INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN.

HC Deb 24 June 1822 vol 7 cc1265-318

Mr. Brougham

rose to submit his promised motion on this subject. He began by observing, that the House had now for the last six years been engaged very laboriously, and he would not say altogether unprofitably, for the country, but he wished he could add more beneficially, in inquiries concerning the immense and overgrown establishments of the country; and the principal object of these inquiries had been, to see how the pressure of the burthens on the people, occasioned by those vast establishments, could be reduced. It was not unnatural, under the wide-spread and almost unbearable distresses of the country, which had attracted attention to the inquiries into the expenses of those establishments, that their pressure should be viewed only in the light in which they had been complained of by the people. But it appeared to him that, without condemning the manner in which such inquiries had been conducted—without casting blame on those who had been engaged in them, and still less upon the people from whose complaints they originated, there was one view in which our immense establishments had not been, but in which it was of the utmost importance that they should be, considered; and he did think that the House would ill discharge its duty, if they Suffered the session to close without adverting to those vast establishments in their effects still more pernicious than those complained of. While we had considered their effects upon the burthens of the people, we had omitted to notice their operation on the influence of the Crown—an influence which, while it daily increased, proportionably diminished the influence of the people, and weakened the means of preventing the recurrence of those abuses into which we had been falling for so many years. It was to supply this defect, and it was the only one with which he could charge his side of the, House, that he took the liberty of giving notice of the motion which he now proposed to submit to the House.

He should commence by calling upon the clerk to read the resolution of the House of the 6th of April 1780, did he not know that the subject of that resolution was so familiar to the minds of members, that it would immediately recur to them the moment his motion was mentioned. He proposed to compare the influence of the Crown as it had grown since that period, when the House of Commons felt itself called upon to declare, that "the Influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished;"^* and he trusted that ^* For Mr. Dunning's Motion on the 4 M before he sat down he should be able to prove, from what had occurred since, that cogent reasons existed for adopting the example of our ancestors, and following it up by legislative enactments. He supposed he should be met in the outset by one of those declarations which he had so often heard repeated of late. It would be asked—"What! are gentlemen so unmindful of the duty they owe to the House, to their constituents, and to the country—are they so regardless of their consciences, as to vote, because they hold offices in the state, differently from what they would do, if they were out of office?" It was looked upon as quite an absurdity to suppose, that gentlemen of such high character would allow the paltry accidental circumstance of their holding places of emolument, honour, and power, to influence their votes on any question which might come before that House. "What!" it was asked, "have they no consciences, no regard for duty? Are they such slavish votaries of wretched pelf, or tinselled power, as to lose all regard for the high duties of their situation—to be unmindful of what was so dear to public men, their character—as to forget that moral probity which even humble men in the discharge of a parish duty were bound by, and do in that House what could not be attempted elsewhere with impunity?" In the discharge of the duty which he was now performing, he had no wish to violate the rules of the House, which forbad him to impute improper motives to any member. With the private character and personal conduct of individuals, he had no concern; but standing there to state his impressions, his duty did not allow him to disguise the fact, that the placeman leaned to those from whom he derived his place, that the pensioner bowed to the source of his wealth; and that upon the one and the other, as long as those inducements lasted, so long would they have a powerful influence; and he spoke the language of the constitution when he said, that placemen were objects of distrust, and that the principles of our constitution, and the usage of parliaments had proscribed them as such. The better language of parliament had been, at all times the opposite to that to which, he had alluded; and, until the last four or five Influence of the Crown, see Parl. Hist. vol. 21.p. 340. years, we had no instance of a minister of the Crown being squeamish enough to complain of the remark, that the influence of the Crown, in giving away places, had a powerful effect on the minds of many in and out of that House—that it ought to be viewed as an object of constitutional jealousy, and that the conduct of placemen ought to be narrowly watched, their principles counteracted, and their numbers diminished as much as possible.

Against such squeamish complaints he would refer to the language of the House itself, and particularly in former times. It was stronger than any he had used, and indeed it would be considered in the highest degree indelicate, were he to use it as from himself, but still he would refer to it for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of hon. members on the subject. He would in the first place refer to a resolution of the House passed soon after that of April 1780, by which it called upon the Crown for an annual account of all sums of money paid to members of parliament: the resolution stated, "that for preserving the independence of parliament, and obviating all suspicions of its purity, it was fit that such a return should be made annually:" thus admitting, that the independence of parliament would be endangered, and its purity become suspicious, by the admission of placemen and pensioners. He would next refer the House to the statute of the 22nd of the late king, by which contractors were prevented from sitting in parliament; and the ground was, in order to secure the independence of parliament. What could have been the object of such an act if it was not saying on the part of the legislature—"You are contractors" (as he now would say to. another description of members "you are placemen and pensioners,") and, as such, it is not fit that you should have a seat in the House of Commons, because your conduct there is likely to be influenced by your situation, and you are likely to become so much the less independent members of parliament, as you are the more dependent upon the Crown." This was, in effect, the language addressed by the legislature to contractors; and its principle was in every respect applicable to placemen and pensioners.—He would now refer tar another case, with which the House were already well acquainted—the celebrated act of Settlement. In that act provision was made, when the Brunswick family came to the throne, that no placeman or pensioner should continue to sit in the House. This part was afterwards altered, and the 6th of Anne substituted, by which pensioners were exempted; but this was again altered in the reign of George 1st, and the exception extended only to pensioners for a term of years; "to the end," said the act, "that the act of her late majesty might not be violated, and that the honour and independence of parliament might be secured." Such was the language, and such the doctrine of parliament, in some of the best periods of our constitution. Not to weary the attention of the House with too great a detail of cases, he would refer only to one more. It was the celebrated resolution of the House in 1693, when an act—the Place-bill, which had passed both Houses, was rejected by the Crown. Soon after, the House of Commons, by a large majority, came to the resolution, that "whoever advised the king not to give the royal assent to a bill which was to redress a grievance, and take off a scandal upon the proceedings of the Commons, was an enemy to their majesties and the kingdom."^* So that, in place of that affected delicacy and fastidiousness which now existed on these points, our ancestors in the best period of the Revolution, did not hesitate to declare, that the mere possession of place was incompatible with the independence of parliament: and with this feeling they declared, that those who had advised their majesties to refuse assent to the act founded upon that principle, were enemies to the Crown and to the parliament, by advocating the continuance of that which was a scandal to it.

