Commons Sitting of 28 February 1822

SCOTCH BURGHS.
The Lord Advocaterose for leave to bring in a bill founded on certain reports on the table of the House, as to the state of the Royal Burghs. A difference of opinion, he knew, prevailed as to the remedies most adequate to meet the abuses specified in these reports. A great object would be gained by securing the fullest publicity, and compelling the residence of the magistrates; and, he would therefore move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, for regulating the mode of accounting for the common good, and revenues of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, and to prevent the non-residence of magistrates

801
of Royal Burghs, and to restrain undue compacts regarding Burgh Elections."
Lord A. Hamiltonexpressed his astonishment, that after the labours of three committees, and the full detail of multiplied abuses which their reports exhibited, a lord advocate should, in bringing such a subject before parliament, limit himself merely to a simple motion for leave to bring in a bill. He had expected, that when the learned lord refused to allow him to originate a remedial measure, it was his intention to take a full view of the-question, and put the House in possession of flint view. What was his surprise to find him, after all that expectation, merely making, a motion of course? Was it to be endured, after so much investigation and labour, that such a bill should be proposed for a remedy to grievances so numerous and complicated? He must be allowed to tell the learned lord, that in proposing a measure so inadequate, he had both neglected his own duty, and prevented other members from discharging theirs. He was extremely sorry that the whole system of abuse that pervaded the burghs of Scotland was so little understood in that House. Sure he was, that if they existed in England, and if English members had themselves such a case as he felt he could make out for Scotland, these intolerable grievances would be at once redressed.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS—ComPLAINT OF AN OUTRAGE ON MR. SHERIFF WAITHMAN.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he rose to submit a motion to that House, founded on a petition which he had the honour to present on the 8th instant from the corporation of London (see p. 159.) In the observations which he had to make preparatory to his motion, he should confine himself strictly to facts, and the merits of the case, as grounded solely upon them. The petition related to the occurrences which had taken place at Knightsbridge, and the attack on Mr. Sheriff Waithman, on the 26th of last August, and was founded on a report drawn up by a committee of the common council, who had taken evidence on the subject, and given it a patient and impartial investigation. The committee was not one selected from any particular class of persons; but was a committee of general purposes, and consisted of persons of different political opinions, some of whom
802
were known to maintain principles of which those who affected most loyalty must approve. The petitioners, grounding their statements upon the report of this committee, now called on the House to know, whether those who served the high office of sheriffs of the county, when called out to preserve the peace, should sit down quietly without redress after a wanton and violent attack on their persons? In consequence of its being known, that the funerals of the unfortunate men who had lost their lives on the 14th of August, would be public, the government thought it right to send a notice to that effect to the lord mayor, who was called upon to provide for the preservation of the peace. Nay, the government went farther, they sent a notice, signed by one of the Treasury solicitors, to a respectable tradesman living in his ward, who was connected with the proceedings, informing him that steps had been taken to prevent the funeral from passing through the park. But not a word of all this was said, no notice was sent to the sheriff, who had the peace of the county intrusted to his care, and of course the government must have been aware that the funeral would take place in Middlesex. The sheriff, however, without any such intimation, knowing what was his duty, prepared every means in his power by which disturbance might be prevented. He knew that there existed an ill feeling between the people and soldiers, arising out of the circumstances under which the two persons had met their death; and understanding it was intended that the funeral should pass by the barracks at Knightsbridge, he used every means in his power to prevent it, if possible. With that view, he sent a letter to some of the newspapers, in which, after alluding to the intended route of the funeral, he strongly deprecated such a measure, and expressed a hope that the public would refrain from attending it. He could do no more; and the fact itself was a full answer to the charge, that be wished to disturb the peace. No man under the same circumstances could have done more to preserve it. When he found that the funeral was to pass by the barracks, he gave orders to the officers under him to have an attendance of emir stables, to be in readiness to take into custody ail who should be found breaking the peace; and in order to carry this into effect, be himself, accompanied by his under sheriff (his colleague in office was

803
at the time in Brighton), proceeded to the neighbourhood of the barracks. He remained there without interfering in any way, until information reached him, that a brick-bat was thrown amongst the people from over the barrack wall. This produced some hissing on the part of the crowd; but on the sheriff entreating them to be quiet, order was restored. The procession passed the barracks; and on the return of a great portion of the people from Hammersmith, the sheriff learned, that a riot had occurred between some of the soldiers, and the people at the barrack gate. On hearing this, he returned to the gate, where he found the soldiers engaged with the people, some of the soldiers with sticks, some with their fists, and some with drawn swords. Some of the soldiers wore their uniforms, and others were in undress. The sheriff did all in his power to restore tranquillity, and at length succeeded, by insisting on the soldiers retiring within their barracks, which they did. After waiting for some time, and every thing appearing quiet, he again went towards town, when he was overtaken near Hyde-park-corner by a person, who informed him that the soldiers and the people were again contending. He rode back, and found a great disturbance. Again he endeavoured to restore order, and exhorted the people to go away; but, while thus engaged, some of the soldiers endeavoured to shove his horse off the path-way into the road, and one man was seen to load his carbine, and present it in the direction in which the sheriff was; and in the opinion of several witnesses, if the soldier had fired, the shot would have struck him. He had thus given a brief outline of the transaction as detailed in the evidence. Now, during the whole time of these occurrences, the conduct of the sheriff was most cool and peaceable. This was borne out by the evidence of all the witnesses. That of Mr. Derbishire, the gentleman who reported the case for the "Morning Post," was quite in favour of the sheriff. It was true, that in a part of his evidence he said that the sheriff at one time used some irritating expression towards the soldiers; but, in the course of the examination, he said he would not be positive that the sheriff had used such expression. The sheriff had, as was his duty, endeavoured to check the soldiers. Mr. Derbishire said, that the conduct of some of them was fair and manly: he supposed he
804
alluded to those who used only their fists the quarrel; but in allusion to those who had swords, be stated that he had ever seen any thing so violent in his life. This was fully confirmed by the evidence of all the witnesses who were examined. And here he should remark, that the witnesses examined were not selected. There was not one of them who was in any way mixed up with the proceedings on the inquest of Honey. They were for the most part persons who had been present in the discharge of their duty. Among these was Mr. Mortimer, who vas along with Mr. Waithman the whole day, acting as his under sheriff. His statement was most clear in favour of the sheriff, whose conduct he described as most praiseworthy. This was further confirmed by the sheriff's officers who could have no interest in saying what was not the fact. Then the gentlemen who mended for the daily press could not be said to have any interest in making the ease otherwise than it really appeared. In the evidence of those gentlemen, particularly in that of Mr. Tyas and Mr. Woods, the case was strongly made out in favour of the sheriff's conduct.—But it would perhaps be said, that the sheriff had no business there. He, on the contrary, would contend that it was his duty to be present. What would have been said if he had not attended? They would have heard comments on the man, who, it would have been added, had made himself so busy on the inquest, but was absent on an occasion when it was likely that a disturbance would take place. Indeed, it was made a subject of a sort of reprimand in the letter of lord Bathurst, that the sheriff was not present at the subsequent part of the evening, when the riot act was read. It had ever been considered the duty of the sheriff to attend on those occasions where the public peace was likely to be disturbed. He recollected, in the year 1810, when an hon. baronet was committed to the tower, the right hon. gentleman who then filled the chair of the House required the attendance of the sheriffs of London, and he (alderman Wood) and his colleague in office were in attendance, endeavouring to preserve the peace, from morning until a late hour at night, and were also similarly engaged on the return of the hon. baronet from confinement. If he had not so attended; he would have failed in the discharge of his duty. He maintained it would have

805
been an omission of his duty, if the sheriff had refrained from attending on the late occasion. But what was the conduct of government after this transaction? Lord Bathurst, in one of his letters to sheriff Waithman, promised that an inquiry would be speedily made into it. Had that promise been fulfilled? No inquiry had ever since been made by government: at least none had transpired. What, then, was the duty of the corporation? The common council, finding that a wanton outrage had been committed on their officer, and that no inquiry was made into it by government, instituted an inquiry themselves. The result was, that the conduct of the sheriff appeared, throughout the transaction, most praiseworthy, whilst that of the soldiers was proved to have been most violent. They had acted like men who were under no control. Under all the circumstances, he thought there was a strong ground for inquiry, and, therefore, he would move that the petition be referred to a committee. It was evident that the government had neglected its duty, in not having a magistrate present during the whole of the day. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the facts stated in the petition from the Corporation of the City of London, complaining of an Outrage committed on the person of Mr. Sheriff Waithman, on the 26th of August last, whilst in the exercise of his official duty for the preservation of the Public Peace."
Sir W. Curtisrose to second the motion. He also was anxious that the petition should be considered by a committee, but for reasons different from those urged by his hon. colleague. In the first place, he would say, that the sheriff had no authority to act on the occasion in question, and it would have been much better for him to have remained at home. [Hear.] The office of sheriff of Middlesex, was vested in the two gentlemen who were chosen sheriffs of London, and the authority could not be exercised by one alone. Mr. Sheriff Waithman himself, was not therefore, justified in acting by himself. He was anxious that a committee should investigate this question; but it was because he wished to let the world know the real character of this great common council, who were always meddling with matters with which they had nothing to do, and which were far above their wisdom and energy. [Hear.] It was from such
806
a principle, that they bad engaged in the recent inquiry, which he would contend they had no right to enter upon. It was said, that evidence was not selected by this committee. Now, he maintained the contrary. Not only was evidence selected, but questions were put, to draw such answers as the party putting them desired. Of this there were abundant proofs in the evidence annexed to their report. He trusted that if a committee were appointed. those gentlemen of the common council might receive such a hint as to their conduct as they deserved, and as would teach them how they acted so again. He begged the attention of the House to one extract which be should read, just to show the kind of evidence which had been received, and how well qualified the common council were for such an inquiry, A man named Thomas Oliff was thus examined by this committee:—"Where do you live? At No. 90, Fore-street.—What are you? I superintend the business for Mr. Smith, the corn-chandler.—You were at Knightsbridge at the time the affray happened with the soldiers and the populace? No, I was not there.—Then what do you know about it? I got a note to attend here. All that I know was, that I was in company with a friend of mine, on the Monday or Tuesday evening, and he said that he had been into the shop of a person of the name of Crabb, and heard a man named Properjohn, or his man, tell Mr. Crabb, that he heard a corporal of the life guardsmen say, damn Alderman Waithman, we are prepared for him, and have got a ball ready for him."—Let the committee be appointed, and they would see a great deal more of the folly of this great common council. But though for that purpose he second the motion, it would be for hon. members to consider whether it would be worth while to consume any of the time of the House in exposing such nonsense. [Hear, and a laugh.]
Colonel Lygonsaid, that he had witnessed the transactions of the 26th of August, and had attended to the complaint made in the petition. He would, therefore, in the few words he had to offer, confine himself entirely to the statements there made. Knowing that such a procession was to pass by the barracks on that day, he had, on dismissing the parade in the morning, given orders that the gates should be closed, and that the men should keep within the barracks, and not

807
even appear at the windows. The soldiers attended divine service that day as usual. There was, during great part of the forenoon, a large collection of persons in the neighbourhood of the barracks, waiting for the approach of the funeral. It did pass, but nothing particular occurred in its way down. As to the story of a brick having been thrown over the barrack-wall amongst the people, he had made the most anxious inquiries on the subject, as well amongst the troops as from the persons residing opposite the gates, and the result was his firm conviction, that the statement was altogether without foundation. He also assured the House, that he had never received any message from the sheriff during that day; and to those who knew him it would not be necessary to add, that if he had, he would not have sent such an answer, as that which it was said was delivered to the sheriff. [Hear, hear.] He had never been out of the barracks the whole of that day; be dined there on Saturday, the 25th, and did not leave them till Monday, the 27th. In the course of the day, a great number of well-dressed persons were walking in the neighbourhood of the barracks, as was usual on sundays; and some time after the funeral had passed, he ordered the gates to be opened for their accommodation to pass through. He pledged his honour, that his only object in ordering the opening of the gates was for the convenience of the people. [Hear, hear.] After the gates were thus opened, he sent an officer to take his station in the road to let him know when the procession returned, that he might again order the gates to be closed, and the men to be recalled. This was about half-past three. Soon after four, or between that and five o'clock, an attack was made by the populace with stones, by which 282 windows were broken in the barracks, though at the time there was a line of constables wedged in front of them, whose duty it was to arrest any person who should disturb the peace. At six o'clock the cries of "murder" were heard by the soldiers within the gates, and it was said by some one, "they are killing our men." It was soon ascertained, that the people were beating a trumpeter and farrier of the regiment, who were outside. Those of the men who were nearest the gate, seized whatever weapons first presented themselves to their hands, and rushed out to the rescue of their comrades; but, so far from mak-
808
ing a wanton attack on the people, he could declare that he never saw men act with greater forbearance, considering the circumstances in which they were placed. Immediately after this, he came to the gate, and commanded the men to return to their barracks. This command they instantly obeyed, and it would not be doing them justice, if he did not say, that their conduct was marked by the most implicit obedience, and the greatest forbearance. After the return of the men, the riot and disorder continued from the people without; and at length, finding no interference of the civil power, he sent for a magistrate, (sir N. Conant,) by whom the riot act was read; soon after which the people dispersed. He did not know what the House would do with the motion: for his own part, he could have no objection to it, being fully satisfied that the more the matter was inquired into, the more the good temper and forbearance of the troops would be made evident. [Cheers.]
The House was about to divide, when, after a pause of some seconds,
Mr. Hobhouserose. He stated, that after the plain and sensible address which had been just delivered by the gallant colonel, he should be one of the last persons in the world, who would attempt to remove any part of the impression which he had made, if he were not imperatively called upon, by some things which had been said by him and the seconder of the motion; but he was more particularly called upon to make a few remarks, on account of the transaction having taken place in a part of the precincts of the city which he had the honour to represent. He would be unworthy of the place he held, if he were not ready to offer to the House such observations as the merits of the case required, in regard to what had fallen from the worthy Alderman, and the gallant Colonel. It did appear to him, that on no occasion did the House shew any reluctance, or feel any difficulty, in entering upon inquiry, when the demand came from his majesty's ministers. In the instance of Manchester, the government, on anonymous evidence, got a select committee appointed, and on that anonymous evidence, enacted laws which abridged the liberties of the subject. On repeated occasions, when the public functionaries demanded inquiry on any evidence whatever, the demand had never been resisted, and surely they-could not, as members

