between them is so great, that justice to these petitioners, and to the other inha-

543
bitants of the British provinces in North America, calls upon me to point out, as I go along, the mis-statements with which that report abounds; and this I am at full liberty to do, it having been communicated to us by message from the Lords, and reprinted by order of this House.
The petitioners state, that the timber trade gives the greatest possible encouragement to the agriculture of the British colonies in North America. The report, on the contrary, states that, "it cannot be considered as directly affecting the interests of the Canadian landholder, as the value of the timber sold at Quebec does not exceed, by much, the expense and labour of procuring it for shipment, and the landholder himself gets little or nothing for the timber." This passage is not consistent with the evidence given before the committee, by Mr. Henry Us-borne Mr. John Hamilton, or Mr. John Bainbridge, all of whom state, that though the timber is of little value as it stands in the forest, it becomes valuable from the labour bestowed on it; and both the latter add, that persons connected with agriculture, employ themselves in cutting timber, and getting it down to the shipping-places, during the winter, when all operations in agriculture, from the nature of the climate, are suspended. The evidence of Mr. H. Usborne, and Mr. J. Hamilton applies particularly to Canada, that of Mr. J. Bainbridge to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The petitioners not only confirm their testimony, from which it results that the farmer has the benefit of preparing the timber, and removing it to the shipping place, as well as its value while standing, which is altogether kept out of sight in the report, but assert, in facther proof of the encouragement given to agriculture by the timber trade, "That farmers, who a few years ago, raised only enough from their lands for the support of themselves and their families, and had no incitement to raise more, (because there were then no purchasers for what they could spare), have, since the commencement of the timber trade, increased their exertions in clearing and improving their lands, entirely on account of the brisk demand for all sorts of farming produce required for the use of the timber-cutters, and others connected with the trade, and many industrious and deserving emigrants" have been enabled to settle in the wilderness lands of this country, solely by means of
544
the merchants advancing to them the supplies necessary for their support, until their lands were brought to a state of cultivation to yield them a subsistence. The supplies so advanced were payable in timber, which is generally prepared for market during our long winters, when neither farming nor fishing can be carried on."—All these statements are in direct contradiction to the assertion in the report of the Lords committee, "That the timber trade cannot be considered as directly affecting the interest of the Canadian landholder." The truth is, that all the landholders in the British provinces in North America, with very few exceptions, instead of living on their rents, as in this country, live by their personal labour employed on their own lands, and exchange that part of the produce of their lands which they do not require for then-own consumption, for articles of British growth or manufacture; and he extent of this exchange is fixed by the amount of their exportations. The landholder in these provinces has a direct interest in every stick of timber, barrel of ashes, bushel of grain, or piece of peltry shipped to Great Britain, or her dependencies. Either the article is his own, on its way to a market, or he has raised the food, or furnished some portion of his labour, for the woodcutter, the hunter, the raftsman, the merchant, and the whole class of persons who are employed in conveying the produce of the colony to the shipping-place, and bringing back or distributing the returns. All these persons are the home consumers of the colonial landholder; and the value of his land, the value of the labour of his forefathers, and of his own labour, depends upon the number of these consumers, without whom all the produce of his land which he could not himself consume, would be of no value.
The petitioners further state, that large sums have been expended in forming establishments for carrying on the timber trade, though the report of the Lords committee is silent as to any such establishments having been formed in any of the British provinces, excepting Canada. They observe, that individuals have so invested their capital, "naturally conceiving that the interests of the British colonies would never be sacrificed to advance those of foreign nations: that the event of such a stop to the trade as the imposition of the proposed duty would occasion, those costly establish-

545
ments must go to decay, and all importation of British goods must cease, for the merchant here depends exclusively upon the exportation of timber to Great Britain to make his remittances."—They add, "that white or yellow pine (of which description the great bulk of the wood of this country consists), was shipped, and is now shipping at 14 s. to 18 shillings per ton; which latter is the very lowest rate at which it can be prepared for market. Even at these low rates, the importation into the mother country this season yielded perhaps in no instance any profit beyond the employment of shipping and in several cases within the knowledge of your petitioners, was attended with loss to the importer. It is therefore obvious, that no duty, however small, can be borne, and that the high duty proposed would amount to a complete prohibition of colonial timber."—In the latter part of this statement, the petitioners are borne out by the Lords committee, who have printed in their appendix an account which, they say they are assured may be relied upon, of the prices of timber from each port, distinguishing the duty, freight, charges, nett proceeds, and cost; according to which, the nett proceeds of a load of Canada yellow pine, without any duty, are only 5s. 4d., so that it is obvious that the smallest duty must absorb this miserable pittance and consequently operate as a total abolition of the trade.
The petitioners assert, that the costly establishments for carrying on the timber trade were made, in the persuasion that "the interests of the British colonies would never be sacrificed to advance those of foreign nations." The Report of the Lords committee states, "that encouragement to the importation of wood from the British colonies by the imposition of heavy duties on timber from foreign states, is comparatively of recent date, and does not appear to have form ed part of the commercial or colonial policy of the country previous to the late war." It is the business of a legislative committee to inquire after truth, and this committee, had they made diligent inquiry, would have discovered, in various British statutes, that the uniform policy of Great Britain, in regard to the trade of her colonies has been, to make restriction and protection go hand in hand; and that encouragement to this very trade was given by bounties, more than a cen-
546
tury ago. In proof of these assertions, I have only to refer to the acts of the 3rd and 4th of Anne, chap. 10, and the 8th of Geo. 1. chap. 12. The principle laid down in the preambles of these acts is the same as is now acted upon. The only change is in the mode of carrying it into effect; and the professed objects of the legislature is declared in these preambles to be, the making Great Britain independent of foreign nations for her supply of timber, and enabling her colonies to extend their importation of British manufactures, which could only be accomplished by a system of permanent, not temporary encouragement—The same want of due investigation appears in the following passage of the report: "The demand for wood from the countries in the North of Europe has been progressively diminishing, so as to occasion great interruption to the trade of these countries, particularly with Norway, whose inhabitants, notwithstanding the predilection they have uniformly shewn for British manufactures, are not only left without the means of consuming them, but of paying for those which they have received, and for which nearly half a million is stated to be owing, so that the export of manufactures has been reduced to an extent which cannot be estimated merely by a reference to the direct exports to those countries, as it appears that a considerable portion of the manufactures consumed in them are introduced through the channel of the German fairs." The Appendix to this Report contains an account of the value of goods exported from Great Britain to all the northern powers of Europe for the last 20 years. A comparison of the trade with them for the three first of these years before the present timber trade to the British colonies had commenced, and the three last years, when it was in the greatest activity, gives the following results. In the official returns the exports of Norway are blended with those of Denmark, while it was united to that power, so that I have no means of showing them separately:—

1799, 1800,

1801.

1817, 1818,

1819.

£

s.

d.

£.

s.

d.