Having thus defended and justified his conduct in bringing forward this measure, by precedents drawn from the best periods of the constitution, he would now call the attention of the House to the question of the increased influence of the Crown; and this would be best done by taking a view of the increased means of patronage which had accrued from the increase in the revenue and income of the country since the passing of the memorable resolution in 1780. The whole expense of our civil establishment at that time did not exceed 1,130,0001. The country was then in the midst of a most ^* See Parl. Hist. vol. 5. p. 830. expensive war, and the whole charge of army and navy was about 1,400,000l. or 1,500,000l. The whole of the expenses at that period, including two millions and a quarter for Ireland, was not more than 18,000,000l. He would not go into the details of our expenses at the present day. These had been so frequently discussed, and were now so well known and admitted, that there could be no mistake or dispute as to their total amount. He would take it, then, that exclusive of the interest of our debt, and the expense of our colonies, our civil and military expenditure amounted to 27,000,000l. and a quarter. It would appear, from papers laid on the table of the House, that in Malta, Ceylon, Trinidad, and the Ionian Islands, there arose a revenue of about 900,000l. a year, applied to their own government, in addition to what they cost this country. To this might be added something for the colonies conquered since 1792. For the whole he would add 1,000,000l., making, with the sum already mentioned, an amount exceeding 28,000,000l. of expenditure at the present time, instead of the 18,000,000l. in 1780. The first thing which must strike the House in this comparison was, that this establishment of 28,000,000l. was a peace establishment, and the 18,000,000l. of which he spoke was the whole of an expensive war establishment. But it was not the whole amount of that establishment of which the House of Commons complained when it passed the resolution of 1780; it took into consideration only so much of it as could be fairly said to be the permanent amount of a peace expenditure. That was estimated at about 7,000,000l.; and one ground of complaint was, that it had increased from 4.,000,000l. or 4,500,000l. to upwards of 7,000,000l. Let the House, then, take the 7,000,000l. of 1780 and: compare it with the peace expenditure of this year, and they would find it increased; just four-fold. Now, in considering how the influence of the Crown had been increased by this quadruple increase of the means of patronage at its disposal, reference should be had to the increase in the number of persons holding employments and deriving emoluments from those increased means; and from this comparison the House would see how much more reason it now had to complain of the influence of the Crown in an increased revenue of from 7 to 28 millions, than existed at the period when an ex- penditure, increased from 4½ to 7 millions, had been made the subject of such a resolution. He would make one admission. He knew it would be said; and he did not mean to deny it, that the same amount of money did ode operate so powerfully at the present moment as it did in the former one to which he alluded. He would grant, and it was as much as could be demanded, that two pounds in the present day were not-more than equal to the value of one in 1780. Even admitting, then, that the revenue of that day Might he doubled, there would then be 14,000,000l. as compared with the 28,000,000l. of the present day. Let the House now look to the difference of the military force employed by government at the two periods and they would find the same proportion kept up. Even during that period of most expensive war, the greatest number of English troops employed did not exceed 35,000 men. He was aware that the subsidiary forces taken into pay, from six or seven of the minor German powers, amounted to about 30,000; but, as the influence of the Crown to be derived from the employment of troops was only exercised towards Englishmen, he could not look upon the promotions amongst the troops of the Langrave of Hesse stationed in America, as any addition to that influence. But to come to the comparative statement. In 1780, we had 2,000 military officers; at present we had 19,000 on half and full pay. In 1780, we had about 1,800 naval officers; at present we had about 500 or 600 on full pay; but to these we should add 7,800 on the half-pay. Thus, in 1780 the whole number of our naval and military officers did not exceed 3,800, while in the present year they amounted to 27,000, half and full pay altogether. Was it nothing, that we should have 19,000 officers of the army? Was there no patronage in the power of taking them from the half to the full pay, and promoting them when on full pay? And when he saw the conduct recently exercised by ministers towards an officer on half-pay who was dismissed without trial or accusation, he thought he had a fair right to carry to the influence of the Crown, if not the whole, the greater part of the half-pay of Officers. And here be would ask, when government exercised a control over so many gentlemen of rank, and family, and influence in the country, many of them with relatives in the House, several possessing seats in parliament themselves, whether a government with such a power, and only responsible to a House so constituted, did not possess too much influence; and whether such a body, so controlled, was or could be a safe one for the constitution of the country?—Another head of patronage and influence was derived from the increased number of our colonies. We possessed 19 colonies more than we did in 1780; but as several had been restored at the peace, he would say we had 12 more. Was there nothing, be would ask, in the patronage derived from the civil and military appointments in those colonies? On merely taking the staff appointments as they had increased in the colonies, and not in the empire at large, he found that there had been added, since the period in question, no less than 150 places. for the government to give away exactly as it thought proper. The number of the civil places in the colonies had increased in proportion. In six colonies there had been an increase of 500 civil places, in the interval between 1791 and the present time. Now, if to this number were added the increase in the same colonies since 1780, it would be found that the increase of the civil and military appointments in the colonies alone (and by military appointments he meant only staff appointments, and excluded all the common regimental, appointments), had placed above 800 new places in the patronage of government. This increase, he begged the house to recollect, had taken place in one single department of the state: it was a mere accession to the colonial establishments of the country: it was independent of all other increase whatsoever, either in the collection of the revenue, or the care and management of the debt, or the board of commissioners for auditing the public accounts, all which ramified again into many branches of official places, clerkships, messengerships, &c., numerous beyond all that he had stated: it was independent, he said, of all that which he might call the trunk of the system, whose growth and progress they were now called upon to consider. Never ought the House to forget that in this single branch and offset there had been placed beyond the control of parliament, and in the uncontrolled, unexamined, and unexaminable disposal of the Crown, patronage to the amount of 800 employments, and that, too, of the most tempting nature that could be offered, either to those who held, or to those who desired to hold, political influence. Now he asserted, that if a comparison were drawn between the increase of the influence of the Crown in the colonies in 1780, above its influence at any previous time (taking into consideration all our empire in the East and West Indies) even in 1630, when we had no colonies at all, and its increase in the interval between 1780 and the present time, the amount of all the offices which existed in the former of those two periods would shrink into nothing when compared with this one item, which was the true and real measure of the increase of the patronage of the Crown in the colonies since 1780. Indeed, if they looked at the old colonies of Jamaica and Barbadoes, their whole patronage shrunk into nothing when compared with the enormous amount he had just mentioned. The patronage of the East India Company he considered to rest upon certain peculiar circumstances of its own. There could be no doubt, however, that to a very considerable degree the Crown enjoyed it; and he trusted that when they recollected the good understanding that existed between the court of directors and the government, and that by the changes made in the constitution of the company in 1786 and 1793, it was placed more under the control of the government than it was at the end of the American war, they would see, that the consideration of the whole of the affairs of that company was not indifferent to the present question. He had in his hand an account of the average number of appointments in the East Indies, for the three years previous to 1792, as appeared from certain returns made to the House. The average number of all the appointments to that quarter al that time, in cadetships, assistant-surgeonships, and writerships, was 133: for the year 1820, and for that year alone, the number was 527. Now, all these appointments ought to be considered as affected by the indirect influence of government, since it must be quite clear to any person who looked at the close connexion existing between the East India company and the administration of this country, that no individual obnoxious to the government would ever be admitted to any one of them. Leaving, however, this indirect influence he would process to state what was the direct influence derived by the Crown from the patronage of India. It was this—that the British government should be allowed to dispose of 1–14th of the whole patronage of India; in other words, that it should have a share in it equal to two directors; for instance, the chairman and deputy chairman of that court. He believed that this arrangement had no existence in 1792; but allowing it to have existed, it would have thrown the patronage of nine appointments into the hands of the government of that day. It had actually thrown into their hands the patronage of 38 appointments in 1820, being an increase of full four-fold. Now, when compared with the 800 places which he had previously mentioned, those 38 places appeared very moderate indeed: they were, however, still of such importance as to deserve the consideration of the House. To vest in the hands of government 38 places, which were then vacant, and were to be filled up during the current year, was not like vesting in them 38 places generally. If they were to reckon one-tenth of the places generally disposable by government to be vacant in the course of a year, then these 38 or 40 places, as he would call them for the sake of round numbers, falling vacant in one year, would be equal to 400 places placed generally at their disposal: and the government had thus obtained from these two branches alone appointments to 1,200 places in all.