809
of the House of Commons, be justified, if in this case, which so materially affected the rights of the country, and when so respectable a body as the citizens of London came forward as complainants, they should refuse to institute any inquiry. He had heard nothing in what had fallen from the gallant colonel or the worthy alderman which sheaved that the inquiry ought not to be granted. The gallant colonel had stated, that 282 windows were broken in the barracks. Considering the affray that took place, such an occurrence was by no means improbable; but, was it therefore to be tolerated, that because those windows were broken, the sheriff, who had exerted himself to preserve order, should be insulted and his life put in danger? Was it, therefore, to be tolerated, that almost in the heart of the metropolis, the weapons of war should be raised by the soldiery against the citizens of England? Some mischief, indeed, might be expected from these inland fortresses which, in defence of our once free constitution, were now placed as a check upon the liberties of the country. But this was an outrage scarcely to be looked for, even from such a cause. Was it an argument, that because windows had been broken, no inquiry should take place into an outrage against the person of the sheriff, who was entrusted, with the guardianship of the peace of the county, and was there exercising his authority like one worthy of so great a trust? Nothing had yet been stated that falsified the material allegations of the petition. It might be said, that those allegations were not on oath. That was true; but, whose fault was it? Government had not thought proper to institute any inquiry into the subject. Why had not lord Bathurst, who, when he acted for the Home Secretary of State, pledged himself that an investigation should take place, redeemed that pledge? There had been no reason whatever assigned, why there had been no inquiry. The evidence that had been given before the common council was no such laughing matter as the worthy alderman wished to represent it to be. The worthy alderman had endeavoured, with all that good humour and jocularity which be usually displayed, to ridicule that evidence, and the mode in which the witnesses had been examined. It was not surprising, that persons unaccustomed to the examination of witnesses, should not have been aware, that it was necessary to
810
stop a witness, as soon as he had declared that he was not present on the occasion respecting which he was under examination. So far was that evidence from exhibiting any thing like unfairness, that it appeared to him to show the utmost fairness, no attempt having been made to suppress any part of it, however ill calculated, to make a good appearance upon paper. It was certainly true, that the general tendency of the evidence was, to shew, that stones had been thrown by the people at the barracks; but it had also been as clearly shown, that stones had been thrown from the barracks against the people. This had been stated most distinctly. One witness declared, that. it was impossible for him to say, whether stones were thrown first from the barracks or by the people, for he saw them as soon from the one as from the other quarter. Another witness stated, that he saw the stones flying in all directions from both parties. This was the evidence of persons wholly unbiassed. It was not the evidence of individuals connected with newspapers, who might be supposed to have a tendency towards popular feelings. It was the evidence of several persons rather inclined towards the opposite sentiments. Of those individuals, one of them, the reporter for "the Morning Post," used an expression with respect to the soldiers which he (Mr. H.) certainly would not use with respect to them because he did not think it justifiable. That individual had declared, that the soldiers behaved "in a cowardly manner;" a character which, in his opinion, could never belong to an English soldier. This, however, he would say, that even admitting for argument's sake, that there had been provocation on both sides, the country had a right to expect more temper and forbearance from disciplined soldiers than from the people. Even though the people had been so misled as to throw stones and break the barrack windows, did that justify the soldiers in forcing their way from the barracks with arms in their hands and attacking the people [hear, hear!]? It was worse than foolish and idle to contend, that the first recourse of the soldier must always be to arms, a fatal necessity might justify such an appeal; but it was both cruel and cowardly, not to say unconstitutional, to hold a doctrine under which no man's life could be safe, as long as a standing army was allowed to exist. No doubt the hon.

811
colonel did his utmost to prevent the contest, and so, by every account, did Mr. Sheriff Waithman. He was quite astonished when he heard the worthy alderman ask, what business the sheriff of London and Middlesex had to be there? He was not deeply read in law; but it Certainly struck that a sheriff of London and Middlesex could not properly absent himself on such an occasion, because he could not prevail on his brother sheriff to attend with him. On the contrary, when one sheriff declined to do his duty, it was the more incumbent on the other to do his. It, undoubtedly, astonished him to hear a representative of the city of London talk as the worthy alderman had done of the sheriff of London and Middlesex. The worthy alderman certainly knew the duties of a sheriff better than he did; but if the House would allow him to read a passage from that so frequently quoted author, Blackstone, they would hear a very different description of a sheriff's duties and dignity. The passage was as follows: —"The sheriff, as the keeper of the king's peace, both by common law and special commission, is the first man in the county, and superior in rank to any man therein during his office; he may apprehend and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and may hind any one in a recognizance to keep the king's peace; he may, and is bound, ex-offcio, to pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to gaol for safe custody; he is also to defend his country against any of the king's enemies when they come into the land; and for this purpose, as well as for keeping the peace and pursuing felons, he may command all the people of his county to attend him; which is called the posse comitatus, or power of the county; and this summons every person above fifteen years old and under the degree of a peer, is bound to attend upon warning, under pain of fine and imprisonment." It appeared by this quotation, that the sheriff was bound to maintain the peace. Mr. Sheriff Waithman had a right not only to command the soldiers to keep the peace, but if they failed in doing so to follow them into the barracks, to levy the posse comitatus, and follow the soldiers, taking the people with him, and to secure every soldier, who, in violation of his orders, continued to break the peace. He defied any gentleman to contradict
812
him in this assertion. It was true, that one of the evidences examined had conceived that the original breach of the peace did not commence with the soldiery; but, let it begin where it might, the law allows the sheriff to be the best judge of this point, and to act instantly upon his own discretion. All that Mr. Sheriff Waithman did, was what his duty forced him to do, and if he had not done it, he would have subjected himself to the censure of the Crown, and that House. He was surprised to hear the worthy alderman treat with ridicule the common council of that city of which he was an alderman and a representative. The common council of London: was formerly a most important body; and if all the members of it resembled Mr. Alderman Waithman or the worthy alderman who had made the, present motion, it would be so still. At the time of the revolution, the common council of London were thought worthy to represent the people of England. About 70, or he believed 72, of them sat in that House as part of the body which transferred the Crown from James II. and gave it to a more worthy sovereign. The common council of London had-formerly made the predecessors of the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman opposite shake in their seats; and if better times should arise, he trusted the common council would imitate the example of their predecessors [a laugh]. He must again say, that this was a question which ought not to be put off with a laugh. It was much more important than the worthy alderman seemed to think: it vitally concerned the constitution. An outrage, or at least an alleged outrage, had been committed by the military on the first officer of the county, the preserver of the king's peace; and the subject was treated by the worthy alderman as if it did not deserve inquiry. The worthy alderman did not treat the matter with a hundredth part the attention that he would bestow on a sealed green bag brought down by his majesty's ministers. The interest of the question went further than its immediate relations. They had daily proofs of the wish entertained by ministers to turn the government of this country into a military government. This had been so often said and so often taunted, it was such a thrice-told tale, that he was almost ashamed to repeat it; but it was not the less true. This he would add, that if the. House of Commons suffered such an out-

813
rage to be perpetrated upon their constituents without enquiry, they would prepare the way for the accomplishment of their own degradation and ruin. There was, somehow or other, a strong inclination in that House to receive with respect every thing that proceeded from the public functionaries or the military: but when the opinions of the common council of London, or any body of the people were mentioned, they were received with a laugh. He recollected, that when the subject of her late majesty's funeral was before the House a noble lord, a member of that House, and an officer of the regiment of life guards (lord Uxbridge), said, that he knew a whole set of persons who were ready to perjure themselves on the subject, the instant the phrase fell from the noble lord's lips it was met with a loud cheer. Now, did bon. gentlemen consider what they cheered? Did they consider that they cheered the assertion, that a number of their fellow creatures were ready to commit the infamous crime of perjury? If true, it was a subject not of cheering or congratulation, but of lamentation and regret. He had not the least doubt that the noble lord believed what he stated to be true; but, still, he would take the liberty of asking him, how he could know that those persons were ready to perjure themselves? The noble lord might have heard that they were so, but-bow could he know it? And when the term "perjury" was used, he put it to the House whether there was not a great distinction to be made between malicious perjury and that description of perjury which took place when any one swore to that which he thought was a fact, but which actually was not so?—The noble lord said, that there was a set of persons ready to swear that he was present on the occasion alluded to, when he was not so. He (Mr. H.) had been there himself; he had seen two or three of the officers; and although he was so near as to be able to speak to them, yet the similarity of dress, the badness of the weather, and the state in which the troops were, concurred to render it almost impossible to distinguish one from another. It was almost too much, therefore, for the noble lord to say he knew a set of men who were ready to perjure themselves, because they thought he was present when he was not. Perjury was not a word to apply to such an act. The noble lord had shown a little more
814
zeal on the occasion than was quite prudent; although he (Mr. H.) could allow, a great deal for the esprit du corps. If the noble lord, however, was not to be: blamed for that, neither ought he (Mr. H.) to be blamed for his earnestness in behalf of the people. He certainly thought that the people of England had a right to know whether or not, as barracks were maintained in the heart of the metropolis, and soldiers kept in those barracks, they were to cut the throats of the people [cries of hear, hear!]? He desired the House to recollect that be did not say this had been done; but it might be done; and the House should be alive to the slightest suspicion on such a question. It was necessary that the people should know what purpose the soldiers were kept for. He did not say that all the all the allegations respecting the conduct of the troops were true. But of this he was certain, that when these "fortresses" existed in, the heart of the metropolis, and when so many persons deposed that the troops had issued from one of these fortresses with arms in their hands and attacked the people, be thought the country had a right to know if the soldiers were henceforward to be employed or tolerated in such wanton attacks. All that he demanded was inquiry. In the answer which lords Bathurst returned to Mr. Sheriff Waithman's letter, he appeared to consider himself so superior to his correspondent, that instead of regarding the sheriff as the, first man in the county, he could not have treated him worse had he been the last; and lowest; for he had hinted, and that pretty broadly, that the worthy sheriff had said what was not true. But he had, not withstanding, promised an inquiry he asked of the right hon. gentleman was whether any such inquiry had been made? If it had, why not communicate the result? If it had not the House had a right to draw the inference, that what appeared to be the fact on the first blush of the affair actually was so; namely, that w gross and wanton outrage had been perpetrated on the preserver of the king's peace. A pledge had been given, that the matter would be investigated. He now called upon the right hon. secretary either to redeem that pledge, or to state, his reasons fur coming to a contrary determination.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that in the vote which he intended to give that night, and it the view which he intended to take of the

815
question, be should be guided solely by those general principles, which ought to be considered as valid in all arguments for instituting inquiry. He should commence his observations by assuring the worthy alderman opposite, that a desire to criminate Mr. Sheriff Waithman had never entered his mind, and that he was not urged by any feelings of ill will to that individual to give a negative to the proposition for inquiry. He must also assure his hon. and gallant friend, (col. Lygon), that he fully entered into his feelings, and comprehended the reasons why he was anxious to have an inquiry instituted into the conduct of the regiment to which he belonged; but at the same time he could not admit that those feelings would justify him in permitting an inquiry to be made. Still less could be admit that a legitimate ground for inquiry was laid by his hon. friend, the alderman near him, who had wished it to be made in order that the common council of London might be exposed to general censure and ridicule. The ground upon which he should form his decision would be this—had there been any grounds stated in the speech of the hon. mover, or contained in the documents then in the possession of the House, which would justify it in departing from its ordinary course, and instituting an extra-judicial inquiry. That there were allegations of outrage in the letters of alderman Waithman, and in the petition which had been presented by the corporation of London, he was ready to admit; but when he looked at the evidence upon which these allegations rested, he was bound to state his opinion, that it by no means bore them out. An inquiry had been instituted by earl Bathurst into the whole transaction, and had been instituted on oath. He should not, however, refer to the depositions which had been so collected; but, arguing solely from that evidence which the common council had collected, he should endeavour to transfer into their minds the conviction which existed in his own, that it was insufficient to prove the accusations which had been founded upon it. An hon. member had said, "Give us an inquiry because an outrage has been committed." On the contrary, he said, "No outrage had been committed, and therefore he could not consent to grant inquiry." The worthy alderman near him had anticipated one objection which he had intend to raise
816
against the evidence admitted by the committee. It was the testimony given by Mr. Oliff, to which he had alluded. After stating that he had not been at Knightsbridge, he added, "All that I know was, that I was in company with a friend of mine on Monday or Tuesday evening, and he said that be had been into the shop of a person of the name of Crabb, and heard a man of the name of Properjohn, or his man, tell Mr. Crabb that he heard a corporal of the life guardsmen say, "Damn alderman Waithman, we are prepared for him, and have got a ball ready for him." The next question put to him was, "Do you know the man? Where does Proper-john live?" To which he made answer, "At Knightsbridge—he is a butcher." Now he wished to be informed why, as the residence of Properjohn and his man was known, they were not summoned to give their evidence upon that particular point. They could have stated whether such language as "Damn alderman Waithman, we have got a ball ready for him," had or had not been used; and surely it was the duty of those who conducted that examination to have called Properjohn, or Popplejohn, or whatever his uncouth name might be, to give evidence before them regarding such atrocious language.—The House would be able to judge of the general character of the evidence from the specimen which he had just submitted to it. He would now call upon them to consider how far that general evidence supported the particular charges founded upon it. It was almost unnecessary for him to mention to the House, that on the day of the Queen's funeral two men lost their lives at Cumberland-gate; that their bodies were afterwards buried at Hammersmith, and that the funeral procession passed by Knightsbridge barracks. He could not help regretting, that after it was determined to select Hammersmith church for the place of burial for those two unfortunate individuals, those who possessed influence over the parties intending to join the procession had not exercised it in persuading them not to select the road passing the barracks of the soldiers who had caused the deaths in question, as the road by which they would proceed to Hammersmith—a parish with which neither of the deceased had any connexion whatsoever. Now, the first allegation in Mr. Waithman's letter was, "that the funeral passed the barracks in an orderly