525,734

0

8

Denmark & Norway

816,791

4

0

132,146

16

6

Sweden

330,498

7

10

1,580,702

4

4

Russia

6,198,729

10

1

854,413

1

3

Prussia

1,512,475

6

10

£3,092,996

2

9

£8,858,494

8

9

547
So that instead of the great interruption to the trade of these countries, and the reduced export of our manufactures to them," as alleged in the Lords Report, the export of our manufactures has been nearly trebled. Such is the difference between the Report and the Appendix; between the statements of the committee and their official documents:—
With respect to British goods finding their way from Great Britain to Norway, the country more particularly mentioned in the Report, by way of the German fairs, no such fact is stated in the evidence given to the committee. That a few articles of great value and little bulk may occasionally be smuggled, in the manner described by Mr. Solly, is very probable. He says, that "goods are carried by way of Hamburgh to Leipsic fair, where they are purchased by Russian and Polish merchants, taken to the confines of Hungary, and even to the Southern provinces of Russia," but not a word about Norway. Mr. Tooke says, "that he should consider a great number of British manufactures must have been introduced into Russia indirectly through Germany; at the same time it is possible the Germans may transport articles of their own manufacture to Russia, substituting ours for their own purposes." He produces bills drawn upon his house, which have been negociated through Koningsberg, Berlin, and Leipsic, and were ultimately remitted to British manufacturers; but this only proves that the inhabitants of these places have commercial transactions with each other, leaving the particular nature of them open to conjecture. The idea that any considerable portion of the British manufactures consumed in the northern countries of Europe, is introduced through the channel of the German fairs, is extravagant in the highest degree. It might as reasonably be imagined, that a considerable part of the productions of those countries find their way here in the same circuitous mode. A merchant who should set out from London to purchase Russian sheeting or linen at Leipsic or Frankfort fair, might expect to have a statute of lunacy taken out against him, as being incapable of managing his own affairs; and this part of the Report betrays so much want of commercial knowledge, that it reminds me of an observation made upon another set of lords (the lords of trade), in a former reign, "that
548
they were Lords among merchants, and merchants among lords." The increase of the exports to our own provinces in North America is not less gratifying than the proof that our exports to the northern powers of Europe have been augmented instead of diminishing. In the years 1790, 1800, and 1801, the export of British manufactures to these colonies was 3,017,572 l. 6s. 2d. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, it was 5,107,900 l. 8s. 10 d. If we extend the view farther, and include our export of foreign and colonial merchandise, the amount in the three former years was 3,614,441 l. 2s. 10 d. in the three latter years 3,391,695 l. 5s. 8d. making an increase in our annual exports to the British colonies in north America of more than 900,000 l.
Another very important fact stated in this petition is, "that the ruin of those immediately connected with the timber trade would not be the only evil effect of the proposed alteration in the timber duties; but that the fisheries of the British provinces would be materially injured; for the salt used in these fisheries is, almost without a single exception, brought out in vessels chartered to carry timber home; and this return freight enables them to bring the salt out at a rate which your petitioners think would be trebled, at least, in the event of the cessation of this trade." This is a most serious consideration. The British fisheries already find it difficult to maintain a competition with those of the United States, and every encouragement is due to that useful and valuable class of men, whose interests, it appears, are materially involved in the maintenance of the colonial timber trade; and who, if that trade be injudiciously sacrificed, may, together with other classes of the population of the British provinces, as the petitioners state, "be obliged to" emigrate to that country, whose ambitious designs all the energies of those "provinces may one day again be required "to counteract."
Let us now consider how our manufacturing interests would be affected by the transfer of the timber trade from the British provinces to the Northern powers of Europe. The petitioners state, "that all importations of British goods must cease; for the merchant here depends exclusively upon the exportation of timber to Great Britain to make his remittances."—This is the case in New Brunswick, and

549
in Canada the timber is estimated at half the exports of the province. Foreign countries have resources which our colonies have not. They can trade with all the world; but our colonies can trade with the mother country alone. If, therefore, we discourage any branch of trade with foreign countries, they can direct it into other channels; but if we put an end to a trade with our colonies, it is lost to them altogether, and this accounts for our diminished import of timber from the northern powers not having occasioned any diminution in their imports of British manufactures, while such diminution must be the inevitable effect of our discontinuing to import timber from our colonies. The Report of the Lords committee states, "That any material diminution of the duty on foreign timber, would almost immediately lead to an increased demand of that article for most purposes of building, and enable the countries which produced it, but more especially Sweden and Norway, very greatly to increase their consumption of British produce." But would the will follow the ability; or would not the bills drawn for these additional cargoes, be negociated, as usual, at Koningsberg, Berlin, Leipsic, and other places, to pay for foreign manufactures? At least, the disposal of them would be optional; but the British colonist has no alternative; he must draw all his supplies from Great Britain only. Every thing about him and belonging to him, is British; he is clad in British woollens, linens, and leather; the axe with which he fells his timber is British. He roasts his meat at a British grate, on a British spit, or boils it in a British pot, eats it off British plates and dishes, with British knives and forks; drinks out of British mugs or glasses, and spreads his meal upon a British table-cloth. All his surplus means are spent in British manufactures and produce; and this expenditure gives life and animation to British industry. The British manufacturers employed to supply his wants, are consumers to the British landholder, and give him the same encouragement as the consumers employed in the timber trade give the colonial landholder. Thus the mother country and the colonies reciprocally benefit each other; and the question is, whether we shall give up our colonists, who must deal with us, for foreigners who may; in short, whether
550
we shall sacrifice a certainty for an uncertainty.
The petitioners enumerate the shipowners among the parties benefitted by the timber trade with the colonies. The Report of the Lords committee very coolly states, that by the proposed alteration of the duties, which would transfer it to the northern powers of Europe, "some portion of the shipping now employed in transporting the Canadian timber to this country, might probably be compelled to seek for other employment; and although there is every reason to expect that the increased supply from the north of Europe would be chiefly imported in British vessels, the average difference in the length of the voyage might render a smaller amount of shipping necessary to carry on this particular trade." The extension of the timber trade with the northern powers, contemplated by the Lords committee, is principally with Norway and Sweden; and the assumption that this would he chiefly carried on in British ships, is contrary both to the evidence and to the official documents printed in their Report. Mr. Cowie being asked, "has the timber, since you have been conversant with the trade, been principally imported in vessels of British or Swedish built?" answers, "Principally in vessels of Swedish built." Mr. Pelly, in answer to the same question as to Norway, answers, "Generally speaking, in Norwegian ships." And, by the official documents, printed in their Appendix, it appears, that in the year 1819, the Norwegian tonnage in this trade that cleared from Great Britain was 65,054 tons, and the British tonnage only 11,760 tons. If, then, the true rule of judging of the future is by the past, about 5–6ths of the tonnage employed in the additional trade with Norway would be foreign, and only 1–6th British, instead of "the increased supply being chiefly imported in British vessels," as stated in the Report of the Lords committee. The next assertion in that Report, "that the rate of freight and other circumstances attendant on British shipping, enabled it to enter into successful competition with that of every other country on the globe, is, unfortunately, refuted by the undeniable fact, that the value of British shipping is depreciated in a greater degree than that of any other description of property that can be named. The Lords committee however, "indulge a confident hope, that