The grand increase, however, of the influence of the Crown was to be found in the home establishments. Indeed, upon the collection of the revenue and the expenses of management, it had absolutely risen to upwards of four times, its former amount. The whole expense of collecting the revenue in 1780 cost less than 1,000,000l.; it now amounted to more than 4,000,000l. Now, he would ask the House to consider whether it was not bound to re-enact, the important law of 1780, which the state country then compelled parliament to adopt? Besides this head of influence there was another, that arose out of the increase of the debt itself. At the period to which he had alluded, the interest of the debt was under 6,000,000l.; at present, the interest on the debt, funded as well as unfunded, amounted to 49,300,000l. Now how did this debt operate? In various ways—all of them tending to increase the influence of the Crown; for, besides its operation in exhausting the resources and impo- verishing the inhabitants of the country—besides its placing so many of them in a state of dependence on the Crown, and subjecting so many others of them to its indirect influence, it vested in the Crown, by its connexion with the management of the revenue, an enormous portion of direct influence, which nobody could dispute who was at all acquainted with the existing state of our revenue laws. Those laws were in themselves so multifarious, their arrangements were so minute and perplexing, as to hamper, beset, and obstruct every branch of our internal commerce, in such a perpetual and vexatious manner, as surpassed all description. These laws might, indeed, be necessary to collect so large a sum as the interest of the debt made it requisite to extract from the people; but the undeniable result of them at present was, to place all the traders of the country in a state of dependence and subserviency to the ministers of the Crown. The consequence was, that a man in trade, if he wished to act prudently, was forced to act warily; for let him be ever so skilful in avoiding the traps with which these laws beset him—let him be ever so resolute in keeping himself out of their snares; in spite of all he could do, he would at some period or other of his life come in contact—and that contact would be to him a collision—with that frightful code of laws which there was not a tradesman in England that did not shudder when he contemplated. There was hardly any one function that he had to perform in the ordinary occupations of his business, in which it did not open traps beneath his feet; and let him betas acute as he might, he would find those, traps ready to enthral him, when it was too late for him to escape from them. He trusted he should be excused for giving a few samples of them at random. And first of all he came to the laws about soap-making. He should only read one section of them, to show with what a curious, prying eye, and with what a nice, discriminating hand—rough, however, and ungentle in its application to the, pockets of its victims—the government pierced into the most private concerns of every tradesman. The law said, that "every maker of soap should be prohibited, under a penalty of 500l. from having in his possession any pipe or other instrument for the purpose of removing lees from one copper to another, or from using any crane, siphon, or other con- trivance, to carry them out of one copper into any other part of the machinery." But not only were they to be prevented from having any pipe in their possession, or from using any crane, siphon, or other contrivance, they were also prevented from having any hole, cock, or perforation in the bottom of their copper. But upon this there arose a mighty difficulty, namely, how to get the lees out; because, though a man might put them in once, yet if he could not get them out, that would be the last time that the revenue could get any thing from them; so that to relieve him, and to benefit the revenue, the law said, he should only take them out by a pump, and be farthermore allowed to enjoy the privilege of a ladle. But as he dealt in matters of an explosive nature, it became necessary that there should either be a siphon to carry off the steam, or a hole or perforation to carry away the vapour: on that account, the law, by an extraordinary degree of legislative mercy, allowed him to have in the cover of his copper a small hole perforated; but then it was not to exceed one-eighth of an inch in diameter, and was to be bored with an auger, which was guarded, he had little doubt, very strictly with a 500l. penalty. It was almost idle to point out other instances of the same kind, but he could not refrain from noticing the Salt laws. Nothing could be more oppressive than the operation of those laws. The principle on which they proceeded, and unfortunately, that principle was the corner stone of their whole system, was always to throw the burthen of proof upon the accused. Almost in every case the man was first entrapped into the Exchequer, and was then obliged to prove himself innocent. The second principle on which they proceeded was no less repugnant than the first to the spirit of English law, though it had acquired strength in the court of Exchequer in spite of them both. He alluded to the fact, that an informer—who in all other courts was looked upon as a suspicious and odious character, and whose testimony was always considered as nothing worth, without corroboration from some other quarter—was so common a character in the court of Exchequer, that the very circumstance of his testimony being the testimony of an informer was rather in his favour with the judge and jury, if he boldly avowed himself in his real character. What was the conse- quence of such a system? Why, that a man who was exchequered, might just as well make terms at once with the public prosecutors, since the chance of his acquittal was either nothing, or something so small that when compared with the chance of his conviction, there was no assignable quantity that could possibly represent it. He would give one instance more of the oppression of the Revenue laws. The Glass law exhibited as great a regard on the part of the legislature to the principles of mathematics, as the Soap law did to the principle of mechanics. In 1811, it was provided that the layer was to be made in a peculiar way, under several penalties of 100l. or 200l. each. First of all, it was to be made rectangular, and its sides were to be perpendicular; and not only were its sides to be perpendicular, but also its ends; but not only were the sides and ends of this rectangular figure to be perpendicular, they were also required to be parallel to each other respectively; if they were not, there would not only be an infraction committed on the principle of mathematics, but also upon the statute of the 51st of Geo. 3rd, which, in majorem cautelam, inflicted a penalty of 100l., to prevent the occurrence of a mathematical impossibility. A considerable change had been effected with regard to persons convicted under the Revenue laws within the last seven years. On the 19th of July 1814, at two in the morning, when scarcely 20 members were present, a bill was brought in, and read a first time without any discussion, for the purpose of giving to the Treasury a power of relieving all persons from Exchequer process, even after conviction. On the 25th, it passed through that House; on the 28th it passed through the, Lords; and: oh, the 30th, the royal assent was formally given to it. That law put the finishing hand to that control, before great, bur now irresistible, which the Treasury had exercised over all infractions of the law regarding the revenue. To show how this law operated, he would mention the result of a recent information filed in the Exchequer, on the statute of the 49th of Geo. 3rd, for mixing strong and weak beer together. An information was filed, containing no less than 25 counts. In one count 105 penalties for 100l. each were laid against the individual accused, and by the whole information, it was sought to recover penalties to the amount of 21,000l. The changes were rung, time after time, upon these penalties, distracting the attention and wearying the patience of the accused in such a manner, that no human nerves could stand against it, and making him ready, in nine cases out of ten, to give up a tenth part of his income, by pleading guilty, rather than run the risk of impending ruin, by standing out upon his innocence. He mentioned this as an illustration of the proposition with which he had set out, as to the increase of the influence of the Crown. It was in vain to lay out of their view the effects of the debt, and of the increase of the revenue to discharge the interest of that debt. Though the expenditure so incurred by the country did not go directly to pay the salaries of placemen, yet it brought all classes of the trading community under the control of government, and perplexed them with countless fears of infringements upon a code of laws, which, if not intended to deceive, was, at least, so constructed, that the wariest tradesman could not help falling under its operation, and was thus compelled to become a suitor for the lenity or the Crown. He would not pretend to calculate the exact degree in which these circumstances had increased the number of suitors; but of this, at least, he was certain—that it had compelled many member of parliament to become a suitor to the minister on behalf of his constituents, and had thus, by compelling him to appear at the gates of the Treasury, greatly increased the influence of the Crown.