817
and quiet manner, marked by no other peculiar circumstance than that of a brick being thrown from the barracks, which fell near my horse, and wounded, as I am informed, a young girl." Now, really, before Mr. Waithman had given publicity to the statement, that so wanton an act had been committed, he ought to have ascertained two distinct points; first, that a brick had been thrown from the barracks; and secondly, that it had wounded a young girl. He would admit that if a brickbat had been thrown from the barracks into the crowd, as the funeral procession was passing, it would have been, if not a justification, at least a palliation, of the insults which before the close of the day the mob took occasion to offer to the soldiery. On looking, however, to the evidence, he could not find any proof whatsoever of that allegation. In the letter of Mr. Mortimer, which it had been stated could not be shaken in any of its details, he found the following statement:—"The only provocation given to tumults on the passage of the funeral to Hammersmith, was occasioned by a brickbat being thrown, as it was said, from the barracks at Knightsbridge, by the individual who produced it to you, and who appeared to he cut by the same." Now he would ask, was that individual the girl who, it was said; was wounded? He found not the slightest proof of it in any part of the evidence. A woman, however, was wounded in the course of the day; but under what circumstances? Why, on the return of the procession from Hammersmith. There were evident attempts made by some members of the committee of the common council to prove that this woman was the girl that was said to be wounded. Mrs. Brooks is called to give evidence regarding this woman, and among the questions asked her, the following formed a part:—"Is she a married woman?—She is a widow. Was she a small sized woman?—About the size that I am: she is rather slight." —Now, could the House believe it?—so eager was the committee to prove this woman to have been the young girl mentioned in Mr. Waithman's letter, that though the witness had stated that the woman was a widow, they asked, "Is she a girl?" And the answer they received was, "No; she is as old as I am." The unfortunate woman herself was afterwards called; and her evidence was decisive that she was not the person alluded to in
818
Mr. Waithman's letter. She was asked, "Were you at the barracks before the funeral passed by? to which she replied, "I was; I went by with it." She was then asked to describe how she got the blow under which she suffered. She replied, that she had got it as she was going towards the Park gate. Before he came to the next question, he thought it necessary to observe, that the conflict was going on at that time, on both sides of her. Now the next question was—"It struck you behind?—Yes. Therefore you could not see where it came from?—No. Which way was your face?—Coming up towards Oxford-street; they did say that that came over the barrack wall, but I did not see that myself. Did you hear the people about you say that at the time?—Yes. Were you in that position that it might come from the barrack wall?—Yes, it might come from the barrack-wall, for I was not very far from it at the time. I did not see the stone, though it rust have been a large one." Upon this evidence he felt himself justified in stating, hat this first allegation of Mr. Waithman vas not proved. The next specific state-neat in Mr. Waithman's letter was, that t soldier had loaded a carbine and directed it at him; but that a constable on seeing the circumstance had knocked the carbine down. Now, such an allegation vas an allegation of great importance; Or if it could be proved, that the man lad directed his carbine against Mr. Waithman, and had it knocked down whilst it was so directed, the moral guilt of that man's conduct was not much less than it would hate been had he actually red at Mr. Waithman. But, after reading every part of the evidence with great attention, he could not help concluding hat, whether the man in question acted with propriety or not, he had not his carbine in the direction which Mr. Waithman stated. He should think that the evidence of the constable who had knocked down the carbine was the best that could be offered upon such a point; and here he must say that that officer, who spoke decidedly upon the conciliatory conduct of Mr. Waithman, during the whole clay, could not be considered to have given his evidence with any bias against that gentleman. Now what did Levi say—"I perceived a man standing on the bank with a carbine in his hand lien first I came to him, he held it in this manner (describing it); and just as

819
I got up, he was levelling it in this manner (describing it). I had a staff in one hand, and a stick in the other. I ran up to him right at the muzzle of the piece; I struck him, and hit him over the hand, and down the piece went, and I catched hold of it. I then laid hold of him, and said, 'You villain, has there not been bloodshed sufficient, without your spilling more?' and I had the piece I think in my left hand, and he had hold of the butt of it; he said my life is in danger—and I said, go in, and I will protect you; and I believe I did go with him into the barracks." He was then asked the following questions, to which he called the particular attention of the House—"What was your idea of his pointing, was it that he was singling out the sheriff?—I cannot say that. I was so irritated with seeing him with the piece, and the people squalling on the opposite side; but he had it in different directions—"Was it in that position that it appeared to be presented at sheriff Waithman?" If I were upon my oath, I could not state that. A short time afterwards, the same witness was asked, "Did you imagine at the time you saw the soldier that he was looking at or for any one in order to shoot him?"—to which his reply was as follows: "My impression was, that he might have picked out any person that he pleased, because he stood in that elevated situation; if I wanted to shoot a person directly opposite to me, I should not elevate my piece, but this was held up in this manner (describing it.)" The evidence which he had just read to House was, he trusted, quite sufficient to chew that these allegations were not such as could be safely relied on. There was only another specific statement in Mr. Waithman's letter that was of any importance, and he would give it to the House in Mr. Waithman's own words—"I could not obtain an interview with any of the officers of the regiment; and when I desired some of the constables to represent to the officers in the most respectful terms my desire that the soldiers should be kept within the barracks, the message returned was, that the sheriff might be damned—they would not make their men prisoners for him." Now, if such a message had been returned, he would admit that it would have been a most shameful answer; but his gallant friend the member for Worcestershire, had declared that he had not returned any such message, and had totally denied the use of any such language.
820
Now, he could not help remarking, that it did not appear from this evidence that Mr. Waithman had sent any message at all into the barracks. Levi, the officer who had delivered it, had stated that "he carried it of his own accord—that he saw danger, and that he had therefore said it." He was then asked, "What did you consider gave you authority to go to the barracks and see the officer, and give Mr. Alderman Waithman's request?" And again he replied, "because I saw danger would occur from what was going on." Now, though this testimony proved that this request was made to some officers in the barracks, it did not prove Mr. Waithman's allegation, that it had been made by his specific order.—He had now disposed of all the specific allegations, and had shown, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House, that they were not borne out by the evidence on which they were founded. Against general and sweeping charges, he could not expect to make so decisively victorious a defence. For instance, he could only give a general denial to such an accusation as this—that the sheriff of the county had been left to defend the people against the merciless outrages of an infuriated and armed soldiery, unaided by any means save the constitutional ones in his own power. It was likewise stated, that "the gates had been unexpectedly thrown open, and that the soldiers had rushed out armed with swords, carbines, and sticks, and attacked the people most furiously without distinction of age or sex." That would have been a most atrocious fact if it had been true; but he would appeal to the House whether such a circumstance could have taken place without more mischief having accrued to the people than actually did accrue; or indeed without a general massacre having been committed. Against that allegation, however, he should oppose the fact, that only one single case of casualty on that day had been reported to the Middlesex Hospital—a fact, into the accuracy of which be had himself taken the trouble to inquire. In the whole evidence collected, he saw not a syllable about any wound inflicted by sword or carbine. In one case, a question was put to a witness about a wounded man, and it turned out that the wounded man was a soldier. There might be cases of wounds with which he and the public were unacquainted; but, if there were, it proved that none of them could have been very serious. He must now, therefore, express

821
a hope that no case had been made out which could warrant the House in instituting an inquiry. If the evidence were so satisfactory as was stated on the other side, there was no reason why some criminal prosecution or indictment should not have been instituted by the sheriff against the military; and yet he had not heard that any legal measures had been adopted by Mr. Waithman against the life guards to obtain satisfaction. When he heard it stated, that positive orders had been given to the soldiery not to quit their barracks—when he learned that 282 of their windows had been broken by the populace—and when he was also told, that a number of constables were ranged among the crowd to seize on every person that attempted to disturb the peace, he could not conceal his surprise that not, a single individual had been apprehended. He was free to admit, that the evidence then before the House went a long way to prove that the general conduct of Mr. Waithman had been most pacific and conciliatory; but still he could not help saying, that after the active part which Mr. Waithman had taken at one of the inquests, he ought to have formed this conclusion, that his presence before Knightsbridge-barracks on the day of the funeral could not tend in any great degree to the keeping of the peace. There were, he was very ready to admit, strong expressions often uttered in the heat of particular moments, on which it would be wrong to lay too much stress; but he must say, that Mr. Sheriff Waithman did not stand entirely acquitted, in his mind, of imprudence in the manner in which he had conducted himself on the day of the funeral. He found that the sheriff took an opportunity, when the populace were vehement, and apparently ill-disposed to moderation, to address them in words certainly, to say the least of them, imprudent. What other character could he give the sheriff's address, not to hiss the soldiers, "for the best way to annoy the troops was to remain quiet?" Did such expressions become a man intrusted with the high office of sheriff, and acting under such circumstances? They were surely very indiscreet, if not highly improper. When he considered the whole of the circumstances which had occurred at the time—the cry within the barracks among the soldiers, that two of their comrades were overpowered by the mob without—he was not much surprised to find that a few soldiers rushed out to rescue
822
their companions from a situation of danger. He regretted that any act of violence had been committed: but he repeated, that he could not feel surprise at the rush out of a party of soldiers, with whatever weapons they could lay their hands upon at the moment, and that when they supposed their comrades in danger, they did not show that regard to the peace of the public which they otherwise would have evinced. When also he considered, that one of the life-guardsmen was struck by Mr. Sheriff Waithman, and offered no violence in return, he must own that the conscientious conviction of his mind, formed not on the evidence taken before the secretary of state, but on that given elsewhere, was, that the soldiers had behaved with as much forbearance as could have been expected from them under all the circumstances of the case, and that there existed no shadow of a ground for the proposed inquiry.
Mr. Denmancontrasted the conciliatory tone adopted by the right hon. secretary with that of a worthy alderman who had spoken previously in the debate. Astonished, indeed, he was at the conduct of the worthy alderman, who had attacked, in the most unprecedented way, the corporate body to which he himself belonged. Surely if the worthy alderman did not approve of the course which the committee of his corporation were pursuing in this investigation, he ought to have attended and interposed during their proceedings. But that he, a member of their body, should have abstained from interfering when he could have interfered with effect, and afterwards come down to that House to. deride the proceedings of his own corporation, to throw dirt, as it were upon the report of those who sent him here; was a good reason why his constituents should not give him another opportunity to impeach their character, and was to merit something like indignation for such a line of conduct. With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. secretary, he could not help observing, as a singular fact, that although the right hon. gentleman professed to found his observations upon the evidence taken in London, he nevertheless constantly referred to other evidence which appeared to have been taken before lord Bathurst; and alluded to the rushing out of a few soldiers from their barracks, in consequence of a rumour of a supposed outrage upon some of their body outside. Was that fact to be found in the evidence

823
on the table? Certainly not. It rested altogether on the authority of the gallant officer opposite (colonel Lygon.) From this it was obvious that the right hon. gentleman had formed his opinions upon other evidence than that known to the House: but bow much of his conviction was formed from that extraneous evidence, or how much from the statement of the gallant officer, it was quite impossible to ascertain. From the statement of the gallant officer, nobody would he led to imagine that Mr. Sheriff Waithman was on the spot at all. He said, that he received no message from the sheriff, nor sent any uncivil reply. That he sent no such message he was quite convinced; but whether any such message was returned from any other quarter, they were left entirely in the dark. In the statement of the hon. and gallant officer, a period of several hours was filled up by a few data, explanatory of his desire to keep order among his soldiers, and of the remarkable forbearance of the men. He must say, from what he had heard that night, that he never knew, in the course of his experience, any evidence treated more unfairly than this had been by the gentlemen who had spoken opposite. Nobody pressed the statements of the witnesses as legally conclusive evidence ripe for final decision: it was, on the contrary, before them more in the nature of the minutes of inquiry taken before a magistrate than as clearly ascertained facts. It was a mere inquiry to see what was the general outline of the case, to hear what had been dropped in the way of information by individuals, without forming any ultimate decision upon the bearings of the evidence itself: for he admitted; that parts of it were susceptible of the interpretation which different gentlemen seemed disposed to put upon it, and that very circumstance showed the fairness with which the evidence had been sought for and collected. What did the conduct of the corporation prove? —that they wanted information, and endeavoured to obtain it through all the requisite channels; and that, after conducting the inquiry as well as they were able, they laid the details before the House, not to prove a case of delinquency against the soldiers, but to lay the ground for an ulterior and more solemn inquiry. All they had done was, to show a prima facie case, that the military power had attempted to act in opposition to the civil power; that the latter had been ill treated by the
824
military, and prevented from doing its duty on a particular occasion. The worthy alderman opposite had laid down for them a piece of law, which would be extremely convenient for future rioters, for he had told them, that as the two sheriffs of London only constituted one for Middlesex, neither could act alone as sheriff out of the precincts of London. See the consequence of such a doctrine, and how successfully it might be used for the purposes of rioters! Suppose (as indeed was, the case here) that a riot occurred while one of the sheriff's was at Brighton, or that one of them was at a turtle feast, or confined to his bed by indisposition, what then was to he done in the event of a riot? Was the other sheriff to repair to the spot? No; according to the hon. alderman's law, there would be no use in his going, he being but half a sheriff. But it was idle to dwell on that proposition; indeed, it had been properly answered by the right hon. secretary, who admitted the proper motive which had dictated the attendance of the worthy sheriff on the occasion alluded to. The statement made by Mr. Sheriff Waithman to lord Bathurst, on the, morning after the occurrence loudly called for inquiry. In the letter transmitting that statement, Mr. Sheriff Waithman drew a general picture of what had happened; he stated the facts according to his own observation of their occurrence; he sought inquiry, he offered, his assistance in that inquiry; be requested to be present at such investigation as lord Bathurst should institute. His assistance or attendance was never, however, required, and the answer he received from the noble secretary of state was certainly not very encouraging. The allegations of the worthy sheriff were, as far as the House knew, perfectly uncontradicted. The right hon. gentleman had commented upon the statement of the worthy sheriff, respecting the throwing of a brickbat. But after all, to what did that amount? The expressions of the worthy sheriff were, "A brickbat was thrown from the barracks, it fell near my horse, and struck as I was informed, a young girl." Now, in this statement there were three points, two of which must be best known to the worthy sheriff himself, namely, the direction from which he saw the brickbat thrown, and its falling near his horse; as to its having struck a young girl, that, he says, he was only informed of. The last part might be erroneous, and the two