551
the state of some other branches of trade, in which they are about to engage, will suggest the means of giving additional encouragement to the shipping of this country."—The Italian proverb says, "that they who live upon hope, may die of hunger;" and if the Lords committee continue their labours in the same spirit as they have begun them, the British shipowners have infinitely more to fear than to hope from their exertions.
I shall now show the importance of this question to the British landholder. Let it be recollected that the committee on whose report I have animadverted, was appointed in consequence of a petition from certain merchants of the city of London, against every restrictive regulation of trade, not essential to the revenue: against all duties merely protective from foreign competition; and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue, and partly for that of protection. The petitioners urge the adoption of this new system, on the ground of buying every thing where it can be bought cheapest; and tell us that on every occasion of such concession or relaxation, as they recommend, a great incidental object would be gained by the recognition of a sound principle, or standard, to which all subsequent arrangements might be referred; and by the salutary influence which a promulgation of such just views by the legislature, and by the nation at large could not fail to have on the policy of other states—The first recognition of this sound principle which we are called upon to make, is in taking off the present restrictive duties on timber, and transferring that trade from our own colonies to foreign powers. But can we stop here? Principles are immutable in their nature, and cannot be taken up and laid down at pleasure; adopted in one instance, and abandoned in another. If we abolish all restrictions on the importation of foreign timber, how can we refuse to abolish those on the importation of foreign corn? The gentlemen who have supported this petition, declare that they have no intention of interfering with the corn laws at present; but have not foreigners this intention? Was not a threat held out at the late Polish diet, to prohibit the importation of all British manufactures till we admitted the importation of Polish corn; and if we admit the principle of abolishing all restrictions
552
upon foreign competition, as a standard to which all subsequent arrangements are to be referred, we must act upon it in all cases, and without any exception, or we shall subject ourselves to the charge of duplicity and injustice, and excite the animosity, and perhaps the hostility, of of foreign powers.—In this contest the British landholder would also have to contend against a great proportion of his fellow-subjects. The consumers of the produce of the land would save between twenty and thirty millions per annum, by importing it from foreign growers. Prices of all commodities, which depend upon the price of food, would be reduced in proportion; the labourer would be better fed and better clothed for less money; the manufacturer would be enabled to undersell the foreign manufacturer; the ship owner would have as good a chance of bringing home foreign corn as foreign timber; and in the language of the Report of the Lords committee, there can be little doubt but "that such a measure would enable other countries greatly to increase their consumption of British produce. "But what would be the situation of the landholder? Wheat could not be worth more than 40 s. per quarter; his land would not pay the expense of cultivation, and therefore would become of as little value as land in the wilds of North America. Instead of living upon his rent in ease and comfort, he would be reduced to the state of the Canadian landholder, and must work as a labourer upon his own estate for the means of subsistence. Such is the condition to which these new political economists would reduce the British landholder. Let him, then, adhere to that system to which he owes his present opulence, and under which he enjoys protection from foreign competition; a protection as necessary to him, as to his fellow-subjects in North America, and let him I beware of encouraging those plausible but delusive theories, which would involve him, as well as the other classes of the I community, in one common ruin, only I leaving him the consolation of being the last devoured. I shall now move that this petition be brought up,
The petition was then brought up, and ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.
Sir Isaac Coffinmade a few observations on the assertion of the petitioners, that all the timber brought to this country in British ships, from America, was

553
brought from the British colonies. He would pledge himself to show, that not a stick of this timber was cut in the colonies, but that all was brought from the United States.
Mr. J. P. Grantvindicated the Report of the Lords' committee. It was one of the most useful reports that had ever been made.
Mr. T. Wilsonpresented a similar petition from Montreal.
Mr. Ricardohad heard with much surprise the principles on the subject of the timber trade advocated by the hon. members who had presented the petitions. They certainly were directly the reverse of the principles laid down in the Report of the Lords' committee, which was acknowledged to be a most comprehensive and correct view of the matter.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he had only contended that the petitioners ought to be allowed to remain in the same state that they were in at present. If the rates were at all lowered, the petitioners must inevitably be ruined.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS IN INDIA.
Mr. Lambton, seeing the president of the Board of Control in his place, begged to ask him a question relative to a report which was prevalent in India, namely, that it was the intention of his majesty's government to put in full force the censorship of the press, which had been removed by the marquis of Hastings. He wished to know whether such was the intention of his majesty's government?
Mr. Bathurstsaid, he could assure the hon. member that there existed no such intention on the part of government [Hear!]. The regulations made by the marquis of Hastings were in full force, and it was the intention of government that they should remain so.
Mr. Lambtonexpressed himself perfectly satisfied with the answer of the right hon. gentleman.

PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.
Sir R. Wilsonpresented a petition from the operative braziers of the metropolis, praying for the restoration of the Queen's name to the Liturgy. In presenting the petition, he took the opportunity to contradict the reports which had been spread to the prejudice of the Queen, and these petitioners, relative to the sums of money
554
that had been paid by her majesty towards defraying the expenses of the processions that carried addresses to her. He was authorized to state, that the brass armour and different devices, wrought for the purpose of the procession of the braziers to her majesty's residence, cost 7,000 l. and 150 l. more was expended in support of the procession; but that not one shilling of these sums was paid by the Queen. The master-manufacturers furnished the materials for the men to work, and each journeyman paid two shillings for the procession. The petition had 1184 signatures, and concluded with a prayer, that the Queen's prosecutors might be made to pay out of their pockets or pensions, the whole of the expense which had been incurred by the prosecution of her majesty, and that the House would not assent to any proposition for a grant of the public money for such purposes. He should certainly support the prayer of the petition. There was a mysterious connexion betwixt the Hanoverian minister and the Milan commission to be explained, before he could vote for a shilling of the money expended by that commission. It was yet to be explained how it happened that a certain Hanoverian minister, after having been detected in picking locks in the Queen's house, was appointed minister to the Hanoverian court, at Rome, where he was found offering 1,000 l. to a member of the pontificate to gain over the members of her majesty's household.
Ordered to lie on the table;

CHESTER PETITION, COMPLAINING OF THE CONDUCT OF THE SHERIFF.
Lord Belgravesaid, he rose to present a petition, complaining of the conduct of the high-sheriff of the county of Chester, at a late public meeting, which had been signed by 300 freeholders in the course of two days. As it would not be in his power to be present at the discussion of the motion relative to the conduct of sheriffs, which the hon. member for Northumberland meant to introduce on Wednesday next, he would take that opportunity of stating his opinion on the subject. Notwithstanding it was a question intimately connected with the rights of the subject, which appeared to him on some late occasions to have been materially invaded, he would not have troubled the House with his sentiments on it, if he had not deemed it to be his imperative duty, fearlessly,

555
however feebly, to declare openly what his opinions were. The facts of the case were these—In consequence of a requisition, most respectably signed, the high-sheriff of Cheshire called a meeting at Northwich, on the 11th of Jan. last, of the nobility, gentry, clergy, and freeholders of the county, for the purpose of addressing his majesty. He would here observe, that the requisition desired that a meeting of the "inhabitants" of the county might be called, which term the high sheriff took upon himself to convert into the "freeholders." Now, although the high sheriff held the roll of the freeholders names, it was monstrous that the loyalty of any county should be supposed to be confined to the freeholders. The population of Cheshire was computed at 200,000, of which only about 2,000 were freeholders: so that a meeting of the freeholders alone was certainly an unjustifiably exclusive meeting. At the meeting an address, simply expressive of loyalty and attachment to the king and to the constitution, was moved and seconded. During the speeches of the mover and seconder, the utmost silence prevailed, except a trifling interruption at something having been said which was considered inimical to the liberty of the press. A noble relation of his (earl Grosvenor) then thought it his duty to come forward and propose an amendment. His noble relation was averse to any meeting at that time, but as one had been convened, he thought himself bound to attend. The moment of his noble relation's rising seemed to be the signal for general confusion. He was glad to see an hon. member for Cheshire present, as he would answer for the facts which he was now stating. That hon. member knew that he spoke only the truth when he said, that at the moment to which he alluded a scene of confusion instantly took place, such as no eye had seen, no ear heard, and no tongue could adequately tell. He spoke advisedly when he declared, that that confusion commenced by persons whose talents, property, rank, and consideration in the country, might have warranted the expectation of better things from them. He would not pursue that part of the subject further than by expressing his regret, that gentlemen of their character should have so demeaned themselves. The most violent abuse and outrage that could be conceived followed. And what was the nature of the amendment proposed by his noble
556
relation, and which occasioned all this tumult? It began with expressions of loyalty to the king, and love for the constitution, went on with a detail of the grievous calamities under which the people suffered, proceeded to recommend the dismissal of his majesty's present advisers, and concluded with a hope that her majesty would be restored to all her just rights. Was not that true loyalty? Were not those fit subjects to lay before a public meeting? Was it not a loyal prayer to implore his majesty to attend to the almost unanimous wishes of a free and loyal people? The Queen, whatever might have been her conduct, had stood her trial, and the people of England thought she ought to have the benefit of her acquittal. Like Elizabeth, her predecessor, who, although he must call her the vilest of women, was one of the greatest of queens, her majesty had always exhibited her courage and constancy in situations of danger; and he trusted she would continue to do so. Many were the attempts which had been made to poison the royal ear on this subject. It had been represented to his majesty, that he was on the brink of a precipice—that he stood on a volcano—that he reigned over a band of conspirators. What could be more dangerous—what more injurious to the country, than such mis-statements? The people were rebels, or they were not. If they were rebels, inflict the blow before the culprits suspected its approach. If they were not rebels, why load a brave and generous nation with gross and unfounded I calumny? To goon, however, with the proceedings of the meeting. The amendment having been read, the high sheriff did not choose to put it. On being asked, if he would put to the meeting the relevancy of the amendment, he declined that also, taking on himself to judge of that relevancy. After a few other speeches, made amidst the greatest noise, the high sheriff put the question to the meeting on the original address. A number of persons certainly did hold up their hands in its favour; but many of those did so, conceiving that it was the amendment that was put; and the high sheriff, although there were many present who supported the amendment, refused to put the negative on the original motion, or to grant a division. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the individual who was the present high sheriff of the county of Cheshire, to know what were his political sen-