Having made out these points, he thought that nobody would dispute the next point to which he should call their attention. That point was, that the influence of the Crown had increased by its being better arrayed and organized thaw formerly. Indeed, of all the improvements which had been introduced since 1780, not one had been found more effectual in increasing the real worth of the, revenue placed at the disposal of the Crown for the purposes of influence, than the manner in which the Treasury has contrived to get its long arm introduced into all the departments of the state—In one peculiar instance, certain appointments, having been taken from the commissioners of Excise and Customs, with regard to the yachts belonging to their respective establishments, and transferred to the Treasury, a compensation was absolutely made to them in money for the loss which they were said to have sustained in patronage.—The last circumstance to which he wished to call the attention of the House was, in his view of the case, above all others important. They had now ended the great expenditure of the war; they had now come down from the enormous expenditure of 132,000,000l., the average expenditure of the three last years of the war—a sum which startled the imagination to think of, which one could not contemplate without a feeling of awe, and which the mind could scarcely grasp, though the term was used in common parlance—to the more moderate, but still not insignificant sum of 77 or 78 millions, including the expense of the management of the debt. Let it not, however, be supposed, that the expenditure of the war had now produced its full effect—it had by no means done so. There were other effects yet in operation, which he regarded with great fear and jealousy. He referred particularly to a habit which had grown out of our vast expenditure during the war, and which it would take many years of vigilant attention to eradicate completely from the public mind. He meant the habit of looking up, for the means of subsistence, to a government which had the disposal of so much revenue within its patronage. When the government had a revenue of moderate size, it had a far different hold upon the people than it had now, when its revenue had swollen to such an enormous amount. Now, its influence spread into every quarter, and was felt in every corner of the state. At a former period, when a resolution similar to that which he intended that night to propose, had been submitted to parliament, government had not trained whole families in the community to look up to it for support and subsistence; then men were accustomed to earn their bread without seeking the price of it from the state; then they trusted to the exertion of skilful industry and of honest, art; but year after year had now elapsed since our countrymen had contracted the vicious habit of looking up to different administrations for shares in the good things of this world, as dispensed to the public through the channel of commissions in the army and navy, in auditorships, in clerkships, in cadetships, assistant-surgeon-ships, and writerships; in appointments of every size, kind, and description, some large enough to satisfy the avarice of the greatest families, and others small enough to come within the grasp and satisfy the cupidity of the humblest. Under these circumstances, it did not signify so much that they had diminished the means of the court by diminishing the expenditure of their war establishments—for the vicious habit remained of looking up to the court for subsistence and fortune. That habit remaining, there would be the same competition, and the same subserviency, amongst those who entered into it, for a share in the 78 millions, as there was for the 132 millions which we were annually disbursing during the war. Now, when all these circumstances were taken into consideration, he trusted the House would be of opinion, that sufficient grounds had been stated to them for concluding that, if parliament had, in 1780, come to such a resolution as he intended to propose, the reasons for it had been rather strengthened than weakened. He would not state the words which had then been used by the learned mover of that resolution, but which, if he were to use, he should be considered the most indelicate and ungerous of men. That hon. and learned character had talked of "the corrupt pecuniary influence which existed within its walls." When he was asked What he", meant by "corrupt pecuniary influence," he replied, that he had no hesitation in "declaring, upon his honour, that he knew fifty members in that House, and the most of them within his hearing, who totally reprobated and condemned, out of that House, the measures they supported and voted for in it." He likewise said, that "though no man held private conversation more sacred than he did, if the issue of the present debate was to depend upon naming them, and it was the pleasure of the House to desire it, he could and would name them."^* Nobody took up Mr. Dunning's challenge; and therefore he (Mr. B.) was unable to mention the 50 gentlemen. Another distinguished character, who had filled the office of Speaker (sir Fletcher Norton), had declared, "that he felt himself bound as an honest man to say, that the influence of the Crown had increased much beyond the ideas of a monarchy strictly limited in its nature and extent." On a question like the present, he might be excused if he did not wish to rest upon the opinion of a man who was not signalized for his opposition to courts, ^* See Parl. Hist. vol. 21, p. 353. but who, on the contrary, was rather distinguished for having never thwarted a minister upon any point whatsoever—he meant sir W. Blackstone. But what did Blackstone say upon this subject at a period anterior to the American war, when the system of influence was much less in operation than at present? After stating those particular improvements in the constitution from which he thought the popular part of it had derived advantage, and numbering among them the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the doctrine of resistance, and the regulation of trials for high treason, he proceeded in the following manner:—"Although these provisions have, in appearance and nominally, reduced the strength of the executive power to a much lower ebb than in the preceding period; if, on the other hand, we throw into the opposite scale (what perhaps the immoderate reduction of the ancient prerogative may have rendered in some degree necessary), the vast acquisition of force, arising from the Riot act, and the annual expedience of a standing army; and the vast acquisition of personal attachment, arising from the magnitude of the national debt, and the manner of levying those yearly millions that are appropriated to pay the interest; we shall find that the Crown has gradually and imperceptibly gained almost as much in influence, as it has apparently lost in prerogative."—[B. 4. chap. 33.] Now, it was worth while to recollect that this passage was written in 1765, and to look closely to the opinions which sir W. Black stone had expressed in it. His argument was, that the Crown had acquired a vast acquisition of force from the Riot act; and we had now, in addition to it, the Six acts. His next argument was, that it derived strength from the annual expedience of a standing army; and in his day it amounted only to 17,000 men; while now it amounted to 90,000. His next argument was founded upon the vast acquisition of personal attachment arising from the magnitude of the national debt, and the manner of levying the yearly millions appropriated to pay the interest; but in his time the debt was not more than 130,000,000l., and the interest on it not more than 4,500,000l.; while now it was 800,000,000l., and the yearly millions appropriated to discharge its interest somewhat more than 40. What man could doubt that, if either Mr. Dunning, sir F. Norton, Mr. Justice Blackstone, or the House which passed the resolution of 1780, had been called upon, under all the change of circumstances, to revise their decision, they would have now again passed it, together with such farther practical reform as the augmentation of the mischief seemed to require?

Various answers had been attempted to these questions, and be wished shortly to advert to them. He did not suppose it would now be contended, as was done by the late Mr. Rose in 1810, that in reality as many places had been abolished as had been created, at the same time admitting, with a singular aptitude to see things in the light that best suited his purpose, that no less than 1,500 places had been created in the collection of the revenue, and only 500 abolished in the salt department—the latter averaging 50l. a year each, or, 25,000l. in the whole, and the former averaging 300l. a year each, or 450,000l.in the whole. Desperate, therefore, as might be the distress of the other side, he did not expect that they would be quite driven to this extremity. The next answer would perhaps be, that there were now fewer placemen in parliament than at any former period: to which he replied, by asking—how many fewer? In 1780, the number of placemen in parliament was from 80 to 90. It now appeared, from the returns moved for by the, hon. member for Shrewsbury, that they were 87 in the whole; but a deduction, he was ready to allow, ought to be made, for some were not fairly under the influence of the Crown. But, be the precise number what it might, he protested against the application of the principle. It was not merely by the placemen in parliament that the influence of the Crown was extended. If the minister, in whose hands it had pleased, the king to place the government, had the disposal, not of 10 or 8 million, but of 27 of 28 million—if he had the power of granting increase of salaries—if he could expend large sums in purchasing the support of individuals at elections and county meetings, it came to the same thing; the influence was felt by members through their friends: it was first felt at elections, and then in the votes of the House; and it signified very little whether a man was bribed by holding an office himself, or by having another to hold it in trust for him; the obligation was the same, and the influence was the same. There was the same dancing attendance at the Treasury in, the morning, the same dancing attendance in the House at night. The suffering of the people was the same in both cases, and they were called upon to pay the same amount in taxes, as if there were an additional number of placemen actually sitting in parliament. The other answer he gave arose out of what took place in 1780. Placemen to a considerable number had been excluded before that date. The statutes of Anne and of Geo. 1st, had shut out many placemen and all pensioners; and the statute of Geo. 2nd, the Place-bill of 1742, lopped off a great number of others. And yet, 40 years afterwards, no man pretended to argue (and the vote of the House showed that if he had done so he would not have been attended to), that therefore no further step was to be taken—that enough had already been done. He granted that there were fewer placemen in the House now than in the time of lord Carteret, when there were 200; or at an antecedent period when there were 300; but that availed nothing, because in other respects the influence of the Crown had been increased, and the establishments augmented to more than double. So many more millions were thus placed at the disposal of the king; and this fact alone, not operating upon our ancestors, afforded an irresistible argument, and an inducement, beyond all comparison with former times, to attempt the same principle of applying the axe to the root of the evil in the same view of the constitution.