825
former be still untouched. But it was said that the person struck was not a child, but a widow woman, Mrs. Dalton; and that she was struck, not while going with the funeral, but on her return. Now he could not find this in the evidence: her statement was this:—"Were you at the barracks before the funeral went by? I was, I went by with it.—Did any thing happen at that time? Not as the funeral was going on; nothing that I could observe; but a soldier shook his fist up at a window, and one of the men halloed out some outrageous word, such as 'You 'coward, stay there,' or something of that kind. There was a gentleman that requested silence on horseback, I was a good way from the gentleman at the time.—You received a blow? Yes, I did. I was cut between the two shoulders."— There was not a word here about the time when this happened. The fact of her stating that she went by the barracks at the time of the funeral did not necessarily imply that she had afterwards gone on the whole way with it, and then encountered the injury, long afterwards, when she returned. She might have turned round immediately on coming opposite the barracks. Mr. Sheriff Waithman said, at the time, he heard that the brickbat had struck a girl. Well, what was the fact? It struck a woman. Mrs. Dalton stated that fact, and yet, because she was a widow woman, instead of a young girl, although it was admitted that the military power had obstructed the civil, upon such a contradiction as that, there was, it seemed, to be no inquiry into so flagrant an occurrence. He must contend that the worthy sheriff's statement, instead of being contradicted, was in all its material parts, confirmed by the other evidence.—Besides Mrs. Dalton, there was the testimony of Mr. Charles Coote, which he would read to the klouse.—"Did you see a brick thrown in amongst the multitude on that day? I saw a brick thrown from behind the barrack wall on that day.—About what time? About half past 2 o'clock, as nearly as I can guess.—Was the procession going by? Just the head of the procession; it went in amongst some females close against the lamp-post, on the causeway; the brick was picked up, and Mr. Sheriff Waithman appeared to be coming away, and it was shown to Mr. Sheriff Waithman and the people.—Did you see it shown? I saw the people have it in their hands; they
826
showed it to him.—Did it hurt any body? I cannot say whether it hurt any body by falling, there was such a quantity of people by at the time; but I heard afterwards that it did hurt a person."—After reading this evidence how could the right hon. secretary declare there had been no case made out to justify this motion? It was, he thought, in possible to look at the evidence without seeing that a material case was made out to call for inquiry. In endeavouring to maintain the contrary, the right hon. gentleman had overlooked the most important parts of the evidence: he had, indeed, admitted that the worthy sheriff's conduct appeared to have been most conciliatory; he had admitted that he could have had no other object in attending than to preserve the public peace. With regard to the general character of the evidence, (he Mr. D.) would declare, I that the testimony of the constables was in the highest degree creditable to them; they all spoke and (such was the character of the evidence generally) with that circumspection which became men anxious to speak the truth. He must complain of the selection of page 33 as characteristic of the whole evidence: it was not a. fair sample of the witness's statement; and to quote it, as it had been quoted, was merely to take one part of what had been deposed, when it could be made to suit a particular object, and overlook the general character and substance of the examination.—In reference to what had been said of the worthy sheriff's conduct before the coroner, he could not see how it applied to the present case. At the funeral Mr. Sheriff Waithman was acting, in the discharge of his duty as a conservator of the public peace, and was entitled to the support of the law while so acting. That he had great influence with the people, on this particular occasion, was quite clear; and it was equally manifest that he had exercised it in the most laudable manner, and with the most salutary effect. It was said, that though much tumult prevailed, the sheriff had taken no rioter into custody. Was it easy, in such a multitude, and in the confusion prevailing at the time, to have marked out any particular individual? And, unless he could have been so marked out, where was the use of making the arrest? Then, it was added, "but there has been no prosecution of any of the soldiery; why not have commenced proceedings against some of them, if their conduct was such as had

827
been described?" Upon that allusion, he should only say, that, after what they saw of the treatment of witnesses before the coroner, who went to the barracks to identify the soldiers, it would have been difficult indeed to have induced individuals to have exposed themselves to such treatment. It was no great impeachment of the validity of the evidence, that persons were not pressing forward to undertake the identity of the soldiers. But why did not lord Bathurst undertake such a prosecution? Why did he not order the prosecution of the rioters who were represented as having broken open the barrack-gates? One individual only had been brought to trial at the sessions, and he was acquitted. It should, however, be recollected, that the period to which the case of the latter referred was subsequent to the attack upon the sheriff, who had left the spot before the hour when the last act of violence was said to have been committed. What really was the case which the House was called upon to consider? Here was a sheriff going on a public occasion for the purpose of preserving the peace, as he was bound to do by law, and in the heat of the moment, and while employed in the discharge of his duty, by his moderation and firmness, restraining soldiers and officers from doing that, in the ferment of supposed provocation, which when done, under whatever circumstances, must afterwards give the greatest pain to men of honourable and gallant minds. For acting so, the worthy sheriff has been exposed to wanton attack, and denied inquiry. What a singular contrast did the conduct of his majesty's ministers present on recent occasions affecting the safety of the people? Here was the case of Mr. Waithman, and the uncourteous disregard of his complaint by lord Bathurst. There was the treatment of his hon. and gallant friend, sir Robert Wilson, who had, on the day of her majesty's funeral, by his humanity and presence of mind, saved a great deal of wanton bloodshed. There was the dismissal of sir Robert Baker, for most judiciously, most humanely, and most lawfully, as a magistrate acting upon his responsibility, not heading a public procession as an undertaker, but attending in his official capacity to see that the public peace was duly preserved, sir Robert Baker on that occasion saved the lives of the king's subjects, by taking the route which he ordered on that melancholy day, yet for it his majesty's ministers had put
828
him also upon their proscribed list. Compare the treatment of these meritorious public officers with that observed towards the Manchester magistrates, and done, too, without inquiry, without reference, without explanation. Thanks were given and rewards extended to those who slaughtered the people in their own vicinage, as if they were enemies of their country, and opponents who entered it from a foreign land. The magistrates who were said to have directed that unhappy slaughter were favoured, and those by whose interference slaughter was prevented, who interposed, not to bring the military into conflict with the people, but to prevent such an unhappy confusion, were to be put down, in the first instance without inquiry, and to be afterwards met with a flat refusal to inquire in every step which they took to establish their own vindication. And this was to be done to maintain the integrity of the magistrates, and the reputation of the military! He had heard, with great pain, what had been said respecting the evidence taken before the coroner whose duty it was to conduct the painful investigation. Something had been said of the reports of that evidence, and upon that point he should only say, that if the reports of some of their own committees were given to the public with the same inveterate accuracy, he feared, they would not, perhaps be found to cut a better figure. But let it not be said, that the proceedings of the coroner were founded upon perjured evidence, because a noble lord had said the persons were ready to give evidence, that lie, though 200 miles distant at the time, was on the spot when the firing took place. It was most unfortunate that the sheriff, when so acting as Mr. Waithman had done, should be rebuked as he had been, and his statement rejected without inquiry, and that when magistrates acted violently against the people they should be honoured, and their reports confided in without inquiry. That was not the conduct which became his majesty's ministers. It was due to the feelings of the people and to the integrity of the constitution to protect the civil power in the exercise of its proper jurisdiction; it was more particularly due to them, for the purpose of showing that ministers were ready to perform a duty, which lately they had not evinced any striking anxiety to perform for the country.
Mr. Peelexplained. The hon. and

829
learned gentleman had stated, that he admitted the conciliatory conduct of Mr. Waldman. Now, what he had said was, that upon the evidence which Mr. Waithman had brought forward, it did appear that his conduct was conciliatory. He expressed no opinion of his own.
Mr. Denmanunderstood that the right hon. gentleman had founded all his opinions upon the evidence.
Mr. Peel.All my arguments, not my opinions.
Mr. G. Bankessaid, that he differed entirely with the hon. and learned gentleman, who had declared that the conduct of Mr. Sheriff Waithman before the coroner had nothing to do with the present case. Now, he thought quite the reverse, and that nothing could be more proper than to look at the sheriff's conduct upon the inquest, which was certainly most improper, if not illegal. Was it proper that the same person, who had just before been acting the part of a public prosecutor of the life guards, should voluntarily tender his interposition to the same life guards, as a mediator to keep the peace between them and their aggressors? He would not go so far as to say with the hon. alderman, that one of the sheriffs of London was only half of the sheriff of Middlesex, but he would say, that Mr. Sheriff Waithman was exactly the half that should not have been at Knightsbridge on this particular occasion. The hon. gentleman then, with reference to Mr. Waithman's conduct at the inquest, quoted Blackstone's observation, that it had been determined by the great charter, that the sheriff should not hold pleas of the Crown, for it was he who summoned the jury, and who had to execute the law. If the law, then, prevented such an officer, on account of his functions, from being a judge, a fortiori, it must be improper for him to appear as a public prosecutor, and in the court of his own deputy; for the coroner, in one sense, might be so considered, as he took his oaths before the sheriff. The honourable member then quoted Mr. Waithman's admission, that he appeared at the inquest on the part of the relatives of the deceased, and to conduct the prosecution, and expressed his disapprobation at the comments made upon the testimony of some of the witnesses by the sheriff, when attending the inquest. He had lately looked back to the files of "The Times" newspaper upon this subject, and he there
830
found that the sheriff had, in several instances, given flat contradictions to the coroner. Upon one occasion the sheriff said, "The witness does not say so. "The coroner put the question a second time, and the answer fully justified his original conception of it. Mr. Waithman then said "This witness is swearing to a negative;" upon which a juror turned round and said—"You surely do not mean to impugn the evidence of the witness." For the reasons which he had stated, he felt compelled to differ from the hon. members near him, and he was the more induced to do so from a reflection, that only twelve days before that funeral, a gross scene of riot and disturbance had taken place; the streets had been torn up, and the funeral of the late queen obstructed; and yet this same sheriff, the conservator of the public peace, though present in the procession, never interfered to restore tranquillity. Then, indeed, the sheriff not only might, but ought to have raised the posse comitatus. If the sheriff had mustered his officers to remove the obstacles which had been thrown in the way of the funeral on that day, he might have preserved the tranquillity of that metropolis which, as sheriff, he was bound to watch over. He was sure that if sheriff Waithman had consulted any other man in the kingdom, he would have been told that he was the last person who ought to make his appearance at the funeral on the 26th August. The hon. member, alluding to what took place at the coroner's inquest, expressed a hope that he should never again see the proceedings of such a tribunal published day by day, or at all given to the public until a verdict was returned. In other courts, a discretionary power was exercised to prevent premature publication; and he saw no reason why that power should not be exercised in this instance also. In fact, such publications were nothing more than ex parte statements, which were calculated to prejudice the public mind, and produce much evil without doing any good. He could not, viewing the entire transaction, but look on the conduct of Mr. Sheriff Waithman with feelings of horror and disgust. [Cheers.]
Mr. Bennetrose, he said, principally with a view to defend the conduct of his hon. friend, Mr. Sheriff Waithman, from the aspersions so unjustly cast upon it by the hon. gentleman who had just sat