557
timents. He understood, however, that he was a captain in a new yeomanry corps of cavalry, raised by Mr. Cholmondeley, who, it was said, expected to be made a peer. He hoped, however, that the House would consider the importance of the question, and the danger of allowing a high sheriff to follow the dictates of his own inclination on such occasions. In our happy and legal constitution, every thing was strictly laid down and defined. Where discretion in a public officer began, law, and the liberty and safety of the people ended. The power of a high sheriff, though indefinite, was not indefinable. No law or privilege could give to a high sheriff, or to any other man in the kingdom, a right to infringe the rights of others. The Bill of lights declared that it was the right of every Englishman to address and petition the king. That right had been materially obstructed in the present instance; and the people had in consequence been prevented from conveying their petition and sentiments to the royal ear. A great additional power had been placed in the hands of high sheriffs by the bills lately passed. He denied, however, that a high sheriff had a greater right to preside at a county meeting than any other individual. The very circumstance of his being called to the chair was a proof that he was not entitled to it as a matter of right. When he did sit there, however, he sat merely in a ministerial capacity. His duty was, not to act on his own opinion, but solely to collect the real opinion of the meeting. If such conduct as that of the high sheriff of Cheshire were tolerated, those who intended to make motions, or any remarks at a county meeting, would be obliged to send them over to the high sheriff for his approbation and signature. This was the more to be deprecated, because gentlemen knew there was such a thing as "a pocket sheriff;" but that was illegal. When a sheriff was appointed, it was always during the king's pleasure; and no sheriff retained his situation longer than until the appointment of a successor. It was true, that the usage was, to make a regular arrangement on the subject every year; but still the House would feel the importance of having the duties of a high sheriff distinctly defined. They all knew well that a corrupt government (he did not speak of the gentlemen opposite, but made the observation generally) always attempted to acquire a power proportioned to their deficiency of virtue.
558
A corrupt sheriff and a corrupt ministry might coexist; and then, unless the duties of a sheriff were distinctly defined, the right of the people at public meetings to complain of their grievances would be entirely cut off; because the sheriff would not put any proposition which had not previously received his signature; and because he would refuse to affix his signature to any proposition complaining of grievances, since that would be to impugn his friends. He sincerely thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had listened to him, and begged leave to bring up the petition.
Mr. Egertonsaid, that although he was present at the meeting, he was not sufficiently near the high sheriff to hear all the proceedings. He was sorry to observe, that those proceedings were not so quiet as it could have been wished they had been. At the same time, if any thing illegal had occurred, he thought the proper mode of redress would have been to appeal to the laws. He could answer for the independence of the present high sheriff of Cheshire, and that he would not be swayed in the discharge of his duty by any party feeling. That gentleman exerted himself as much as possible to keep order at the meeting, but in vain. With respect to the amendment which had been proposed by a noble earl, and to the consequent proceedings, he repeated, that he was not near enough to the chair to form an accurate opinion.
Mr. Brightdeclared, that of all the rights possessed by the people, the right of addressing the Crown and of petitioning parliament was the most valuable; and that while he had a seat in that House, he would never allow an attempt to be made to infringe that right without reprobation. Some years ago, certain bills had passed with reference to the subject of public meetings, which were considered by the majority of that House to be necessary for the tranquillity of the country. At that period he had not the honour of a seat in parliament, or he should have expressed his opinion in hostility to those bills—They had considerably limited the right of petitioning; for they left to the high sheriff, the lord lieutenant, or other constituted authorities, to call meetings of the people. He would not now ask if a high sheriff was bound to call a meeting, on a requisition to that effect being presented to

559
him? He allowed that legally he might, perhaps, not be so. But this he would unequivocally say, that if the high sheriff did actually call a meeting, and such meeting were assembled, it was his bounden duty to discharge his office with fidelity and impartiality. The high sheriff was bound to collect the sentiments of the meeting over which he presided. Was it to be endured, that a sheriff should fraudulently dispossess the people of one of their most valuable constitutional rights, by calling them together, and then, when placed in the chair, refusing to ascertain their real sentiments? The hon. gentleman had recommended leaving the subject to law. To what law? When was that law to be administered? When the people had been deluded in so gross a manner, were they quietly to wait until the judges went the circuit? And even then there might be no law, or only a law applying constructively to the subject. The true remedy for the people was an application to that House. Here, then, had been a public meeting called—an individual had placed himself in a situation to guide the proceedings of that assembly—and instead of honestly discharging his duty, he had deprived the people of one of their most valuable rights. Was not that a topic for that House to discuss? Ought not the high sheriff to be called to their bar to account for his conduct? If there was any one privilege for which our ancestors had fought and bled, and which he trusted neither we nor our posterity would tamely surrender, greater and more valuable than any other, it was the right of the people to represent their grievances by petition. It was a right which ought to be most carefully watched, for it was the very life-blood of the country. He begged to apologise for having expressed himself so warmly; but the result of all his constitutional reading was, to impress him with the highest veneration for this most invaluable privilege of the people: of England.
Mr. Bootle Wilbraham, while he allowed that it was the bounden duty of that House carefully to watch over the sacred right of petitioning, denied that the present was a case which called for its interference. What were the facts of the case? The high sheriff of Cheshire, in: compliance with a requisition made to him, had called a meeting of the county, it which he himself presided, as he had
560
a right to do; for he was surprised to hear the noble lord term the sheriff's being called to the chair a matter of courtesy; it being a notorious fact, that in all public meetings at which a sheriff was present, he invariably took the chair. The case at issue between the noble lord and himself, however, was simply this: if the high sheriff had acted harshly and with intentional partiality, then, undoubtedly, he was deserving of censure. But where was the proof of this? The noble lord had allowed that he did not know what were the political feelings of the present high sheriff of Cheshire, but appeared rather curiously to infer that he must be inclined to support the present administration from the fact that he was a captain in a corps of yeomanry. Would he say, that lord Fitzwilliam, or lord Spencer, or any other noblemen and gentlemen who held commissions in corps of a similar nature, must therefore be concluded favourable to the present administration? [Lord Belgrave observed, across the table, that it was a newly raised corps.] He was at a loss to understand what difference that made. He was not acquainted with the high sheriff; but he understood that he was a young man of independent character and fortune; and that he had never publicly committed himself on any political question. The noble lord and others thought that that gentleman's conduct had been incorrect. Although he (Mr. W.) was not present at the meeting, he had received an account of the proceedings from persons whom he had examined and cross-examined, and the result left no doubt on his mind, that the conduct of the high sheriff had been perfectly impartial. It was too much to impose on a high sheriff the responsibility of answering for the conduct of every person at a public meeting. The truth was, that at all public meetings there was occasional excess and riot. This sometimes took place among those who ought to know better. He had heard of a great public assembly of high character, some of the members of which, on its separation, degraded themselves by noise and hissing, and other symptoms of riot [cries of Hear, hear! from both sides of the House]. He was glad some hon. gentlemen seemed to take the hint, and he trusted they were by this time ashamed of their conduct. With respect to the question before the House, he could not consent to take any