He now came to the last of the answers which never failed to be given to arguments such as those he had employed—he alluded to that which arose out of what was called the right working of the system. It was put thus:—"It is very true, we cannot deny the great increase of the influence of the Crown; it is the necessary consequence of large establishments; but, taking it altogether, the country enjoys as much practical liberty, and parliament is really as independent, as in any former reign." Such would be no argument to convince him, if he found in the history of parliament of earlier times a series of instances to prove its absolute dependence upon government, and if he saw that the maladministration of public affairs in the American war was the immediate result of the overgrown influence of the Crown. It was still less an argument to be used now in our own day, when all men had witnessed the most independent conduct of parliament and the most admirable working of the system! There was one proposition, which at" who had examined the proceedings of their own time would be prepared at once to admit; namely, that whoever might be the minister of the Crown as to the person, and whatever might be his measure as to the thing, this House uniformly supported both the man and the measure, because the man was the minister and the measure the minister's. This was a proposition which he had no hesitation in laying down in the broadest manner. It had hardly an exception. So great was the influence of the Crown in the House and the country, that any man who could be named minister might come down to-morrrow (or perhaps it would be safer to speak of the last five or six parliaments), and the instant he took his seat upon the Treasury-bench, whatever plans he might propose would receive the support of a decided majority of the House. In thus saying, he confined himself within these limits—on the one hand, that the man should be taken from one of the classes from which ministers were usually selected; and, on the other, that upon his measure he was willing to risk his Continuance in office. Between those limits he inserted his general proposition. Before Mr. Pitt went out of office in 1801, he had been attended with his customary triumphant majorities. Mr. Pitt's majorities while prime minister were usually about four to one; and in a House of 300 members, only 63 were found bola enough to oppose them. It was vainly imagined in those days, as he had often heard, very naturally, partial friends since assert, that Mr. Pitt enjoyed his sway in parliament, not as a tribute to his station, but to his great hereditary name, to his splendid talents, and to his unimpeached personal integrity. But when be went out of office—when he was succeeded by another right hon. gentleman who, resembled him only in one single particular, which the country might have supposed the least material—that of his being the king's chief minister, and representing his majesty's government—then the truth was at once disclosed. Many, either from personal esteem for that great individual (he did not mean the then new minister), or from tenderness towards the character of parliament, or from that optimism which all men felt more or less in politics, wishing to think the form of government under which they lived as perfect as possible, were disposed to expect that Mr. Addington would only retain his majorities as long as he enjoyed the confidence of Mr. Pitt. Unhappily, the event speedily proved that that which had been held up as the least material ingredient—as least attended to by the House, and operating upon its pure and disinterested members in the smallest degree—could procure for the new minister that vast numerical force to which the noble marquis opposite was so find of appealing—which negatived all awkward questions, and defeated the most powerful adversaries. In truth, that which had been idly imagined to be the least material circumstance, the possession of place, turned out to be the only one that produced any effect upon the incorruptible House of Commons. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Addington being now twain for the first time, a trial of strength took place; the House having opened its eyes to what many had before suspected—the schism between the out and the in minister. At this moment, its disinterested regard for Mr. Pitt was rudely, put to the test; and with a total disregard of that delicacy towards its feelings that might have been observed, it was required at once to decide between the two. Mr. Pitt boldly and plainly put time question to all who had but a few short weeks before lavished their professions upon him. "Give me" said he "no more of your speeches—let me hear no more of your expressions of confidence in me—let me have no more songs in my praise without doors, nor tirades in my favour within doors—come to the vote—come to the test—let me put to the proof some of you who have followed me for 20 years while I could dispense place and patronage—let me now see whether you prefer Mr. Addington or me." What was the result? In a House of 400 members no fewer than 333 were free to confess, and by their votes they did unequivocally confess, that they preferred Mr. Addington to Mr. Pitt. They preferred Mr. Addington to Mr. Pitt's great hereditary name, the fame of his illustrious ancestors, the popularity established in his family for half a century, and in himself for a quarter of a century. What, then, became of the support of Mr. Pitt's adherents—the love of his friends—the gra- titude of all on whom he had conferred benefits—the fidelity of the placemen, he had created, and the affection of the contractors he had replenished? Where, then, were the worthy aldermen he had enriched, the hon. baronets he had made, the knights of the shire for whose families he had provided, and all the representatives for rotten boroughs, who had a thousand times boasted their generous and unalterable regard? Where were all those among whom he had lived—whom he had fed, clothed, and commanded—and who, while he was minister, had dragged him through every measure, overcoming every opponent, from Mr. Fox down to the gentleman whom he did not wish to name, who had once displayed a shattered bank note before time eyes of the House in derision of Mr. Pitt's "solid system of finance?" All had suddenly disappeared; Mr. Pitt was discomfited, and left in as small a minority, as Mr. Fox, or any other Opposition member, had ever headed. This, too, be it remembered, on personal question—on a question of confidence;—and Mr. Addington's qualifications, his overpowering talents, and his undiminished and unenvied popularity, were found an over-match for Mr. Pitt, when he had no longer the means of buying friends, or securing the gratitude of base and mercenary dependents. Of ail his overwhelming majorities, only 56 were —faithful found Among the faithless—' adhering to him "even in extremity of ill." It was painful to observe that those 56 votes afterwards fell to 55, when another proposition of the minister was resisted, and against the powerful coalition of the friends of Mr. Windham, the family of lord Grenville, and the adherents of Mr. Fox, Mr. Addington still made head. He continued to do son for upwards of a year, and then, indeed, a change of ministry was effected;—but how? A most suspicious circumstance was observed by all those who contemplated the movements of the cabinet; for it was found a number of the friends of Mr. Pitt (including the noble marquis opposite) had become members of Mr. Addington's administration, and there was reason to believe that the premier and Mr. Pitt understood one another. Of this fact, indeed, no man entertained a doubt; that if Mr. Addington had been supported strongly by all his friends, and if he had chosen to run the risk of his place, remaining by his sovereign, as his sovereign was willing to remain by him, for aught he (Mr. B.) knew, he might have been minister to the present hour. The parliament to which he had been referring was not dissolved till the latter end of 1806; and at this time it would not be forgotten, that the strongest phrases were used in every quarter regarding the conduct and language of Mr. Fox; charging him, almost in terms, with unfurling the standard of rebellion, although it was known that he never could assemble any parliamentary force that deserved to be called a body capable of giving even a slight resistance to the minister of the day. Nevertheless, and event happened about 1806, which let in a new and sudden light upon the honourable House of Commons. Mr. Fox came into office—an event of which the House was most curiously observant. Nothing was looked at in parliament with more anxious, prying and wary eyes, than a circumstance of this kind—when a man was sent down by his monarch to be the minister. Members of parliament were most patient, curious, sedulous, and careful observers of such a change. They eagerly watched every motion and caught every hint, but reframed from action until doubt was at and end. When the appointment was gazetted—when the favoured individual was really minister—that change produced, a course, a corresponding and correlative change in the House of Commons. Tin moment the operation was complete out of doors, the alteration within doors was wonderfully rapid. On the 3rd of March 1806, the very House of Commons that just before had charged Mr. Fox with unfurling the standard of rebellion, no longer entertained the slightest distrust of his person or his principles. They followed him implicitly, and in as great a numerical force as they had followed any of his predecessors in office. A very remarkable Instance was afforded of the complete change of sentiment which the honourable House had undergone, in question on which that sentiment was first distinctly pronounced. For a considerable time no attempt was ventured at bringing the House to a division; but at length, in the month of March, an hon. member connected with the noble marquis opposite, brought forward a proposition founded on a measure which the new administration had adopted. For himself, he (Mr. B.) would freely say, what, he had never hesitated to say, however widely he might differ in general politics from the individuals in whom that proposition had originated, that if ever there was a strong question submitted to the decision of parliament, it was that question. He would venture to say that there never was a stronger case than was involved in the proposed resolution of censure on his majesty's then government for the admission of lord Ellenborough to a seat in the cabinet. What was the consequence? The House behaved with their usual kind and tender forbearance towards all men in office, and which could be equalled only by their stern, their iron firmness towards all men out of office. Their indulgence and gentleness to ministers were in exact proportion to their constitutional obduracy towards the opponents of ministers. In short, when the question was brought to a division, by a curious coincidence, only 65 members voted against Mr. Fox and his colleagues on that strong constitutional question; being about the same feeble number that had divided with Mr. Fox against Mr. Pitt on the last division which took place in the same House of Commons just before Mr. Pitt went out of office. He repeated, that this was a very curious coincidence. The last division that occurred before Mr. Pitt quitted office, was 245 to 68 in favour of that minister, and against Mr. Fox. In March 1806, however, the tables were turned; 222 members voted for Mr. Fox; and the survivors of Mr. Pitt, those who called their party by his name, those who had fought under his banners, those who might justly consider themselves entitled to the gratitude of the individuals whom Mr. Pitt had politically benefitted, could muster no more than 64 hon. members to vote against Mr. Fox and for them, on that strong and pinching question!