831
down. The hon. gentleman had been pleased to say, that he viewed the conduct of Mr. Sheriff Waithman with feelings of horror and disgust; and that censure, so unqualified, appeared to have been approved of by several gentlemen on the other side of the House. He would refer the hon. gentleman to the conduct of the right hon. secretary, who with good taste, and with still better feeling, did not express, either by word, by manner, or by gesture, any thing derogatory to the character or injurious to the feelings of Mr. Sheriff Waithman. The hon. gentleman had said, that Mr. Waithman, by attending the funeral of her majesty, had disqualified himself from attending the funeral of Honey. Now he (Mr. Bennet) had no hesitation to say, that he performed his duty to the country in attending the funeral procession of Honey and Francis. He would let the House judge of his conduct by its fruits. Did not the interference of the sheriff, his activity, his courage, and his discretion, preserve the peace of that day, and prevent the effusion of blood. He would appeal for the truth of the observation to the account of every impartial person—to any account. He would even take the testimony which had been furnished to the home department; because he was convinced that every account, if fairly examined, would show that he had taken every pains to preserve the public peace, and that his exertions had been eminently successful. To him the country was indebted for the peace of that day—to him was justly due the praise of having prevented a tumult, the consequences of which might have been calamitous. He would now ask the House, what was the situation in which the government stood with reference to that transaction? To them it must have been clear that the public peace was endangered; that, considering the irritated state of the people, and the resentment of the soldiery, a collision, hostile and bloody, was likely to take place. He did not say that it was in the power of government to control the passions of the people or of the soldiery; but could they not have prevented the irritated parties from meeting? Could they not have marched the troops out of town for that day [a laugh from the ministerial side?] He was not surprised that those who wished to govern by the sword, should ridicule the observation he had just made. Those who would
832
govern by force, and not by moderation —who would intimidate, instead of conciliating the people—might look upon the observation he had made as unworthy of attention; but he was sure that, in other and better times, the course which he had pointed out would have been adopted. But the course of proceeding was now different. Government seemed regardless of public opinion, and were satisfied to carry their measures by force alone. He would now make one or two observations on what had fallen from the right hon. secretary. That gentleman had attempted to throw a slur over the evidence; and had read some passages as if to show that. the soldiers, who were armed, were provoked by the people, who were all unarmed. Without adverting to the objections which had been taken to the passages in question, he would say, that, looking at the whole of this evidence, the statement of Mr. Sheriff Waithman, as contained in his letter to the secretary of state, was borne out in every particular. Among the witnesses he observed one name, which must be familiar to the recollection of many members in that House—he meant Mr. John Tyas, a gentleman who was a reporter to the newspaper called "The Times." He must here beg leave to observe, that the evidence of a reporter was, in all cases of public interest, of the utmost importance; it was so, upon all principles of evidence. Because it was evident, as to reporters, that correct information it was peculiarly their business to be possessed of—it was their stock in trade. They were accustomed, by habit and experience, to watch narrowly, to report faithfully, and to describe correctly. Mr. Tyas, if he recollected rightly, was the same individual who gave that very exact and faithful account of the Manchester meeting (am account that never had been shaken), and whose conduct, on that memorable occasion, was one of the most remarkable instances of presence of mind, of correct deportment, and of acute observation, that ever was put upon record. This gentleman, in one part of his evidence, made this important statement:—"I saw a soldier at the gate strike his cartridge-box, take out a cartridge, bite it, prime his piece, put something into the piece,. and I saw his arm raised, from which I conceived he was ramming it down; but; somebody intervened, and I cannot say whether he rammed it down." And there

833
he went on to say "I have not the least doubt in my own mind, that the piece was primed and loaded: at the very time that these men were rushing at Mr. Waithman, in the middle of the street, I saw this man, with a carbine on his shoulder, and moving it about as if to get an aim at Mr. Waithman, and I conceive (this is only matter of opinion,) but my opinion was, that if he could have fired at Mr. Waithman without hitting one of his comrades, he would have fired." Now, he did not mean to say that this was decisive evidence. It was not sworn to even; and this person himself was not cross-examined. But hon. gentlemen were not sitting there in judgment; the prayer was only for inquiry. Yet he would observe that this evidence was such, that even in a court of justice, where a party might be tried for his life, it would be very difficult to get over it. This evidence was corroborated, also, by that of very many other witnesses; and as to the carbine, he could not help thinking that the statement contained in Mr. Waithman's letter was amply borne out by the mass of testimony which he held in his hand. If so, surely there could not be a more fit subject for inquiry. He did think that the house must agree to listen to such grave complaints, made on behalf of no less a person than the high sheriff of Middlesex. But if it would not, it was at least not proper for gentlemen to sit there, and cheer every sentence that was made in defence of the soldiery, whatever it might be. If they should reject the consideration of this case altogether, they would soon arrive at results far different from those establishments of liberty and law which their ancestors had bequeathed to them. He did not mean to contend, upon the whole of this evidence, that this or that particular charge was true; but he contended, that where such allegations were brought forward, it was not becoming the House to close it? doors upon the complainants. They must bear in mind that the body so complaining was no less a one than the lord mayor, sheriffs, and common council of the City of London. The letter of the worthy sheriff was amply borne out by the evidence of others. He had observed before, that every thing was cheered which happened to be said in favour of the soldiers. God knows, no person was ever more disposed to applaud the conduct of the excellent corps which had been mentioned in the course of the
834
evening, than he was! In earlier periods of his life, and on the occasion of similar differences between them and the people, he had had opportunities of witnessing the excellent manner in which they discharged their difficult duties, and of admiring their moderation and forbearance. If the present motion had no other object but the mere setting right of the characters and demeanour of the soldiery who were assembled on this occasion, he would give it his support; but seeing that its object was of a much higher nature, and connected with an inquiry into circumstances under which the person and character of the high 5heriff had been attacked, he could adopt no other course than to support by his vote the proposition which had been made.
Mr. W. Lambsaid, that he could not support the motion, because, when he saw the limited means of investigation which the House possessed, he was always exceedingly reluctant to go into parliamentary inquiry. The hon. member for Westminster had said, that the House was always ready to go into the inquiries proposed by ministers, but to reject such as were suggested from the other side. Now, it was unfair that such a statement should be made without acknowledging the fact, that the inquiries proposed by the government were generally of an entirely different nature from those which were recommended from other quarters, and more suited to the means of investigation which the House possessed. It had lately been a practice to deprecate any assertion that there were evil-minded persons in the country who aimed to disturb its peace. On the first day of the session, the hon. member who so ably seconded the address, was rebuked for making some observations of that nature. Now, he would ask, what were the motives of the persons who got up the funeral of the men which led to the disturbances at Knightsbridge, and who paid the expenses and took the management of the procession? What possible motive could they have had, but that of adding to the excitation of the people, and taking advantage of the acts which they night thereby induce them to commit. There was one word which he was sorry to hear very often abused in that House. Upon the present occasion the hon. member for Westminster and the learned member for Nottingham had spoken of he persons engaged in these proceedings

835
as "the people." They said that if the enquiry were not gone into, there would be no regard paid to the people, and that the people would not have justice. Now, he (Mr. Lamb) stood up there to interpose in behalf of the people, against this implication. It was not the people of England who had committed the outrages upon the occasion in question. From his own personal observation, he was enabled c to state, that amongst the crowd who at tended the procession, the greatest number of those present were duly impressed with the solemnity of the scene, and appeared to be peaceful and respectable t persons. But at the same time he saw that there were attendant upon the crowd t many whose object, either from want, or profligacy of character, was that of creating disorder and riot for their own advantage. These were the persons who did create the outrage which ensued; and it was not therefore justifiable in any member to describe that outrage as the act of the people, and to throw over it that shield of protection which the name of "the people" afforded. Unless breaches I of the law in the metropolis were discountenanced firmly and steadily in that House—and if they were to be attributed to the people, and that protection afforded to them which the name of "the people" carried with it, they would sooner or later find that the consequence would be violence and bloodshed, either from the success of the turbulent, or the resistance necessary to be opposed to them by the military.—[Loud cheering.]
Mr. Hobhouseexplained. He considered that, through the lord mayor and common councilmen of London the people were the petitioners; and that, in the person of their high sheriff, the people had been insulted.
Mr. Butterworththought it was not until they were obliged to protect their own lives, that the soldiers had interfered; and that Mr. Waithman, as sheriff of the county, had acted in a manner highly criminal in not interposing his authority at Cumberland-gate on the day of the queen's funeral. On the occasion of the queen's funeral, Mr. Waithman's brother sheriff wrote to him, to ask whether it was his intention to attend it on the day appointed. Mr. Waithman returned no definitive answer to Mr. Sheriff Williams, until a period so immediately preceding the, funeral, that he knew his letter could not reach the sheriff
836
time. It was to this effect:—"Although shall not attend her majesty's funeral in my corporate capacity, I mean to attend sheriff of the county, and to be at Hyde Park-corner at half-past seven o'clock in the morning." As Mr. Waithman must have known and anticipated, this letter reached Mr. Williams too late, and he did not go. The hon. gentleman included with a solemn appeal to the louse, to reject the proposition submitted to it. He thought his majesty's government fully justified in prohibiting re queen's funeral from passing through the city, after the corporation had disgraced themselves by attending a public thanksgiving in St. Paul's, upon such an occasion as that for which they had gone to it.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. member for Dover protested against inquiry, and yet commenced his speech by a general attack upon almost every body concerned in this transaction, in the spirit (perhaps the House would be told) of Christian charity. But his appealing in the solemn manner he had just done, was an insult to religion. The sacred cause of religion vas profaned by men, who with that word in their mouths, had any thing but religion in their hearts. He rose to express his abhorrence of such conduct. With regard to the panegyrics which the hon. gentleman had lavished on the soldiers, it was the opinion of those who had witnessed the transactions of the day, that what took place at Knightsbridge was not to be connected with any thing that had occurred at Hammersmith. The time would shortly come, when the occurrences at Cumberland-gate must be made matter of discussion. But it was most unfair to mix up two transactions in the way the hon. gentleman had done; one of them had nothing to do with the other, and it was, on the hon. gentleman's part, only an attempt to throw dirt into the eyes of the House. As to the letter which the hon. gentleman had read, whether it was or was not a true letter, of this he could assure the House, that the worthy alderman did, in fact, attend the queen's funeral, but only as a private man. He appealed to the House whether, if a great corporation came forward to lay their complaints before parliament, it was not just and expedient that inquiry should take place. The appeal which had been made by the hon. member for Dover possessed any thing but justice in its principle.
Mr. Alderman Woodrose to reply. He was not a little surprised to find the hon. baronet make so unqualified an attack upon the corporation of London; nor was he less surprised to find his majesty's ministers treat the corporation with so much disregard. It was not long since those ministers had dined with the corporation; and on one occasion a gallant general had been entertained by them at an expense of not less than 25,000 l. [a laugh.] The worthy alderman quoted Dalton, 662, to shew that the sheriff as well as the coroner, might inquire into murders. He remarked, that the hon. member for Dover had adverted solely to the day of the Queen's funeral, which had nothing to do with the occurrences at Knightsbridge. As to the allegation, that the sheriff had neglected his duty on the day of the queen's funeral, that officer attended there solely as a private individual, and had no power whatever, as the force in attendance was under the command of a military officer.
The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 184.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.

Leonard, T. B.

Brougham, H.

Martin, J.

Benyon, B.

Maberly, J.

Barrett, S. M.

Ossulston, lord

Bernal, R.

Ord, W.

Beaumont, T. P.

Osborne, lord F.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Phillips, G.

Concannon, L.

Phillips, G. R.

Curtis, sir W

Pares, T.

Chaloner, R.

Price, R.

Carter, J.

Robinson, sir G.

Denman, T.

Ricardo, D.

Davies, T. H.

Smith, J.

Duncannon, visc.

Smith, W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Smith, C.

Ebrington, visc

Sefton, lord

Folkestone, visc.

Scott, J.

Guise, sir W.

Scudamore, R.

Graham, S.

Thompson, W.

Hamilton, lord A.

Tennyson, C.

Hume, J.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wilson, sir R.

Honeywood, W. P.

Whitbread, W. H.

Howard, hon. W.

Wyvill, M.

James, W.

Williams, W.

Lambton, J. G.

Williams, T. P.

Leycester, R.

Webbe, E.

Lushington, S.

TELLERS.

Lemon, sir W.

Bennet, hon. G.

Lloyd, sir E.

Wood, ald.

SALT TAX.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that after the discussion which had so long
838
occupied the House, it was his duty to bring before the House a question of dull detail, but of great importance, the repeal of the duties on salt. He had long considered the question, and had it much at heart; and if it took the turn which he hoped, it would be most beneficial to a very large part of the community. It might be recollected that in 1817, when he had moved the question for the first time, he went so far as to press on the consideration of the House, the propriety of appointing a committee to consider the effect of the salt tax. That motion he had lost by a small majority of 9. In 1818, he renewed his motion, and a committee was granted, and that committee came to a resolution, "that the repeal of the salt duties would be productive of the greatest and most important advantages to all descriptions of persons in this kingdom; and that the present state of the income and expenditure of the united kingdom alone prevents your committee from instructing their chairman to move for leave to bring in a bill for such total repeal." On the 1st of June 1818, this and other resolutions were reported to the House; and it became him now to account for the course he had thought advisable to pursue, in abstaining from 1818 to 1822 to move the repeal of those duties, on which that committee had so strongly expressed its opinion. It had been pressed exceedingly upon him to do so, in 1819, but he had not thought that the income and expenditure of the kingdom could warrant him in moving for the repeal of the duties. The same reason had influenced him in 1820 and 1821, and it was not till the present year that he had thought it advisable so far to relax taxation, that be could earnestly press on the House the reduction of this impost. He would explain bow he now intended to set about it. He should conclude with a motion for the gradual reduction of the duties on salt; he begged the House to remark that he sought only a gradual reduction. As the House had been pleased to sanction a sinking fund, a vote in which he fully concurred, he was bound not to propose any measure that could materially interfere with that project. He had therefore refrained from proposing the sweeping away of this duty at once; and if his suggestion were adopted, it would be an annual reduction of this duty: it was now 15 s. per bushel, and his proposition was, that it should be abo-