561
step upon it. All that the House knew was on one side; and he was persuaded they would not proceed on an ex parte statement.
Mr. Creeveysaid, the sheriff having been requested to call a meeting, and having complied with that request, and an amendment being proposed at the meeting by earl Grosvenor, the matter for consideration was, did he refuse to put that amendment, or did he put it in the negative? If he did, there certainly was no law to punish him, and the only course was to call him to the bar of the House—a proposition which, if the noble lord, or some other member, did not introduce, he would himself submit to the House. The hon. gentleman had alluded to a scene which took place in that House at the close of the last session. He had stated that hisses were resorted to on that occasion. Now, he was present, and could affirm that there were no hisses. With respect to other demonstrations of feeling, such as cries of "Hear! hear!" and "Shame! shame!" he was happy to be recorded as one of those who used them; because, never was there a scene so injurious to the dignity of the Crown, so disgraceful to the character of the administration that sanctioned it, or so insulting to the members of that House.
Mr. Philipsobserved, that from what he had heard of the conduct of the meeting, the high sheriff had acted with partiality, and the parties who were the cause of the uproar which prevented a noble earl from being heard, had acted in a manner extremely disgraceful to themselves. He hoped the House would vindicate its privileges, and order the high sheriff to attend at the bar.
Sir. J. Newportwas of opinion that the House had a right to interfere in a case of this nature. If sheriffs were to be permitted to invest themselves with this authority over county meetings, and to refuse, on the ground of their own will and caprice, to put any reasonable proposition which might be offered to them by those who were duly qualified to attend, there would at once be an end to those privileges, the exercise of which was reserved to the people by the first principles of the constitution. It would be idle to talk of the right of petition, if such proceedings were permitted to pass without receiving the censure of the House.
Mr Stuart Worthy, although he did not think that the privileges of the House were endangered on this occasion, must fairly say, that he condemned the recent conduct of several high sheriffs. Those, gentlemen could not do any thing more detrimental, or more contrary to constitutional principles, than to refuse to call a county meeting on a requisition properly signed, and when there were no circumstances which could induce them to consider such a meeting as likely to be attended by consequences dangerous to the public peace. He trusted that it would be a lesson to sheriffs, whatever might be their political opinions, not to endeavour to prevent the people from exercising one of their most valuable privileges.
Lord Belgraveexplained, that the high sheriff had the command of a corps of Yeomanry embodied soon after the 16th of August, 1819. He merely mentioned this because, at the period to which he alluded, the same care was taken in making these appointments that was now! taken among the professors of exclusive loyalty in keeping every thing for themselves. To the high sheriff of Chester he had imputed no motives, but merely related a plain fact. His conduct had led to a protest on the part of several gentlemen who were present.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

DETENTION OF A BRITISH SUBJECT AT GHENT—PETITION OF W. M'DOUGALL.
Mr. Denmanrose to present a petition, which he had received by that day's post, from a person who was perfectly unknown to him. The petitioner, whose name was W. M'Dougall, stated that he was detained a prisoner at Ghent, by the foreign authorities upon a charge of forging: a letter of credit in the name of a bank in Scotland, and obtaining money thereon in France. The petitioner denied the charge, and stated that, by being detained a prisoner at Ghent, he was deprived of the means of proving his innocence. He thought the subject worth the attention of the authorities at home, and entitled to immediate inquiry.
Mr. Goulburnasked, whether the petitioner had applied to the British authorities abroad?
Mr. Denmanstated, that applications had been ineffectually made to lord Clancarty and lord Castlereagh.

563
The petition was then read. It set forth, that the petitioner was a British subject, who had resided for some time on the continent—that he had resided for nearly twelve months in Paris, and had left that city with regular passports in last July to recruit his health at the Spa of Aix-la-Chapelle, from which place he repaired at a subsequent time to Brussels, where he had resided, become acquainted with several English persons, and had a running horse at the races. The petitioner further stated, that he was arrested at Ghent by the local authorities upon a charge transmitted by the police of Paris, of having raised money in that city upon a forged letter of credit of a bank in Scotland. Me also stated that he had ineffectually sought redress through lord Clancarty, who informed the petitioner's wife, in reply to his application, that the local authorities detained him on the charge already mentioned. The petitioner, as a British subject, sought the interposition of his own government.
Mr. Denmansaid, he was quite aware that the full extent of the prayer of the petition could not be complied with. He thought, however, the case ought to be looked into.
Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had only one alteration to propose. In the year 1816, several excise duties which had been granted during the war, were continued for a term of five years and, would expire in July, 1821; and his object was, to renew these duties for one year. The duty he proposed to continue thus from year to year was that on foreign spirits, which would have the effect of raising this branch of the annual revenue from 3,000,000 l. to 4,000,000 l. His reason for proposing this annual continuation of the duty on foreign spirits, was, that the subject being thus brought from time to time under the consideration of parliament, they would be able to perceive the result of the measures taken to prevent smuggling. It appeared, that the consumption of foreign spirits had increased during the last two years; and whatever gentlemen might know respecting the extent to which smuggling was
564
carried on, they had this proof, that it had not increased during that time. Under these circumstances, he had no farther explanation to offer at present, except to propose that the House would allow 5,000,000 l. voted on the aids of 1820, to be applied to the service of the year 1821, the effect of which was merely to allow the treasury to apply the produce of the taxes of one year either to the service of that or the succeeding year, as might appear most beneficial to the interests of the country. He concluded by moving a resolution for the continuation of the duty of 1s. per bushel on malt, imposed by an act of last session until the 5th July, 1821.
Mr. Creeveysaid, he had come down to the House with the intention of opposing any supply, had it been proposed by the right Hon. gentleman. He had not opposed the Speaker's leaving the chair, because he did not suspect that any vote of public money was intended; but seeing now the drift of the right hon. gentleman's resolution, he should propose, as an amendment to it, that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The House would recollect the grievances which had been stated last night from all quarters of the country, particularly from the great and formerly flourishing town of Birmingham. In the conversation which that petition had produced, opinions had been elicited which had never before been heard in that House. A most honourable and respectable country gentleman had proposed to deprive the fundholder of part of his rights, calling him "a devouring monster of consumption." Another hon. friend of his had hailed with joy this attack on the fundholder, and had expressed his anxiety to be at it. The chancellor of the exchequer might laugh at this, but what would Mr. Pitt have said, if he had heard such opinions respecting the propriety of setting one part of the community at war with another? Every gentleman who spoke last night on this subject had pressed on the House the necessity of retrenchment, but nothing in the way of relief was even hinted at by government—they heard no plan for the amelioration of distress—night after night they had before them the old story of committees of supply and ways and means; but they heard not one word about reform—not one word upon the necessity of retrenchment. Under such