He protested he was utterly at a loss to conceive how any conclusion but one could be drawn from the facts he had already detailed. He would, however, mention a few more. Having taken an instance from the conduct of a House of Commons assembled under Tory auspices, he would take an instance from the conduct of a House of Commons assembled under Whig auspices. God forbid that he should, for a moment consider those auspices as equal in value. But he would, nevertheless, briefly advert to same of the circumstances in the conduct of the House of Commons that was assembled, under, the auspice of the Whig government, in the autumn of 1806. And here he would observe, that there was a great change in the composition of that assembly. There had been what in former times was called "a purging of the House." No fewer than 180 new members were introduced. It was naturally to be supposed that such a House would, in some degree, redeem the character which its predecessors had lost. And so at first it did. But, if its conduct throughout the whole of its career were scrutinized, it would be found much worse, and much more discreditable even than that of its illustrious predecessor. As might be expected, considerable differences of opinion arose on the opening of that parliament, between the ministers of the Crown and their political opponents. Those differences were stated at an early period of the session, by several of the latter, and especially by a right hon. gentleman in his eye (Mr. Canning), who moved an amendment to the address on the first day of the session, with a view to show the different views of policy entertained by the different parties in the House. For a considerable time, however, the opponents of the existing government, aware that they should only show their own weakness and the strength of their antagonists, did not venture to divide on any question. First, then, was the subject of foreign affairs. On that question a motion was made, but no division was pressed. Then came the consideration of the army estimates, involving the question of Mr. Windham's military plans. Still no division. Afterwards the orders in council were discussed, on which Mr. Perceval made a motion; but no division was pressed. Next came Sir S. Romilly's bill, being the first attempt of that learned and illustrious person to reform the criminal law; a proposition made in the most moderate and temperate manner, but exceedingly objected to by the gentlemen in Opposition, and especially by one, than whom, with the exception of Mr. Pitt, perhaps no man had ever greater personal sway in the House of Commons; he meant sir W. Grant, the Master of the Rolls. To that bill numerous objections were raised, but no division was resorted to. Even on the Maynooth College vote, a question on which Mr. Perceval declared he would make a stand; a question on which he gave notice that he would rouse the whole country to opposition (a menace which he afterwards carried into effect, and on the cry which he then contrived to raise, built his accession to power); even on that Maynooth College vote, no division took place. It was not until February, when the petition from Hampshire, complaining of a corrupt election, was presented, and when it was thought that there was a strong case which might induce many members to vote against government, that the first division occurred; and the result was 184 to 57 in favour of ministers. Question after question followed, without any division, until the 12th of March, when on another division the minority did not exceed 60. And here he begged to observe, that the 12th of March was an important epoch. The House of Commons were approaching a very critical time. Rumours were spread of certain things passing elsewhere, which made the members quite alive. They began to look sharply about them, to try to see their way—as they had done after the decease of Mr. Pitt. They began to be aware that they had better be quier—that they had better abstain from all strong demonstrations—that they had better steer near the land and with a snug sail, lest they should get on a lee-shore and be suddenly shipwrecked. They did not exactly understand what was passing around them; but they knew that something was passing. Birds of ill omen were fluttering about; and who knew what might ensue? It was evident that something was not as it should be; but that was very immaterial. The great point was, that something was not as it had been. Mr. Fox was no more. His friends, it was true, were in office; but it was not very clear whether they ought to be supported. They, the members, were plain downright matter-of-fact men. They wished to know how affairs stood. They wished to know whether the men apparently in power were de facto ministers. "Make it quite clear to us—clear to demonstration—that you are not going out, and then we shall immediately know what to do." In the mean while, they comported themselves as, the members were wont to comport, themselves whenever they were engaged in such an interesting speculation. The first thing in those cases was a tendency to absent themselves from the House. There were sud- denly many calls into the country. Journies were to be taken for health, for amusement; or for the health and amusement of dear friends and relations. It was quite astonishing to perceive the ties which bound a member of parliament to his home, when it was not, convenient to him to take his place in the House! Accordingly, at the period to which he had been alluding, the numerical force of the House speedily dwindled to nearly one half its usual amount. The suspense, however, began to be painful. It would have become intolerable had it been much longer protracted. But at length it pleased his majesty to put an end to all doubt and indecision by changing his ministers. On the 12th of March, only 60 honourable members could be found to support a strong measure proposed to them by the opponents of the then administration. On the 3rd of March, only 57 had been found ready to support a still stronger measure. And yet, no sooner had the House been enabled to look well about them—no sooner had they had time and opportunity to take an observation—no sooner had they made themselves sure of who were to be in, and who were to be out of office, than the 60 or 57 members became expanded in a most marvellous manner to 258; that being, to the great astonishment of all beholders, the number of members who voted for the negative of the proposition, whether or not the House of Commons reposed any confidence in his majesty's late ministers! Thus did a large majority of that House, in which but a very short period before only 57 members could be found to express their disapprobation of those ministers, come forward to protest that they never liked those ministers; that, they liked any ministers better; and that they were very grateful to his majesty for having taken the public affairs out of their hands! Aye; and had it pleased the king to change the administration on the day after, the same members would again have looked about them; they would again have taken an observation; they would again have seen what way they were going; they would again have slackened their attendance in the first instance; they would again have eventually confessed that they always preferred Mr. Fox and his friends, and that they had never liked these new men, whom they would probably have characterised as mere clerks or office, as fol- lowers of Mr. Pitt, who were unworthy to hold the candle to their great predecessor and model; and they would have assured his majesty, that lord Grey and lord Grenville appeared to them to be the only individuals worthy of his confidence, for that on them alone had fallen the mantle of the illustrious statesman, whose principles they maintained. All that would have been said on the morrow, had those eminent individuals been reinstated in power.