839
lished at the rate of 5s. a year, until the whole was extinct. He trusted that his measure would be thought as mild, as reasonable, and as gradual as any of those who agreed with him in the obnoxiousness and weight of this tax could expect. He would now state a few particulars relating to the tax itself. Like many others, it began at first in the reign of William and Mary, only as a temporary impost of three halfpence per gallon. Five years afterwards it was doubled; and in the reign of George the 2nd, it was made perpetual at the rate of 8d. per gallon, or 5s. per bushel. It was not until the 38th of the late king that the duty was raised to 10 s. per bushel; and in the 15th of his reign it reached its present amount of 15 s. per bushel. The House would observe that this 15 s. per bushel was upon a raw material, the produce of the country, which mixed itself up with all the necessaries of life, and which was consumed alike by the poorest and by the richest. It fell with an unequal and oppressive weight upon the poor man, and was, in fact, nothing less than a poll-tax, operating in a manner the most unjust and arbitrary. The day labourer used as much of this raw material as he (Mr. C.) consumed, or any other individual in ten times his circumstances. Could that be a correct or fair principle of taxation under which the mechanic, the labourer, and the artisan paid as highly as the more wealthy classes of the community? Could it be justified by any thing but the direst necessity? It had been calculated that this tax alone cost the labourer from 20 s. to 25 s. per annum; and when the House considered the price of labour, especially of agricultural labour, it would see at once what an immense proportion of the income of these poor men was consumed by this oppressive duty. This raw material was bestowed upon us by Providence, like air or water; and yet where it had existed in the greatest plenty, the ingenuity of man had rendered it the greatest curse. It gave rise to innumerable crimes: breaches of the law, and conduct grossly immoral were encouraged, by the temptation it held out to the inhabitants of the district where the raw material was produced. Mr. Justice Burton (who for 28 years was chief justice of Chester), sir J. Stanley, chairman of the quarter sessions, and various other witnesses equally respectable, had given undeniable testimony upon this point, clearly de-
840
monstrating that the salt duty was a most fruitful source of crime and vice in Cheshire. This duty, from its nature, affected the labourer and the inferior tradesman in all articles of consumption: a man who only purchased 100 l. worth of the raw material, was obliged immediately to advance to government 3,000 l., or thirty-fold for the tax upon it. Yet this article was the produce of our own soil. To the duty was to be added, the accumulation of profit for each individual through whose hands the salt passed: so that a man who bought six pennyworth of salt, paid 36 or 37 times the price of the raw material, without which neither he nor his family could subsist. It was said, however, that all this weight was thrown upon the employer of the labourer —that it went to advance the wages of labour. True; but was there any thing more desirable in a community like this, than to keep down reasonably the price of labour? What would become of our manufactures at this moment, if the price of labour were not kept down? It was kept down indeed at the expense of the farmer, who could not now throw the taxes upon the consumer. The manufactures were kept in their present state —a state rather flourishing than otherwise —by what? Because the manufacturers ate the bread produced by the farmer without paying the tax upon it [hear.] Such was the real cause of the great depression in agriculture. Did he wish, therefore, that the manufacturers should be supplied with dear bread, or dear provisions? By no means; but he wished for a reasonable reduction of taxation, that the farmer might be able to furnish bread at alow price without loss; that commerce and manufactures might flourish, and the farmer flourish also. The duty on salt affected trade in many of its branches: it affected our fisheries in a most extraordinary degree; it affected agriculture itself to a very burthensome extent. So long as the tax existed, neither the fisheries, nor agriculture, nor trade, could derive those great advantages from the raw material that might, he was confident, be obtained if it were wholly removed. It might be asked, then, why he did not move for its total and immediate repeal? In reply he would say, that the resolution of the House on a former night, in favour of the sinking fund, was in opposition to it; besides, he knew that many large capitals were engaged in the salt trade: and if a

841
total and immediate repeal were effected, property to an enormous amount would be endangered, if not destroyed. One of the great evils attending this tax was, that it drove the salt trade into a monopoly. There were individuals in that trade who paid from 100,000 l. to 200,000 l. a year in duty. Therefore, when such a capital was invested, locked up, and shackled in the trade, he would not rashly attempt to cause the tax to be repealed, by bringing in a bill for that purpose in the present session. The house would perceive that he did not mean to proceed violently with this measure. It was his wish, however, that the public should ultimately be relieved from the burthen of this tax, convinced as he was, that the individual and the state would derive great benefit from its repeal. He felt that there was no necessity to go into further details with respect to the hardship and inconvenience produced by the tax on salt. When it was stated, that no man ate his salt at a less rate than 36 or 37 times the cost price, the inconvenience and hardship were sufficiently established; and those who meant to oppose his motion ought to show that the consumer was not affected to the extent he had described. If his object were achieved, then the revenue would, this year, be reduced to the extent of 500,000 l. Now, the House had voted a sinking fund of 5,000,000 l., over which there was an estimated surplus of 200,000 l. Admitting, therefore, that nothing further was done for the reduction of the expenclhure—supposing that economy was pursued no further, and that the revenue did not continue to improve, he was sanguine in his belief that it would progressively increase—if one third of the salt-tax was given up, it would only reduce the sinking fund to 4,700,000 l. Could any man be sincere in supposing that the difference between a sinking fund of 4,700,000 l, and of 5,000,000 l. would entail the slightest inconvenience on the public creditor, or make any material variation with respect to the liquidation of the public debt? He had intended to go at length into the subject, but he conceived that he had made out a case sufficiently strong. He had brought this question forward hastily. His notice had been a short one, but he felt it necessary to adhere to it; the reason was, because if the motion were to remain in suspense, great inconvenience must result to those connected with the trade, and the revenue would sustain a
842
considerable loss. He, on that account, thought it better to bring the subject forward at a short notice, than to postpone it. He held in his hand a letter from the drysalters of Birmingham, requesting that the motion should be put off. The drysalters, he ought to observe, were particularly interested in the repeal of this tax, because, by its operation, this country lost, almost entirely, the trade of salting beef and pork, its own produce. That trade, in consequence of the dearness of salt, was driven to other countries, where, either by smuggled salt, or by salt procured under low duties, the people were enabled to carry it on advantageously. He had been pressed hard by persons interested in this trade to postpone the motion, to give them an opportunity of communicating on the subject with other persons throughout the kingdom; and had he complied with these representations, petition upon petition would have been presented to the House, praying for a repeal of this tax. When he brought this question forward in 1817, the chancellor of the exchequer said, "Oh, you place too much reliance on the advantages which would accrue from a repeal of the tax. It was repealed in 1729, but as that appeal was not attended by any good effect, it was re-enacted in 1732." Now, he had looked into the life of sir Robert Walpole, and he found that the re-enactment did not take place in consequence of any disappointment as to the advantage which it was supposed its repeal would have produced. The fact was, that when sir Robert W. was commencing his excise scheme, he thought it was more easy to revive an old tax, and place it under the excise-law, than to introduce a new tax, for that purpose, in the then state of the opposition. He would quote in support of his view of this tax, a very high authority—he alluded to Mr. Burke, who, in a pamplet published by him in 1769, thought it worth while, when comparing the different situations of the people in this country and in France, to observe, that "amongst the number of advantages which the people enjoyed in this free and comparatively untaxed country, they could eat their salt at 2d. per lb., while those in France paid 5d. for it." Why did Mr. Burke make this remark? Because he knew that salt was an article of prime necessity; that it pervaded every article of life; that it entered into the composition of bread, butter,

843
cheese, bacon; that every member of the community was obliged to use it, and therefore he thought it a matter of boast that the people of this country were able to procure it at a cheap rate, as it was free from such an impost as the gabelle of France. But it now happened that the labouring people of England paid a much larger sum for that commodity than the people of France did under their arbitrary government, at the period when Mr. Burke made this comparison. It was, in his opinion, one of the articles which should, above all others, be kept untaxed if possible; but, if taxed at all, it should, be at the very lowest rate that circumstances permitted.—The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the gradual reduction of the Duties on Salt."
Mr. Davenportentirely agreed in every proposition which fell from the hon. mover, who had done himself great credit in bringing the question before the House so clearly and explicitly. He had ensured the respect of the country gentlemen, the thanks of the farmer, and the ardent blessings of the poor by his exertions. This tax was of so oppressive a nature, that it ought to be at least abated, if not altogether repealed. At the lowest calculation, it took from the poor man 4d. a week, or about 16 s. 8d. in the year; and those who had large families paid 25 s. or 30 s. per annum, a sum, which in some cases, was equal to half the rent. It was a tax, which must have been projected originally by some narrow-minded statesman. It was had in principle, and therefore unsound in policy. Such a tax should not be suffered to exist in a free and enlightened commercial country. The hon. mover might, if he had thought proper, point out a variety of manufactures on which the salt duty pressed heavily. The manufacture of iron, of china, of glass, and a hundred other articles, were affected by it. With respect to its operation on the morals of the people, he could state, from his own observation, in the county with which he was connected, that it operated most banefully. And could it be otherwise? When there was a tax of 3,000 l. per cent on an article necessary for the use of every man, did it not hold out an irresistible temptation to dishonesty? Individuals began by stealing small quantities of salt, and ended by committing crimes of greater magnitude. It was a tax most revolting, in every point
844
of view, and therefore be would vote for its gradual abolition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. gentleman who brought this subject before the House had certainly done so with much candor and temper. He was sorry, however, that he could not support his motion. It would give much satisfaction to ministers, if they could, consistently with the real interest of the country, agree to a greater remission of taxes; but, after what parliament had already done on this point, he certainly thought it necessary to withstand any farther reduction. The hon. member had spoken of the sinking fund in very candid terms, and had stated, that the subtraction of 300,000 l. from the sinking fund would not materially affect its operation. But he (the chancellor of the exchequer) was prepared to contend, looking to the amount of the funded and unfunded debt, that it was necessary to have a sinking fund of at least 5,000,000 l. The malt-tax in England had been remitted to the amount of 1,200,000 l., that of Ireland to the amount of 200,000 l., making a total of 1,400,000 l. They were enabled to make these reductions by the saving of 1,200,000 l. which would arise from the paying off the English five per cents—90,000 l. from the alteration in the Irish five per cents—and the surplus of the sinking fund, amounting to 200,000 l.— making a total of 1,190,000 l. The surplus of the sinking fund, as the hon. member must perceive, was already appropriated. This was all the reduction that could now be made. Even with an improvement in the revenue, ministers felt that they would not be justified in proposing, at present, any measure, in the way of reduction, beyond the lowering of the annual malt-tax. He was of opinion that, even if the hon. member were right in his enumeration of the benefits to be derived from the reduction of this tax, the present was not the time for conceding it. He did not conceive that he was called on to enter into a discussion as to the most proper tax to be repealed whenever it became proper to approach parliament with a proposition fir a more extended reduction. The choice of the taxes to be repealed must depend on the circumstances of the moment. Various arguments might be raised relative to the comparative justice and policy of repealing different taxes; and, therefore, he did not mean to enter into the question, whether

845
or not, in the event of a proposition being submitted to parliament by ministers, for further relief from taxation, the reduction or abolition of the salt duty would be the most proper for consideration. A gradual reduction of this tax appeared to I him to be extremely objectionable. The hon. gentleman expressed a very proper concern for the interest of the persons engaged in the salt-trade But, the moment the house agreed to a reduction of 500,000 l. a year, the trade would be as completely at a stand, and as closely con-tined to immediate consumption, from hand to mouth, he might say, as it could possibly be if the total amount were remitted. Rather than reduce the tax by degrees, he would, if circumstances permitted it, agree to its total repeal. The hon. mover had described this tax as operating in the manner of a poll-tax of 20 s. a head on the whole population of the country. The hon. member for Cheshire had made rather a lower calculation. But neither of those calculations could be correct; because if the tax fell on the people at the rate of 20 s. a head, it ought to produce 14,000,000 l. or 15,000,000 l. annually, instead of 1,500,000 l.; for the returns of the population showed that it amounted to between 14,000,000 l. and 15,000,000 of persons. It followed, therefore, from the actual produce of the tax, that, instead of 20 s. a head, it was, in reality, no more that about 2s. a head. This sum was expended, by fractions, from day to day, and therefore was the most convenient and least oppressive tax. The hon. gentleman had referred to the observations of Mr. Burke on the comparative situation of the people of England and France in 1769; but surely the hon. member must know, that the pressure of the salt duty on the people of France did not consist in the amount of the tax, but in the severe manner in which the gabelle was collected. In that country the trading for salt between one district and another was strictly prohibited; and the inhabitants were compelled to purchase at particular places, and under the most severe restrictions. The hon. gentleman had contended, that the re-enactment of the salt-tax in 1732 was not adopted in consequence of the advantages of its repeal not having answered the expectations of the country, but because sir R. Walpole wanted to introduce it as one of the precedents in his excise scheme. If that were the fact, why did he not place
846
it under the head of Excise? He had one no such thing; and it was not until 1796, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, that salt was placed under the superintendence of the Excise. In opposing he hon. gentleman's proposition, he stood poll the broad and general state of the case. Parliament had sanctioned, by its resolution, the establishment of a sinking fund; and be thought neither the consideration of the public honor, nor of he public interest could suffer them to depart from that resolution. Whatever might be done hereafter, they certainly were not now ripe for the reduction of other taxes. It was most material for he public benefit, that the system of the sinking fund, to which parliament had so lately pledged itself, should be strictly followed up; and, as the hon. gentleman's proposition, would, if carried, make an inroad on that system, he deemed it his duty to move the previous question.
Lord Normanbysaid, that on the immediate subject under discussion, he would not offer any remarks, as they were rendered superfluous by the able speeches of the hon. mover and seconder. With respect to the allusion that had been made to sir R. Walpole, he would make one observation. As far as his recollection served him, sir Robert moved the renewal of the salt-tax on grounds very different from those which had been stated. He moved for its renewal as a relief to the landed interest of the country, in lieu of a shilling a pound, which was taken from the land-tax duty. The land-tax weighed so heavily on the country gentlemen, that they began to neglect those ancient hospitalities which sir Robert thought it was necessary, for the honour of the national character, to keep up, and therefore he sanctioned this boon. But sir W. Wyndham, Mr. Pulteney, and all those who opposed the bill, argued that its operation would be severely felt by all classes. It was a question mooted when sir Robert was in the plenitude of his power, and he was backed by the whole landed interest of the country; and yet, in a house, consisting of 400 members, he carried his point by a majority of about 30. This proved how the measure was received at, that period. They had heard much, and too truly, of the increasing influence of the Crown in that House. The fact was sufficiently proved by the manner, in which obnoxious measures were carried,