565
circumstances, he would not consent to grant a single farthing of the public money—he would divide the House upon every vote of supply, until he had some distinct pledge from those who took upon them to manage the affairs of the country, until some plan of practical reform should be submitted to that House, He would call upon the landholder and the fund-holder to unite, to unite against monsters—the monsters were not the fund-holders, the monsters were those who held places under the Crown, and sat in that House. They appeared in that House under various characters, as lay lords of the Admiralty, as puisne judges; but they showed that they were real pensioners, dependents on the bounty of the Crown; their presence in that House was useless, it was worse than useless, for there they were to vote on all occasions with the minister, never with the people. Let it not be supposed that he objected to the responsible ministers of the Crown sitting in that House; their presence was necessary, but it was a monstrous thing to see persons holding places at pleasure under the Crown, sitting and voting in that House; these formed a part of the pack which stood firm and united; it was found impossible to break in upon them. There were 72 persons in that House who held places to the amount of 120,000 l. a year, yet forty members were sufficient to make a House to vote away the public money, or to invade the public liberties? Was such an abuse to be endured? Was it possible from such men to expect the introduction of any plan of economical reform? There was another body of men in that House who were called independent members: there were no greater enemies to the country than those independent members—their votes were with the ministers—their families lived upon the taxes—and did any one doubt it—could the right hon. gentleman deny it? The brothers, sons, and more distant relations of those members—would be found throughout the country, holding places in the customs, in the distribution of stamps, and in various other departments. The right hon. gentleman knew that repeated and daily applications were made to ministers from members of that House. He knew that the steps of the Treasury were daily beset by men calling for what they called their property. The fact was notorious—he knew such people, respectable persons, who very comfortably lived upon the
566
taxes. These were the persons who effectually prevented any reform in that House. The 72 pensioners, and the "independent members," whose families were quartered upon the country, and lived upon the taxes, stood between the people and their rights. Those were the persons who composed the majorities against the people. He was not surprised' at those majorities; indeed, far from it; he was only astonished that the friends of the country were able to make so good a fight as they had made in that House. These were the grievances; and the redress of those grievances ought to go before the grant of one shilling of the public money. He regretted that he did not see his right hon. friend, the member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney), in his place. He hoped that that right hon. gentleman would lend his authority to a bill to prevent placemen from sitting in that House, whose presence was not necessary for the public service. By the introduction of such a bill, his right hon. friend would do a great public service. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume) to whom the country was greatly indebted, had submitted, during the last session, a new system for the collection of taxes. He demonstrated, that of the monstrous sum of four millions which the bare collection of the taxes cost the country, a saving of at least one million might be effected. He also proposed to take some measure to secure the remainder from coming within the rapacious grasp of members of parliament. What he had said he believed to be as true as that he stood in that place; and then, he asked, were the people, ground down as they were to the utmost extremity of distress, to be treated without the slightest sympathy or consideration? He believed that a saving of at least four millions might be effected in the collection of the revenue and in the different offices of the state. Such a reduction would lead to the most gratifying consequences. The members of that House would be a different set of men. The most happy prospects of future retrenchment would present themselves; and above all, it would lead to a union with the people, and create the surest omen of public good. He would move, that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad reason to hope, that in the estimates of

567
this year there would be at least a reduction of 1,000,000 l. compared with those of the former year. To endanger the deficiency of the revenue by a small reduction in the expense of collecting it, would be the worst policy that could be adopted; but he was warranted to say, that a saving, of 130,000 l. a-year, had already been brought into effect in the collection of the revenue.
Colonel Daviessaid, he would not vote for any supplies until every possible economy had been resorted to, and till proper estimates were laid on the table. He now gave notice, that when the votes for the army should be proposed, he would not agree to them unless full estimates were previously laid before the House.
Mr. Lockhartthought that, in the present distressed state of the country, the House ought not to vote one shilling of the public money without the estimates. If it were true that the country was to receive no relief either from an alteration of the present system of the currency, or from a change in the distribution of the taxes, he would ask from what source relief could come, but from the most rigid economy on the part of ministers? He was one of those who could not see why one part of the community should be drained and exhausted merely in order to pay another part. This was a system which might go on for some time; but, far from enduring for ever, they would soon find that not only would the capital of the country be ruined, but her spirit be exhausted. He lamented to hear the wild language which had been thrown out last night, when an hon. member had declared, that the taxes paid to the fund-holder were a mortgage on all the land, on the church establishment, and on all the property of the country; and that they were to pay to the last shilling, to show whether they were honest men or not. As if it was possible, in any society, that so strange an alteration could take place with common consent, that every one who was well-born, well-bred and educated, and who filled a station in the institutions of the country, should give up the whole of their property, in order to fulfil an engagement, which finally would be ruinous even to the fund-holder. These things startled him, when they came from gentlemen who were so well versed in the theories of economics. It was manifest that these opinions,
568
though logical deductions from certain premises, could not be applied to the actual concerns of empires. They had traces in history of a state of society similar to our own, when the Roman commonalty oppressed with usury, or with excessive taxation, withdrew to one of the mounts near the city, and had refused to continue to be the productive members of a society from which they reaped no benefit. He wished the people instead of busying themselves with projects which he would not then mention—instead of meditating the forms of constitution—swould endeavour to impress upon the government the absolute necessity of conforming their expenditure to circumstances, and not of attempting in vain to suit circumstances to their expenditure. If prices had fallen 20 or 30 per cent, the revenue should be lessened in a nearly similar proportion.
Mr. Humethought that some misunderstanding existed as to the speeches which were delivered last night by two hon. friends of his. He would shortly state the reason why he should most certainly support his hon. friend in the call which he proposed to make for a division of the House. He had himself, in common with many other members, presented he knew not how many petitions to that House, praying for a reduction of some of the present taxes. With how little effect those petitions had been introduced, it was but too unnecessary for him to state. He had understood to-night, from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he meant to continue the tax on spirits only. If, however, he had since understood the hon. chairman rightly, the proposition appeared to be to continue the tax on malt also. The proceeding of the right hon. gentleman, therefore, he could hardly consider as fair. That tax upon malt was agreed to be imposed by the House, upon the faith that in twelve months after the cessation of the war the tax should cease. He did think, that with so many petitions for the reduction of taxation before them, they ought not to grant the continuation of a single tax, until ministers explicitly stated what it was they intended to do. The chancellor of the exchequer, when asked by him some evenings ago what reduction it was proposed to make, did not think it worth while to give him any answer. He should therefore persist in opposing the resolution, seeing it was

569
quite clear, that when the right hon. gentleman had got his business done, it was in vain to complain, for there was no redress. By the report of the committee of finance of 1817 (which report was drawn up, as he believed, by the right hon. gentleman himself) the expenditure of the country, in the year last past, it is said, would be reduced to 17,000,000 l., that sum including the total charge of the army, the navy, and a variety of miscellaneous expenses. In that report, the right hon. gentleman took great credit to himself for being enabled to make such a statement; and the House was called upon to grant the required supplies, because the expenses of the country were thus reduced by the sum of 1,000,000 l. less than those of the preceding year. Instead, however, of all this what had followed? Why, that the expenses of the last year, notwithstanding this pledge, were 19,000,000 l. This circumstance ought to satisfy the committee that they ought not to grant one single shilling of additional taxes. The House would recollect, that upon the 12th of July, 1819, he did submit a proposition for an address to his majesty, praying that he would be pleased to give directions that successors should not be appointed to certain offices which might become vacant, till it had been ascertained what reductions it was possible to effect in every department of government, and in the salaries and emoluments of such offices.—The hon. gentleman then complained of the increase in the salaries annexed to certain offices under the government. He did not mean to include in this class his majesty's ministers, whose salaries had certainly received no augmentation throughout the continuance of the war. But let the House look to the army, and observe what an enormous staff was maintained; what extravagant charges were incurred; and particularly what was the enormous charge of the Ordnance, which had alone increased by three times the sum at which it was estimated, at a time when the prices of corn, and provisions were nearly the same they were now. As to the collection of the revenue, that was one of the vilest jobs that ever existed. In Ireland and Scotland it was, if possible, a job still worse than in England. In a few days, he should have an opportunity of showing to the House the gross neglect and profusion which existed in the stamp department in Scotland.
570
The stamp department, among other things, had continued several persons in office, although they had been returned. "incapable," merely in order to maintain the extensive influence of government patronage. Such was the expensive system kept up by that government, who proceeded in the same career of extravagance year after year, that even if he should divide alone with his hon. friend, he should think it his duty to go to a division. He lamented that the hon. gentlemen opposite should persist in desiring to continue a war-tax upon a people over-taxed already. The only way to oppose them in this case was, for the House to support his hon. friend. Give the ministers money, and they would never reduce one item of expense. If the House had thought proper to continue the income tax until the present moment, they would have had the expenditure equal to the amount notwithstanding. The only way to procure some attention to the objects of economy was, to deny ministers the means of a lavish expenditure. The act which made this a war-tax provided that it should endure for a short time only after the war; yet we were in the sixth year of peace. In conclusion, he was determined not to aid, in any manner, the granting of one shilling to ministers, till they came forward with offers of economy and reduction.
Mr. R. Wardbegged to observe, that in the Ordnance department, the salaries and allowances of all the higher offices had been reduced. His own, for instance, had been reduced to about 600 l. per annum. Others had been reduced from 200 l. to 150 l. each. The only additions that had been made to the charge of the department, were allowances for the long services of individuals.
Mr. Humesaid, that the storekeeper at Dover, whose salary during the war was 100 l. a-year, had lately retired upon an allowance of 500 l. a-year.
Mr. Wardsaid, that no such thing had occurred. The storekeeper at Dover had not 500 l. a-year, and had not retired at all.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the proposition before them was simply this—to grant the annual malt-tax for one year in the same way as it ever had been granted since the reign of queen Anne. As a supply was granted, to withhold the ways and means could only tend to plunge the government into confusion. He thought