This principle of government influence operated on other bodies besides parliament. Although he might do so, he would not go to Corporations for instances of that fact, because corporations were not worthy of the comparison. But be would take his example from the conduct of a grave; learned, and most venerable body, whose dignified duty it was, to dispense the blessings of education over the land, and of whose institutions morality and religion were the corner stones;—he meant the grave, learned, and venerable university of Oxford. Undoubtedly that illustrious and erudite body possessed great quickness of discernment, great powers of prognostication on the subject of which he had been speaking. Hardly could the House of Commons itself manifest greater alacrity in the detection of falling or arising political influence. Never had they exhibited in modern times, since their predilection for the old family, the stain of which they had washed out by their subsequent conduct to the new, any want of due vigilance on the point in question, except in the solitary instance of their election of lord Grenville to the chair of the chancellor of the university. But even then they had their excuse. Every appearance at the time indicated that lord Grenville was coming into office. The Walcheren expedition had just overwhelmed its projectors with shame. It was well known that there were great squabbles in the cabinet. Two of the members of that cabinet were already gone. A message had been sent from the king to eminent individuals opposed to the existing administration. Mr. Perceval appeared to be in treaty with lord Grey, and still more closely with lord Grenville. It was altogether pretty clear that there would be some change in the administration, and every thing pointed out lord Grenville at the probable chief of the new ministry. Henceforward, how- ever, the university would, no doubt, be more cautious. Henceforward they would follow the prudent example of the House of Commons. Henceforward they would see the Gazette before they ventured to act. Henceforward they would not believe that any man was fairly out of office, until they saw the appointment of his successor gazetted. They had paid too dearly for their experience not to benefit from it; for they chose lord Grenville to be their chancellor; and from that day the noble lord had never held any situation of official trust and responsibility. As an additional proof of the watchful attention of the university of Oxford to men in power, let the House recollect their conduct on the Catholic question. On the 5th of March, 1807, Mr. Perceval, declared that the bill which had been introduced by his majesty's government was one of the most dangerous measures which had ever been proposed to parliament; and that it ought to be opposed by all who felt an interest in maintaining the established religion of the state. Accordingly, on the 17th of March, a petition was presented from the university of Oxford, in which they expressed their anxiety, their consternation, their horror, at a bill which threatened to break down all the barriers of our civil and religious establishments. They also declared their conviction, that the security of all the existing oaths and tests were indispensable to the maintenance of those establishments. Mr. Perceval persevered in his opposition to the bill in question. Aided by the efforts of the university of Oxford, to whose exertions the university of Cambridge lent their assistance he lighted up a flame which had nearly consumed the peace of the country. The public tranquillity was hazarded by men who, to further own political interests, did not scruple to raise—he was going to say a religious, but an irreligious, base, brutal, unchristian cry of "Popery!" The outcry thus raised by Mr. Perceval, its author, perhaps honestly, but seconded dishonestly by hundreds and thousands—this base outcry, having accomplished its object of destroying one administration and replacing another, and having given to the countenance of the king towards any set of individuals the invariable sequel of that countenance, a triumphant majority in the House of Commons—what followed? That very measure so exclaimed against; that very measure for admitting Catholics into the army and the navy, was introduced into the House of Commons by the identical ministers who had been so loud in its reprobation, passed that House, and had afterwards passed the other House of Parliament sub silentio, not a single word having been spoken against it by any spiritual peer, although only ten years before it had been pronounced a measure pregnant with the most disastrous and frightful consequences ! He had looked over the Journals of the House, to see if he could discover any address from the university of Oxford on that occasion; but none had he been able to find. Nor, if he had discovered it, would it weaken his argument; since it was evident, that the tone of such an address must have been very different from that which originally proceeded from the same learned and venerable body on the subject.

These observations brought him to an occurrence which exceeded all others in its departure from the sound and wholesome principles of the constitution—he meant the Walcheren expedition. The deeds of the parliament which sanctioned that expedition, and the deeds of the expedition itself, stood recorded upon many a frightful page of our history. He should therefore only weary the House, by recapitulating the various acts which had been committed by the one, and sanctioned by the other. He could not, however, help pointing out a few instances of the changeable disposition manifested by the parliament of that period. They at one period opposed, by a large majority, granting certain powers to the Prince Regent, while there remained any hope of the late king's recovery; but when that recovery became hopeless, then the House voted as strongly and as steadily in favour of the prince, as they had before opposed him. He did not mean to say that previously there had been always large majorities against the prince; on the contrary, the minorities were often respectable, and upon one occasion there had actually been a majority in his favour. But this was not to be wondered at, when gentlemen recollected the very great nicety with which certain politicians balanced between the probable recovery of the late king, and the more probable speedy succession of the present monarch. It was calculated that the late king might not recover; that if he did, it was not likely he should be long spared to the country; and then came the calculations with respect to the; rising sun; all of which taken together, threw the balance in favour of a king in prospectu, rather than a king de facto. Notwithstanding the previous opposition made, no sooner was the prince invested with power, than his favourite ministers, as far as courtly favour could be depended upon or expected to last, obtained at once the confidence of that House.—He might, if it were necessary, remind the House of the Copenhagen expedition, and of the votes given upon the Cintra Convention, both of which measures had been approved of by the same House; he might also recal to their recollection that memorable period, when, in 1812, that House had addressed the Crown, praying that a more efficient ministry might be given to the country, and yet in the course of three weeks (during which time political speculators were closely watching who were likely to be in and who out), the House having discovered that the same ministers were likely to remain in office, did—what? They did what they had always done, and what they would always do—they supported those very ministers by a majority of more than 100, although not Less than three weeks before they had left them in an actual minority. The ministers and the parliament of that day had been guilty of two most censurable proceedings; by the one, they had cruelly sacrificed the lives, the honour, and the treasures of the people of England; while, by the other, they had, by a resolution which did violence to the common sense of the country, assumed that which was notoriously false and palpably absurd. He alluded to the celebrated resolution of 1811, with respect to the value of our paper currency as compared with gold. He hoped he should never again see any set of ministers who would dare so far to set at defiance the sound and constitutional principles which ought to regulate the government of this free and enlightened country.

He would now remind the House of two or three passages in their own history, connected with this part of the question. He would first allude to a motion which had last session been disposed of upon the plan of 1803 and 1806. An hon. friend of his (Mr. Western) had proposed the repeal of the Malt tax. Upon that occasion, a division took place in favour of the motion; but the noble marquis opposite, who, it appeared, was better ac- quainted with the minds of the House, advised them, in his own language "not to halloo till they were out of the wood." Well did the noble lord know what the tact of the House was. Well did he know, notwithstanding the promise held out by the former vote, to the poor, ignorant, and uninstructed members, that there would be a second decision of a different nature; and, accordingly, upon that second decision, there was a majority of near 98 against the motion, although there had previously been a majority of 24 the other way. In like manner he himself had, in 1820, had the honour of obtaining the consent of the House in favour of a motion connected with the agricultural interests, in opposition to the wish of the noble marquis. Upon that occasion, there was a considerable majority in his favour, he did not exactly remember the number; but he well remembered, for he had reason to know, what occurred shortly after. Indeed, he could not possibly be mistaken in his opinions upon this point unless it could be shewn that effects were produced without fair and adequate causes. He knew not what particular rumour it was—he knew not, positively, whether it had been at all rumoured, that in the event of another such vote of the House, it was the intention of ministers to retire from office; but, be this as it might, he saw with his own eyes, on the very next night, many of the members who had supported him in the first instance, turn round and oppose him. So much, indeed, had this surprise been felt, that one hon. member, whose vote was unaltered in his favour, expressed his astonishment, that those who had on one night supported the question should have turned round and opposed it on the next. He should next advert to the grinding clause lately proposed by the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Canning) upon the Corn Importation bill. To that clause the noble marquis had offered no objection; on the contrary, he had expressed his inclination to vote for it; but, on the next night, the noble lord turned round, and bringing with him the whole weight of the ministerial influence, the question was negatived by a large majority.—In the present state of the overgrown influence of the Crown, the minister, whoever he was, must, in nine cases out of ten, command a majority by their influence over placemen. But there was another species of influence, which had immense weight in that House; he meant that in- fluence which was exercised over those who were called independent members; those members obtained places for their friends, adherents, and supporters. They did not, to be sure, hold places, but certainly this influence ought to be considered as great a disqualification from a seat in parliament as the actual holding of a place within the statute could be. It was on the ground that the conduct of parliament had varied without any adequate or commensurate cause, that he brought forward his resolution, in order to afford the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. If he should be so fortunate as to have the decision of the House in his favour upon this resolution, it was his intention to follow it up by a remedial measure. He might be told that the voice of the people had penetrated, and was attended to, within the walls of that House. When he looked to the instances which had recently fallen within all their observations, he imagined that, instead of being an objection, it ought to be the greatest and most deplorable of all instances of the inefficiency of public opinion in producing an immediate redress of any grievance. But, while he said this, he wished not to be misunderstood. Did any man suppose, that whilst a spark of liberty remained in this country; whilst a free press existed; whilst there remained a pure bench and an uncorrupted bar; whilst that House continued to be a deliberative body (no matter bow much pledged to the interests of the Crown, and false to those of the people); whilst their doors remained open to the public, and the whole country must be informed of what was passing therein—did any man mean to deny that, whilst such things existed, public opinion could be excluded from that House? But what he complained of was, that the times did not keep pace with the public grievances; these grievances had been felt from day to day, and from year to year, for the last 20 or 30 years, and yet the House and the country had gone slumbering on with a blind confidence in the conduct of ministers. Could there be a stronger instance of the corruption of the times than this? They had gone on complaining, but they waited until the pool should be ruffled. Were they to wait and to wait on until the vox populi came to ruffle that pool? Were they to see the House of Commons harassed by petitions? Were they to wait until the prayers of the people reached them—until the groans of humanity (as, was said with respect to the slave trade) reached them? Were they to await all this, while reform and amendment were in so many mouths? He had alluded to the slave trade; that trade had been supported by every party at home and abroad, excepting only the ministerial party: there was no union, for it was very clear, that if ministers had thought proper to make that a cabinet question, they might have carried it in the first instance with as much case as they had ever passed any private bill. But what was the fact? In 1805, the bill was thrown out by a large majority; while the very next year, Mr. Fox, he being then in office, brought the whole weight of ministerial influence in support of it, and it was carried by a majority of at least ten to one. In the course of the next Spring there was a majority of 286 to 16 in favour of the motion, although only two little years before there had been an actual majority against it. How hon. members would be able to explain these phenomena, it was not for him to divine; but it was not difficult to perceive, that by this and other such means it was, that ministers had managed to keep themselves snug in their places. If, however, there remained any doubt as to the shifts of ministers to retain their places, they had satisfactory proof in the conduct of the noble marquis, who recently threatened to go out, unless he had a majority; the noble lord had a majority upon that occasion. This was a state of things which ought to induce hon. members to look about them. There was a material difference between firm independence and that desultory sort of independence which showed itself only when the minister ceased to apply the lash. The people, however, were now taking a steady and decided view of' the evils which oppressed them, and which were to be remedied only by a reduction in the number of places and establishments, and, that parliamentary reform, which would bring the people more in contact with their representatives. He did hope that this opportunity would be taken for giving a pledge to the country to this effect. It was to enable that House to regain with the country that confidence which only their own fault could have forfeited, that he should propose as a resolution, "That the Influence now possessed by the Crown is unnecessary for maintaining its constitutional prerogatives, destructive of the independence of parliament and inconsistent with the well government of the realm."