847
and by the constant refusal to satisfy the wishes of the country. He supported the present motion, because he believed nothing could effectually relieve the distress of the country but the immediate reduction of taxation. With respect to the sinking fund, he hoped the House would revise the hasty resolution to which the chancellor of the exchequer had adverted. They had chosen to adhere to this nominis umbra of a sinking fund, which was not at all similar to the sinking fund projected by Mr. Pitt. If they meant to console themselves for the loss of the reality, by worshipping that magic name, they would be able to do very little towards alleviating the sufferings of the country. He thought the sinking fund, as it was called, ought to be applied to the amelioration of the prevailing distresses.
Mr. Leycesterdescribed the tax as a grievous burthen on the country at large. The relief granted to the agricultural interest by the reduction of the malt duty was, he contended, quite disproportionate to the distress under which it laboured. He was no friend to such temporary expedients; and be therefore called on the country gentlemen to demand such effectual measures as would rescue the land-owner, the yeoman, and the farmer, from impending ruin.
Sir I. Coffinsaid, it was not just that the poor man in this country should pay 18 s. a bushel for a necessary of life which the inhabitants of other countries could procure for 6s. To prove the ill effects which the high duty had on morals, he stated that some years ago he had exported 100 tons of salt from Liverpool, during the shipment of which the persons employed carried away considerable quantities of it concealed in their breeches. Salt was found all over the world for the use of man, and he ought not to be deprived of it by excessive taxation.
Dr. Phillimoreconcurred with the hon. mover in his general objections to the tax. The tax was objectionable in principle, because it pressed upon the lower orders of the community, and because it pressed upon the landlord, by reducing his rent, and increasing his general expenditure. In spite of the drawbacks, it also pressed most severely upon the fisheries. For these reasons, in all the discussions which had taken place on this subject, he had felt that nothing short of
848
necessity could justify the continuance of the tax. In 1818, the committee, of which he was a member, came to the unanimous resolution that it ought to be repealed; but they likewise came to the unanimous resolution, that the state of the income and expenditure of the country rendered it impossible to repeal it at that time. In 1819, many of the members of that committee re-considered the subject, and he (Dr. P.) proposed a resolution to that House, that a total repeal, or reduction of the tax, was desirable at the earliest practicable period. He regretted that the House rejected that proposition, because his object was, to lay the foundation of a repeal of the tax; and he thought that a repeal or reduction of this tax, was entitled to priority in preference to the malt-tax. The House was now called upon to consider whether the period was at length arrived in which the total repeal or the gradual abolition of the duty on salt was expedient. With regard to gradual abolition, he was certainly of opinion, that if the tax were to be repealed at all, it should be repealed altogether. He admitted that the whole machinery of the Excise, as applied to this tax, was most oppressive; but the question was, whether, under all the circumstances, it would be prudent to repeal it immediately? Now, as he was one of the members who had voted on a Cornier night that it was expedient to preserve the credit of the country by maintaining a sinking fund of 5,000,000 l. he did not see how he could come down to the House five or six nights afterwards, and vote for the repeal of a tax which would take away one-fourth of the sum which had been voted for the support of a sinking fund. However painful it was to him to arrive at such a conclusion, he felt that the House ought to abstain a little longer before they consented to repeal this tax; and he doubted not that the scheme proposed by the chancellor f the exchequer for paying off the five per cents would leave a disposable surplus next year, which could not be applied to I better purpose than to the repeal or reduction of this tax.
Mr. Curwensaid, the chancellor of the exchequer had misunderstood his hon. friend, who had said that 20 s. were paid, not by individuals, but by families, under this tax. It formed, therefore, a tax of one-24th of the labourer's wages, and only one-10,000th of the man with an

849
income of 1,000 l. a-year. Was it not in the power of ministers to repeal this tax without breaking in upon the surplus of 5,000,000 l. for the sinking fund? If country gentlemen would do justice to the country, and support his hon. friend, they would find that ministers would not break in upon the sinking fund, but would be compelled to retrench. Could any man doubt that there was yet sufficient room for retrenchment? As to the idea of excessive produce in agriculture, it should be recollected, that out of 25 years, previous to 1814, there were only two in which Great Britain produced enough for her own consumption. In 1814, the favourite argument was, that if we were not subdued by the sword, we might he by famine. Again, as to any reliance that was to be placed on the supposed flourishing state of the manufacturing interest, with what confidence could we look to that interest, when it was well known that the average wages of the manufacturer did not amount to more than 8s, a-week? It was notorious that one of the great causes of the distress of the agriculturist was, that the manufacturer was no longer in a condition to be a purchaser, and that he was compelled to resort to potatoes or other substitutes for bread. The only remedy for the present distress was, a reduction of taxation; for high prices, by producing importation, would only complete the ruin of the farmer. As to the reduction of 1s. a bushel on malt, it would not reduce the price of porter to the amount of a farthing in the pot, and would consequently give no relief to the farmer, who could only be benefited by a large increase of consumption. If ministers would consent to take off the salt-tax, instead of making this reduction on malt, it would operate as a relief to all classes of the community. It would relieve the labouring classes; it would relieve the agriculturist; and, by causing a double quantity of salt to be raised from the mines, it would call into activity an immense number of persons who were now out of employ. The repeal of this tax would be most beneficial also to the fisheries—that most lucrative of our commerce, with reference to which Dr. Franklin had said, that every fish taken out of the sea was a piece of money. The revenue derived from this source in Holland amounted to 10,000,000 l. whereas the fisheries in this island, had never yet produced 1,000,000 l.
Mr. J. Smithconcurred, that the tax on salt would be repealed with much greater benefit to the country than the tax on malt. While he agreed that every practicable reduction of taxation was most desirable, he felt also that the interests of the agriculturist, as well as the general interests of the country, were involved in the maintenance of the public credit. Having stated this opinion, he hoped he should not appear to be guilty of inconsistency, when he declared that be most earnestly desired to see this odious and mischievous tax abolished. The great nourishment of the poor was derived principally from salted provisions. Salt, cheese, and bacon, formed the chief sustenance both of the agricultural and manufacturing classes; and he contended, therefore, that the tax pressed more heavily upon the poor than upon the higher classes. He was aware that the opinions of the majorities in that House were, for the most part, opposed to the opinions of the people, and that ministers appeared to disregard and despise the general opinions and feelings of the people. He could not refrain from observing, however, that no measure could so effectually give popularity to the government, and restore to them the good-will of the people, as the total repeal of this odious tax.
Mr. Handleyopposed the motion. Notwithstanding the wild speculations which had been propagated, he could not think taxation the cause of, nor parliamentary reform the remedy for, the distress which existed. He was thoroughly convinced, that the distress was almost solely and exclusively to be ascribed to excessive production.
General Gascoyneobserved, that at the period when this tax was increased to its present amount, Mr. Pitt had said, that it was not intended to be permanent. It was now contended, that it was more desirable at present to repeal the malt-tax, than to afford any relief upon this. The chancellor of the exchequer took great credit to himself, for the repeal of the annual malt duty, and seemed to consider it as sufficient to satisfy the demands of the country. The tax on salt, however, appeared to him a fitter subject for reduction; and as the bill for the repeal of the malt duty was not yet introduced, be would recommend a substitution of the one for the other. He was much surprised at the speech of the learned civilian on the ministerial bench. On several

851
occasions, he had heard that learned gentleman condemn the tax, and support motions for its repeal, in less favourable circumstances for that repeal than the present. In 1818, the third year of peace, the learned gentleman had spoke against the tax; but whether there were fewer saline particles on the ministerial side or not, the learned gentleman now in the seventh year of peace, thought its repeal too early. Nothing could give such relief to the manufacturer, the agriculturist, and the great body of people, as the measure now recommended. The repeal of one shilling a bushel on malt, would not be felt by the consumer: it would go into the pockets of the brewer; and would not make a difference of a farthing in the pot of beer.
Sir F. Ommaneysaid, he would vote for the repeal of all taxes that peculiarly affected the poor. The ground on which the motion was resisted was, that it would diminish the surplus set apart for a sinking fund to support public credit. He did not see the matter in that light. Reductions might be made in the expenditure, to compensate for the repeal of the salt-tax.
Sir J. Sebrightwould not only vote for the repeal of the salt tax, but of other taxes. The repeal of taxes would not necessarily reduce the surplus for a sinking fund until all the means of economy in the public expenditure were exhausted. Retrenchment, admitting of a reduction of taxes, should immediately be adopted; for if ministers did not begin retrenchments now, they must come to them at last. The agriculture of the country was suffering from excessive taxation, and the whole community was interested in seeing that agriculture was not crushed. The public revenue could not be kept up at its present rate, it the landed interest declined. He had inquired much into the present state of the country, and it was his opinion, that the average land of England, under the pressure of existing taxes, would soon not only yield no rent, but not be left in cultivation. In this state of things, when the demand for diminished taxation was so general and well-founded, ministers seemed to think that the repeal of one shilling on the bushel of malt, was sufficient to satisfy it. He considered this trifling reduction as an insult, when mentioned under the title of relief. He had heard much of the distress of agriculture out of parliament,
852
and great talk of what the country gentlemen were to do, when parliament assembled. They had hitherto done nothing for their own relief, or that of the country. He now called upon them to come forward, if they did not wish to see their rents unpaid, their tenantry ruined, their lands uncultivated, and their labourers reduced to beggary and want.
Mr. Littletonthought the tax grievous and impolitic; but considering the resolution) which the House had lately adopted, to support public credit by a sinking fund of 5,000,000 l., and considering the present motion inconsistent with that resolution, he could not vote for its repeal at present.
Mr. Egertonthought the tax so unequal in its operations, and so oppressive to the lower orders, that he would vote for the motion.
Mr. Brightwas of opinion, that the only chance of immediate relief consisted in the diminution of the vast pressure of taxation. He agreed, that a sinking fund ought to be kept up, but thought the chancellor of the exchequer had overrated the amount that would be necessary. When he saw a sinking fund to a much smaller amount, sufficient to support the public credit to such a degree, as to enable the chancellor of the exchequer to make an unparalleled change in the five per cents without diminishing the confidence reposed in government, be could not help thinking that the increase was unnecessary. They might, he thought, strike out of the estimates many sinecures, many useless offices, many boards, and lords of the admiralty. He would call upon the gentlemen of England to perform this duty to the public; and, with respect to the repeal of taxes, there was none, that, in his opinion, would be likely to afford more general relief than that which formed the subject of consideration.
Mr. Alderman Heygateobserved, that it was the duty of the House to adhere to a consistent policy, and not lightly to change its resolutions. The proposition now made, called upon them, in the face of one of the greatest financial operations ever attempted, to pass a vote that might defeat or prevent its effect. Many future opportunities would present themselves of effecting retrenchment wherever it was practicable: but they ought not, whilst a great measure of finance was yet in progress, to cut off part of that income

853
which a few nights ago they had agreed to maintain. With regard to the general propriety of the repeal, he was satisfied that a further reduction of the duty on malt would be of more advantage to the community at large. The existing agricultural distress was partly the consequence of too suddenly narrowing the circulation, and partly arose from overproduction. He congratulated the House and the country, however, on the prospect of reduced taxation. A million and a half had been already surrendered, and a considerable improvement was moreover to be expected in the public income. A variety of other opportunities would occur for acting upon a system of economy, and they had the pledges of ministers that they would omit no occasion of limiting and restraining the public expenditure.
Mr. Gippssaid, he was not now actuated by any desire of popularity, but he conceived that the tax ought to be repealed, and that the deficiency might be easily supplied by reductions in the expenditure.
Sir C. Burrellthought, that, considering all the elements of the question, the repeal of the tax on salt would operate more relief to the agriculturists, and to the country generally, than the reduction of the duty on malt.
Mr. Benett,of Wilts, allowed, that the tax was generally oppressive. Could they not, then, endeavour to save as much out of the expenditure, as would enable them to abolish it at once? Gentlemen, while they admitted the hardships of the tax, had proposed delay in the repeal of it; but they would do well to remember the adage—"While the grass grows the steed starves." This tax pressed heavily upon all classes of the country; and, therefore, the country would be substantially relieved by its repeal, which would not be the case with the trifling reduction of one shilling a bushel upon malt.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he would not disguise, that he felt extreme anxiety for the arrival of that moment, when the state of public credit would permit ministers, or point it out to them as their duty, to remove a considerable part of the existing taxes. The hon. member for Nottingham had reminded them of the popularity they might acquire, by the affirmative of this question. He hoped he was duly sensible of the value of I popularity, but he should be unworthy of the situation which he held in his majesty's
854
councils, if be were capable of sacrificing to it a larger interest, and of yielding higher considerations to a temporary and delusive object. The hon. member had not been very consistent in concluding with such a recommendation, after a tirade on public credit; for it was a course of proceeding very ill calculated for the support and maintenance of public credit. The hon. member who brought the proposition forward, had placed it on a fair, candid, and parliamentary ground, contending that it did not go, either in letter or in spirit, to rescind the vote to which the House had lately acceded, but that the one was perfectly consistent with the other. The committee to which this subject had been referred, felt that the tax was open to many specious objections, and afforded scope for a variety of pathetic appeals; but they contented themselves with proposing certain modifications, and referred it to the House to consider when the finances of the country, and the excess of income over expenditure, would allow of its repeal. Now, was the suggestion of that repeal at present compatible with the late resolution of the House, as respected the sinking-fund? Was there not a great operation now in progress in the money-market? The hon. mover had brought forward his measure like a skilful parliamentary tactician; and, doubting the success of a project for totally abolishing this branch of the revenue, he had proposed to effect the measure by three successive gradations. But, unless they were prepared for an infraction of the system which was recognised but a few nights since, they would not lend their countenance to this progressive principle of reduction. Let them recollect, that if this motion was carried, there would be no barrier against other reductions. There was a powerful party, whose avowed object it was, to destroy the sinking fund; though by this means the credit of the country would be laid prostrate. Let not gentlemen suffer themselves to be entangled, or become the allies of the common enemy. If honourable members were not on their guard, the enemy would obtain a triumph, even whilst the House was decidedly against them. The repeaters of one night would boast that their scheme was drawn up with a view to the conservation of the sinking fund; and afterwards would come the hon. menthe for Nottingham, and press for the repeal of the leather tax, and for another slice, no less indeed than