571
it highly proper to inquire at the proper time into the causes of the distress which he acknowledged existed in some degree, though he thought it had been exaggerated.
Sir J. Newportwas glad to hear from the right hon. gentleman opposite that the distress complained of was exaggerated. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would take an opportunity of stating what were the districts which enjoyed prosperity. With respect to the estimates, he was willing to allow that in time of war, they could not be got ready by the opening of parliament. But now that we were at peace, he saw no reasonable objection to pursuing such a course. They ought to be taken into consideration before the session, if ministers had any view to retrenchment, without being driven to it by parliament. He strongly objected to the manner in which the business of the House was transacted. It was not uncommon to see forty or fifty bills go through the different stages at the end of a session, when there were scarcely any members present. The consequence was, that the bills passed in so defective a state that they were obliged to be corrected in the next session. He recollected a bill having passed both Houses to impose a duty upon madder; in which it was afterwards discovered that the word "madder" had been entirely left out. An hon. friend near him reminded him of another case, in which a bill had passed confirming the sentence of a man who was to be imprisoned for six months.—"The half of which," it stated, "was to go to the King." The other branch of the legislature had complained that bills were sent up to them so late, that, as they had not time to examine them, they refused to pass them at all. Such facts as these must tend to disgrace the House in the eyes of the country. He hoped this subject would be taken into consideration without reference to the party from whence it came, as he disclaimed all feeling of hostility in pressing it upon the attention of gentlemen opposite.
Mr. D. Browneadmitted the existence of distress in this country, but observed, that in Ireland the case was infinitely worse; for there the agriculturists were reduced to the lowest state of depression; and as to manufacturers, there was now left scarcely any thing which deserved the name, except one
572
or two branches, and they also were under the greatest embarrassments.
Mr. Gladstoneconceived that a great portion of the distress which was felt by the agriculturists arose from the excess of production above the consumption—that consumption being owing, in a great degree, to the reduction of the wages of labour. The farmer was obliged to be a seller for what, he could get, and was thus in some sort at the mercy of the consumer. He deprecated the idea going forth to the public, that the House possessed the means of applying an effectual remedy for the distresses which had been alluded to in the petition which had been presented to the House last night. The remedy must only be looked for in the gradual increase of the prosperity of the country. The accounts of a brisk demand for goods in Manchester proved that the assertion of the distresses of Birmingham being local, was not altogether incorrect. The manufacturers of Manchester raised the price of their goods in proportion to the demand; if, for instance, 100 pieces of goods were ordered, which were sold at 10 s. a piece, an order for 500 would cause them to be raised to 10 s. 6d. and and 1,000 to 11 s. He had received a letter from Liverpool lately, which stated, that the manufacturers there were becoming saucy, and were advancing in their prices in proportion to the demand. He then remarked upon the state of the iron trade, which was depressed on account of the loss of the demand for arms which the war had created. He said, that in this trade, as in others, an extraordinary demand had created an excess of production, which was now the cause of the depression. About twenty years ago this country imported a great part of the iron which it consumed from Sweden and Russia, but now it could supply not only what it consumed itself, but export a great deal to foreign markets. There could be no relief, therefore, till some check was given to that excess of production which the great demand had created, but which demand had now ceased, while the production continued. It had been stated, that the friends of many members of parliament lived upon the taxes, and it was particularly mentioned that this was the case in Liverpool; he denied the fact. But he could see no impropriety in the relatives of members being appointed to situations

573
of trust. It was very natural, as such places were to be filled up, that ministers should attend to the recommendations of those in whom they placed confidence. For his own part, he could say that his support to the present ministers arose from his conviction, that the system by which they had guided the counsels of his majesty was the best and safest for the country.
Mr. Westernobjected to the resolution, as he was determined not to vote away any more of the public money until the agricultural distress had been fully taken into consideration. He wished to ask, whether the proposed grant was for the old annual malt tax, or whether it was a revival of the new tax. If the latter he should oppose it.
Mr. Huskissonreplied, that it was the same old tax of 1s. per bushel, which always accompanied the land tax.
Mr. Creeveysaid, he should not divide the House upon the malt tax, but upon the resolution which proposed to continue some excise duties.
Sir W. De Crespignysaid, that a most iniquitous system of regulating and collecting the taxes prevailed. He should, in a short time, submit a motion to the House, on the subject. He would prove, that there were gross defalcations, and that many of the defaulters were still in the employment of government. Without a complete change of the system, it would be impossible to make the revenue equal to the expenditure.
Sir F. Blakewished to make a few observations on the subject of the committee of supply, of which he had been a member. It had been stated to have been a farce, upon no better grounds than that few members had been in attendance. The fact he admitted, and lamented as much as the honourable member for Appleby (Mr. Creevey) himself, but it did not follow that public duty was therefore neglected, or mismanaged. There had remained members of as great integrity and independence, as any members of that House. If the proceedings of the committee had, therefore, been a farce, they had been made so by the hon. member himself (Mr. Creevey), who had divided the committee five times without any prospect of success.
The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution for the renewal of the sugar duties being put, the House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 48.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Honywood, W. P.

Althorp, viscount

Hume, Joseph

Barham, J. F. jun.

Jervoise, G. P.

Barrett, S. M.

Lloyd, J. M.

Bernal, Ralph

Lockhart, J. J.

Bright, Henry

Martin, John

Caulfield, hon. H.

Maxwell, John

Chaloner, Robert

Monck, T. B.

Crespigny, sir W. de

Moore, Peter

Davies, T. H.

Newman, R. W.

Denison, William

Nugent, lord

Duncannon, viscount

Palmer, C. F.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Parnell, sir Henry

Ebringtbn, viscount

Ramsden, J. C.

Ellice, Edward

Ricardo, David

Farrand, Robert

Rice, T. S.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Robarts, George

Fitzgerald, Hon. M.

Smith, hon. R.

Glenorchy, viscount

Sykes, Daniel

Gordon, Robert

Western, C. C.

Guise, sir Wm.

Whitbread, Sam. C.

Haldimand, W.

Wood, alderman

Hamilton, lord A.

Wyvill, M.

Harbord, hon. E.

TELLER.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Creevey T.

BOARD OF CONTROL.
Mr. Humeto submit to the House the motion of which he had given notice, and of which the object was, to ascertain whether the president of the board of Control, had vacated his seat. He had no doubt, from the examination which he had made, that, if the appointment of the right hon. gentleman corresponded with the time of taking his seat, he was free from the penalty. But that could not be known to the House without the warrant of the right hon. gentleman's appointment. When any motion for reform was made from his side of the House, there was an outcry by the other side against innovation. Yet, by the other side of the House, were the most dangerous innovations made on the constitution. Not one of the four right hon. gentlemen, whom he saw opposite, could hold a seat in that House by the act of queen Anne, or could vote away public money, as they had done in the division which had just taken place. The great objection to Mr. Fox's bill had been, that it gave patronage to the Crown, and occasioned expenses to the India company. When the board of Control was originally constituted, Mr. Pitt gave a distinct pledge to the country that the commissioners should perform the duties without pay or salary, and that they should have no patronage from the East India company. From the year 1784 to 1793, the commissioners had no salaries, and conse-

575
quently they did not vacate their seats in parliament; but the 33rd of the late king, which gave an allowance of 5,000 l. a year to the commissioners, contained a clause that those officers who should receive a salary should vacate their seats in parliament. Accordingly, from 1793 down to the present time, every president of the board of Control had vacated his seat as a matter of course. If, as the right hon. gentleman opposite had stated, he received no salary, he still came within the spirit of the act, for there were large emoluments attached to the office in the way of patronage. There were 500 regular appointments in the gift of the president of the board of Control; and it appeared, that in the last year he had received the appointment of 26 cadets, 2 writers, and 4 assistant surgeons, the value of which patronage amounted to about 12,000 l. Now the House was aware of the value of a writership; for it must be in their recollection, that a noble lord, not now in his place, had been convicted of carrying on a traffic, in which a writership was to be the bribe for a seat in that House. A writership was, therefore, equivalent to a seat in parliament; and every body knew what the price of a seat in parliament was. It appeared, then, that the president of the board of Control received patronage in writerships, which was equivalent to the price of two seats in that House. The board of Control, though it had never met as a board, had cost the East India company not less than 800,000 l. He trusted, that as they had now a patriotic president, who would do the duty without a salary; and as the other commissioners were of no use, the company would shortly be wholly relieved from the burthen of this board. He begged leave to move, for "Copies of Letters Patent, or Commissions, appointing the commissioners of the board of Control, and of which the right hon. George Canning was president, and of which the right hon. Charles Bathurst is president."
Mr. Bathurstdid not rise to object to the motion, but to observe, in the first place, that it would have been more consistent with parliamentary practice, if the hon. gentleman had waited till the documents were laid on the table, before he commenced his general remarks upon the character and functions of the board of Control. The hon. gentleman quarrelled, first, with the particular appointment in question, then with the construction put
576
upon the act of Anne, and, lastly, with that by which the board of Control was established. Now, the last act expressly said, that there was to be no forfeiture of a seat in parliament, unless the individual appointed should receive the salary, or part of it. The only question now was, whether his seat had been vacated by his acceptance of the office without any salary annexed to it. It would, he thought, appear, on an examination of the returns, that he fell under the same description as the rest of the commissioners of the board to whom no salary was assigned, and to whom it was deemed that the spirit of the act of Anne, which referred only to offices of profit, did not apply. It had been urged, that patronage was power; but, without admitting this proposition, he must deny that any patronage necessarily or directly attached to the president of the board of Control. What was, in fact, enjoyed by him, was received as a compliment from the court of directors. If it was wrong to receive it, that ought to be declared; but this had no bearing on the present question. With regard to the duties of the two other commissioners receiving salaries, he could only say, from his own observation, since he had held the office of president, that their appointments, so far from being merely nominal or honorary, required very considerable labour. As to himself, he held an office previously, the emoluments of which he regarded as a sufficient remuneration for the discharge of his new duties.
Mr. Creeveysaid, he did not mean to insinuate that the patronage enjoyed was turned into money, but it was presented by the directors upon an understanding, and was, of course, used in the ordinary way. It should be remembered, also, that cadetships and writerships were provisions for life, and of more value than a few thousand pounds which the president might himself receive. He was inclined to think, upon a fair construction of the different acts, that the office must be considered as one of profit and emolument.
Mr. W. Smithacquitted the right hon. gentleman of all suspicion that he received any salary for the office. But the question to be considered was, whether the gift of that office did not increase the power of the Crown? No one could suppose that the right hon. gentleman would support administration any more than he had done before; but the question was upon the principle, and with-

577
out any personal reference to the right hon. gentleman. The price of a writership was about 3,000 l.; and could any one suppose that the gift of an office, with the disposal of a certain number of writerships was not a gift of profit? Could it be supposed that the influence in question would be exerted for any other purpose than that of strengthening the government? He hoped the House would not be satisfied with a denial that the office was a place of profit, merely because it was not attended with a direct salary.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldcontended, that the right hon. gentleman's appointment was an evident violation of the act of parliament. All his predecessors had vacated their seats on receiving it; and he could see no security against the object of the act being defeated, if so important an office as the one in question could be held without vacating a seat during the session of parliament, on pretence that no salary was received during that period. Such a precedent might be extended to other offices, and the salaries taken when ever parliament was not sitting. But without reference to this possibility, the appointment in question was a constant source of influence. Many would be very glad to exchange the lucrative advantages of office for the enjoyment of extensive patronage. For his own part, he had no doubt he should materially increase his influence among his constituents, by distributing among them I now and then a few writerships and cadetships, and he would do the right hon. gentleman the justice to believe that he would prefer the acquisition of influence to that of money. He should be sorry to accuse him of disingenuousness, when: he said that no patronage was attached to his office, because it belonged, in the first instance, to another body, with whom the Board of Control maintained a civil understanding. The president of that board, he understood, had always in effect a greater portion of patronage than was annexed to any other office in the gift of the Crown. When lord Melville, a distinguished Scotchman, was at the head of the board, aspiring young Scotchmen were to be found in every corner of India. Under one of his successors, Ireland had sent forth her sons to the same quarter; and now lie presumed the right hon. gentleman meant to give England her due share. At all events, he trusted
578
that the example of saving the salary would be carefully followed in future.
Lord Althorpunderstood the act of Anne to have been passed, not so much for the purpose of depriving the Crown of any influence which it might derive from the offices which it held in its gift, as for the purpose of affording the constituents of any member who might accept office an opportunity of deciding whether they would re-elect him.
Mr. T. Courtemayexplained the routine of the business attached to the board to which the hon. member is secretary. There was no salary attached to the office; and as to the argument respecting patronage, he should not condescend to reply to it. There could certainly be no doubt that the patronage of the Crown created obligation; but the same argument would apply to ribbands and all other honours which emanated from the King. In short, if the argument could hold, there would be no point to which it might not be carried.
Mr. Denmanwished to know, if the right hon. gentleman did not receive the salary usually attached to his office, what became of it? It was rumoured, that the right hon. gentleman received no part of it himself, but reserved it for another right hon. gentleman who had lately held the office, and who was now absent from the country [Cries of "No, no"]. If that were the case, was it distributed amongst the other commissioners? Or was it saved to the public?
Lord Binningwould not have troubled the House on this question, had it not been for the allusion just made to his right hon. friend, the late president of the Board of Control. Where, in the name of God, had the hon. gentleman heard of this rumour? Why had he mentioned it? Was the character of public men to be thus loosely sported with? His right hon. friend would be the last man in the world to receive the emoluments of an office, the duties of which he did not perform.
Mr. Denmanstated, that he had made no insinuation. He had only alluded to that which was generally reported, and which had appeared in the newspapers.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, he could not envy the feelings of the learned gentleman who could impute to his right hon. friend, in his absence, a participation in so corrupt an arrangement. Where was his authority? Who had dared to state it? He

579
had never, during the whole course of his political life, heard such an insinuation come from any political malignant.
Mr. Denmansaid, he had made no insinuation against the character of the right hon. gentleman, but had put what he conceived to be a fair question. Political malignity to that right hon. gentleman's predecessor he felt none. The soreness which the two hon. members had exhibited was no very great compliment to their right hon. friend.
Mr. Astelldid not see any thing reprehensible in the manner in which the question had been put. He bore his testimony, as an East India director to the efficient and cordial manner in which the late president of the Board of Control had exercised the duties of his office. He had heard, with great satisfaction, that the company would be benefitted to the amount of the salary by the present appointment.
Colonel Davieswished to know what was to be done with this salary.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that it would he a saving out of the sum granted by the East India company.
The motion was agreed to.