855
600,000 l., from the sinking fund. Now, from the state of the money market, the saving effected by the reduction in the 5 per cents. would not exceed 1,200,000 l., and the whole of this, together with the extra 260,000 l. of the sinking fund, would be counterbalanced by the diminution of the malt duty. He hoped the House would beware, then, of the trap which was set for it; ministers, he would venture to say, had surpassed the expectations of the House? They had indisputably gone beyond the suggestions of the finance committee, nor was it to be supposed, that they had closed the account of reductions. It must be remembered, however, that as far as reduction had gone, there was pro tanto less field for it remaining. The proposition before them went to shake our financial system to its base. In the army no further reduction could at this moment take place. Honourable gentlemen opposite were willing to grant what additional troops might be requisite for the immediate exigency, and it seemed also to be admitted, that the Navy and Ordnance were at their lowest establishment. It was only in the civil branches of expenditure, that retrenchment was considered practicable: and what very extensive saving could be effected on the two millions composing the civil list? Let not gentlemen, then, proceed to shake that system which they had recognised, and inflict a fatal wound on public credit, for the sake of premature or speculative retrenchments. When the proper time arrived, ministers would not fail to evince the same disposition that actuated them now, and avail themselves of the first opportunity of cutting down useless expenditure. But he called on the House, to keep faith with the public, and not to recede from the pledges given in the midst of a financial operation, so nearly affecting the interests of the stockholder, and the future credit of the country. If our financial system was to be sacrificed, at least let it be pulled down openly and directly; but he conjured them not to trifle with their former vote, nor get rid of it by a course of proceeding so prejudicial to the character of parliament.
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, that his majesty's ministers were not, he feared, sufficiently apprized of the existing distress. For his own part, the speech from the throne had raised a suspicion in his mind, that it was not intended to grant that relief, without which he trembled fur the
856
consequences- Under this impression he had considered their proposed retrenchments as inadequate; for taxation, if not the primary, must be regarded as an auxiliary cause of the distress. He perceived with regret, that the landed interest was falling in that House. He did not know the causes which had led to this result; but it was powerfully impressed upon his mind, that the gentlemen who represented the landed interest in that House, had by some extraordinary means been induced to turn their backs upon themselves. He was afraid it was intended to sacrifice the country to the debt. God forbid that he should speak with disrespect of the monied interest, which might be called one of the great arms of the country; indeed, he believed that at the present moment it was in the aggregate greater than the land. He could not, however, help thinking that it was supported in a great measure at the sole expense of the land. In the view which he entertained of the present wants of the country, he could not rest satisfied with a reduction of the salt-tax merely; but, in the absence of a greater proposed relief, he would cling to that, as a drowning man would catch at a straw. He did not differ with ministers on the subject of their general policy; on the contrary, he looked up to them as men of great and splendid character. In their general line of policy they possessed his confidence, and he believed they also possessed the confidence of the people of England—he meant the legitimate people, for the hon. member for Hertfordshire had drawn a just distinction between the real and the false people, describing the former to consist of the manly yeomanry, and the latter to be composed of a certain unfortunate portion of the population which inhabited great manufacturing towns. But although he at present placed confidence in ministers for their general policy, he would tell them, that if they persisted in the resolution which they appeared to have adopted, of sacrificing the landed to the monied interest, he would soon withdraw it from them. He was convinced that ministers would dread to lose the confidence of the country. He knew them to be men of great talents and sound understanding, and that they would not wish to govern the country without carrying with them its confidence and support. He entreated them, therefore, for their own sakes, to reconsider the resolutions to

857
which they had come upon the subject of the distresses of the country. He was persuaded that the aggregate monied property of the kingdom did not bear its fair share of the burthens of the country. With respect to the question before the House, he wished that the repeal of the tax had not been proposed to be gradual, but total and immediate. He hoped, however, that the motion would be carried; for although the relief it proposed was small, yet it was something. Nobody ought to be surprised at the sentiments which he had felt it his duty to submit to the House. It was for him to reflect the opinions of those who sent him there. In the name of his constituents he represented their distresses, and called upon government to come forward with other measures to afford them relief than those they had proposed, which were totally inadequate for that purpose.
Mr. J. Marlinsaid, be should support the motion on the principle of economy, believing that it would not interfere with his firmer vote.
Sir E. Knatchbullfelt persuaded that the country gentlemen would discharge their duty, unawed by any intimidation or threats from one side of the House, and uninfluenced by any seductions of power or authority from the other. If, on a former night, he had given by his vote a distinct pledge to sustain, under all circumstances, a sinking fund to the precise amount of five millions, he most certainly would not vote for the repeal of the tax on salt; but, feeling that he made no such pledge—considering that his vote only went to the extent of viewing a sinking fund as a benefit, he should support the motion. He did not believe that the sinking fund would be endangered, if the House should resolve to repeal the tax upon salt; for ministers could effect further retrenchments to meet their diminished income.
Mr. T. Wilsonthought the principle of the motion good, but that the motion itself was far from wise at that moment.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that if any man had heard all the speeches of the members who had that night addressed the House, with the exception of the concluding sentence of some of them and the whole of the speech of the noble marquis, that auditor must have concluded, that there never was a more unanimous and harmonious assembly, or one in which there was less likely to be a difference in
858
the decision Indeed, not a word had fallen from any member, in which the reprehension of the principle of that odious tax had only been exceeded by the abhorrence which all pronounced at the machinery. Whether then, on the ground of the surplus for a sinking fund being considered sacred, or whether retrenchment, so loudly called for, was not to be carried into effect, be would still venture to predict, that if the House did its duty, that tax, which all agreed in reprobating, would be repealed. But if the House itself did not force it—if it waited until the noble marquis had discovered a practicable mode of retrenchment—then he would predict, that the House would neither see any system of retrenchment, nor again hear of the repeal of the salt-tax. But the noble marquis appeared to think that there was a great inconsistency in voting for the repeal, in those gentlemen who had supported the resolution proposed on a former night. He denied that inference altogether. There was nothing in that resolution which pledged its supporters to any such course. Taking that resolution in its fullest extent, whether the sum was one or five millions for the sinking fund, neither those who voted for it, nor those who voted against it were precluded by that vote from exercising their free judgment on the propriety of a repeal of this tax. Those only were precluded from supporting the motion, who had pledged themselves not to support any proposition of future retrenchment. He hoped the House would take warning from the use which the noble marquis made of the vote into which he had beguiled them on a former occasion, and not suffer themselves to be again duped if at the time the chancellor of the exchequer proposed to the House that resolution, any hon. member had said to the House—"Do not vote for it, for if you do, you will pledge yourselves against all reduction of taxation, because the meaning of the vote is not only that a sinking fund of five millions is to be kept sacred, but that no man shall vote for the repeal of any tax, however odious it may be"—if any person had said this, he believed the noble marquis, in conformity with his usual tactics, would have replied—"Listen to no such proposition; vote for the resolution now, and when the taxes come to be discussed seriatim, you may then make up your minds to retain or reject them." Hon. members, however, in-

859
cautiously voted for the resolution, and then the noble marquis, having nailed them, as it were, said, "You shall not vote for the repeal of this tax, however unjust and injurious it may be, because you have pledged yourselves against the repeal of any tax until there shall be a new surplus of revenue. From this specimen of the conduct of the noble marquis, the House might anticipate with certainty that their vote of that night if it should be unfavourable to the motion, would be construed into a pledge against all reduction during the course of the present session. When the hon. member for Aberdeen should show, in the committee of supply that such and such places and salaries were useless, and ought not to be retained, the noble marquis would say, "You must not abolish these offices, because on Thursday night you voted against the repeal of the salt-tax, on the ground that no further reduction could be effected. [The marquis of Londonderry uttered an expression of dissent.] All he could say was, that if the noble marquis did entertain any such design, he hoped the House would force him to carry it into execution. If the House should repeal the salt-tax, the noble marquis would do as he had done in 1816, and reduce still further. Upon the last occasion when his hon friend brought forward his motion for the repeal of the salt-tax, it was defeated by a small majority of nine only. What would be the effect produced upon the country if the House should now, when the burthensome effect of all taxes was augmented by the change in the value of the currency, oppose the proposed reduction.
Mr. Secretary Peelprotested against the doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman. He implored the House to reflect on the situation in which it had so honourably placed itself by the resolution of 1819, and instead of rescinding that vote, he trusted they would re-affirm it by their decision of that night. Did any man doubt the construction that was put by the country on their vote a few nights back? Were not the holders of five per cent stock at that moment engaged in a negociation beneficial to the public interest, on the guarantee which that vote gave to the public creditor? He was, on grounds wholly distinct from any considerations of revenue, opposed to any pledge from parliament, as to any gradual repeal of taxation. Such a pledge always operated prejudicially to the in-
860
terests of the dealer and consumer of the article so taxed. He would not then enter into any detailed statement of the public revenue: the expenditure was 50 millions; the income 55 millions. After applying 33 millions to the payment of the interest of the public debt, there remained 17 millions for the four great departments of the state—army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous services. From which of these grants could a reduction be made? He had the authority of the gentlemen opposite, that the army must not be reduced. With respect to the navy, even the hon. member for Montrose was willing, though he called for a reduction of the marines, to give a corresponding increase of seamen. His hon. friend himself had complimented his majesty's government. He did not take any part of that compliment to himself; but with regard to those whom he had the honour to call his colleagues, by what means had they secured the confidence of the hon. baronet and the House? It had been, by pursuing, through a period of great difficulty, a course the opposite of that which his hon. friend in contradiction to his usual practice, now advocated—by rigidly upholding the national faith, and the public character of the country. If the House, for the sake of gaining a temporary and partial popularity, should accede to this motion, they would do that, which was at variance with the best interests of the country, and of which, he believed, they would speedily repent.
Mr. Moberlyrose, to correct the statement of the right hon. secretary, who had said, there was no possibility of retrenchment out of a revenue of 17 millions. Now, the saving was not to take place out of 17 millions, but out of 25 millions. The right hon. gentleman had asked, would they reduce the army? Would they reduce the navy? and so on. He would say, no! But out of the expense of collecting the revenue, there might be a saving, which would more than cover the whole of this tax.
After a short reply from Mr. Calcraft the House divided. For Mr. Calcraft's motion 165. Against it 169. Majority against the motion 4

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Beaumont, T. W.

Allen, J. H.

Barham, J. F. jun.

Althorp, visc.

Baring, sir T.

Acland, sir T. D.

Barnard, visc.

Astley, sir J. D.

Barrett, S. M.

861

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hume, Joseph

Benyon, B.

Hurst, R.

Bernal, R.

Heber, R.

Birch, J.

James, W.

Brougham, H.

Johnson, col.

Bright, H.

Jervoise, G. P.

Bury, visc.

Jones, John

Baillie, John

Knatchbull, sir E.

Boughey, sir J. F.

King, sir J. D.

Bentinck, lord W.

Keck, G. A. L.

Bastard, E.

Lambton, J. G.

Bastard, J. P.

Lemon, sir W.

Butterworth, J.

Lennard, T. B.

Burrell, sir C.

Lloyd, sir E.

Burrell, W.

Leycester, R.

Boughton, sir C. R.

Lethbridge, sir T.

Buxton, J. J.

Luttrell, H. F.

Benett, John

Luttrell, J. F.

Chaloner, R.

Lawley, F.

Carter, J.

Maberly, John

Cavendish, lord G.

Maberly, W. L.

Cavendish, H.

Macdonald, J.

Cavendish, C.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Caulfield, hon. H.

Martin, J.

Clifton, visc.

Maxwell, J.

Coffin, sir I.

Musgrove, sir P.

Colborne, R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Concannon, L.

Normanby, visct.

Crespigny, sir W. De

Neville, hon. R.

Crompton, S.

Newman, R.

Curwen, J. C.

Nugent, lord

Creevey, T.

O'Callaghan, J.

Chetwynd, G.

Ord, W.

Curteis, J. E.

Osborne, lord F.

Cole, sir C.

Ossulston, lord

Chandos, marq.

Owen, sir John

Corbett, P.

Ommanney, sir F. M.

Calvert, N.

Palmer, C. F.

Calvert, C.

Palmer, col.

Davies, T. H.

Pares, Thos.

Denison, W. J.

Phillips, G. R.

Denman, T.

Powlett, hon. W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Price, Robt.

Davenport, D.

Proby, hon. G. L.

Dickinson, W.

Pym, F.

Deerhurst, lord

Plummer, John

Ebrington, visct.

Ramsden, J. C.

Ellice, E.

Ricardo, D.

Egerton, W.

Rickford, W.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Fitzroy, lord J.

Robarts, A.

Folkestone, visc.

Roberts, Geo.

Frankland, R.

Robinson, sir G.

Fane, John

Rumbold, C.

Fleming, John

Russell, lord John

Graham, S.

Rice, T. S.

Guise, sir W.

Rogers, Edw.

Gipps, G.

Smith, hon. R.

Gascoyne, gen.

Smith, J.

Haldimand, W.

Smith, W.

Hamilton, lord A.

Smith, G.

heron, sir R.

Smith, Robt.

Hill, lord A.

Scarlett, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Scudamore, R.

Honywood, W. P.

Sefton, earl of

Howard, hon. W.

Scott, John

Hughes, W. L.

Sebright, sir J.

862

Stewart, W.

Wilkins, W.

Scourfield, W. H.

Williams, T. P.

Stuart, lord J.

Williams, W.

Shelley, sir John

Wilson, sir R.

Sykes, D.

Winnington, sir T.

Taylor, M. A.

Wood, M.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Wyvill, M.

Tulk, C. A.

Wells, John

Thompson, W.

Whitmore, W. W.

Tennyson, C.

TELLERS.

Townshend, lord C.

Calcraft, John

Warre, J. A.

Duncannon, visc.

Webbe, Edw.

PAIRED OFF.

Whitbread, W. H.

Anson, G.

Whitbread, S. C.