The Marquis of Londonderry

hoped he should receive the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to follow the hon. and learned member through his long and eloquent address. The hon. and learned member had commenced by observing, that the influence of the Crown had increased to the injury of the interests of the country, and particularly as it affected the parliament. It would, however, be for the House to decide how far that influence had been extended, either in parliament or by other means. The hon. and learned member had not only proposed a resolution, but expressed his determination to follow it up, if carried, by some remedial measure. What that remedial measure was to be, the hon. and learned member had not clearly stated. It, however, had slipped out in the conclusion of his speech. And what was it? Why, nothing short of parliamentary reform. This was the question to which the hon. and learned member wished to pledge the House by his resolution. Now, he had no objection in the world to the hon. and learned gentleman's attempting to reform the parliament. It had been attempted before in the course of the present session, and the hon. and learned member had a right if he pleased, to return to the charge; but he ought not to do this under the weak disguise of diminishing the influence of the Crown. Having said thus much, he felt it necessary to observe, that he agreed with the hon. and learned member in some points. He admitted that the influence of the Crown was a just object of parliamentary jealousy. But whatever that influence might be, he maintained that the House was composed of materials too sound and too sound and too durable to be acted upon or corrupted by it. The influence of the Crown might perhaps be excessive; if so, reduce it; but let the question of reform, if at all introduced, be made a distinct and separate question. The hon. and learned member had taken the year 1780, and compared the influence of the Crown at that period with what it was at present. The hon. and learned member had compared the army and navy at the two periods; but he must be allowed to say, that the hon. and learned member had not at all ventured to come to close quarters. The hon. and learned member had in the zeal of his argument, and with the energy of an advocate, indulged in certain figures and forms of speech, which were nothing else than rank and palpable exaggerations. The hon. and learned member had observed, that our actual expenditure (independently of the interest of the debt), was 28,000,000l. Now, it did not amount, at the utmost, to more than 18,000,000l. The hon. and learned member, speaking of the troops kept up in 1780, stated the amount to be 33,000 men, whereas it was known that we had at that period upwards of 60,000 men, with an annual expenditure at that period of 15,000,000l. Let the House weigh well the difference between the situation of the country, taken in all its bearings, in 1780, compared With the present period. Let gentlemen consider what the increase of population was; let them remember the increase of wealth; the increase of knowledge which had been in fused into the public mind since that period; let them remember the tenets which the French revolution and other circumstances had diffused over the face of the community—the vast increase in the power and influence of the public press: let all these be considered for a moment, and then let any member stand up and state that the influence of the Crown had been increased beyond, or even equal to its due proportion. The hon. and learned member had adverted to the army and navy in support of his argument: he would put it boldly to hon. members opposite to state whether the Horse Guards and the Admiralty were not as fairly open to gentlemen who thought with that side of the House, as if they were in the daily habit of supporting ministers?—The hon. and learned member had next adverted to our colonial possessions, and had observed, that, the new accession of colonies included, ministers had obtained an additional patronage of nearly 500 offices. Where the hon. and learned member obtained his information, he could not pretend to say—so it was, that he had, in fact, doubled the whole of the appointments in question. But this was not all. The hon. and learned member had, in his usual style of exaggeration, first invented these offices and, then made them offices under, and in the gift of the Crown. The hon. and learned member must have raked up the most menial offices in the colonies in order to make out his sum. He (lord L.) held in his hand a return, from which it appeared, that seven-eighths of all the appointments in the colonies were in the colonial governments; and that in some islands there were only three or four, and in others six or seven appointments vested in the Crown. The hon. and learned member had made a comparison with the year 1780, as far as it suited his purpose; but, in fairness, he ought to have gone through with the comparison; for, in 1780, the colonial offices were filled by men who sat in parliament, and who discharged their duties by deputy; so that the new regulation took nearly the whole patronage of the Crown away, as it, in fact, removed no less than 29 members from seats in that House.—The hon. and learned member next alluded to the patronage which India afforded, and mentioned the fact of 38 appointments having arisen in one year in that country. He could not now recollect exactly what the patronage of that department was, but he might venture to assure the House, that if their only ground of reform was the extent of patronage in India, they might tranquillise their minds, and satisfy themselves that not a third of the appointments in question were at the disposal of ministers.—The noble lord proceeded to state the comparative number of persons employed in the Customs in 1797 and 1821 (he could not take 1792, as the Custom-house Records of that period had been burnt). In 1797, there were 5,728 persons employed; in 1821, there were 6,864, making one-third more than 1797. But the difference arose from the fact of the Customs having been doubled since that period. Besides, if they looked to the increase of salaries, they would find that it bore no proportion to the increase of revenue. In 1797, the Customs' salaries amounted to 418,000; in 1821, to 638,000l., making an increase of more than one-third; but, making allowance for the commutation of fees which had taken place, the increase was, in fact, little or nothing.—The noble lord next pointed out the. difference between the Excise offices of 1821 and those of 1797, and contended that, considering the immense increase of revenue to be collected, there had been little or no increase of expense to the country.—Notwithstanding the assertions of the hon. and learned gentleman, he would say, that the regulations in all the offices of the pubic service tended not to cultivate or extend the patronage of ministers, but studiously to restrain and limit that patronage. He would instance offices connected with the Customs. Those offices were regulated now very differently from the former practice. Persons appointed to those offices were selected for their merits and qualifications, and went through the ordeal of a previous examination. When the hon. and learned gentleman talked of the Treasury thrusting its long arm into the pockets of the people, for the mere purpose of enabling government to extend an undue influence, he would defy him to make out his case. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that the influence of the Crown was increasing, because the revenue had increased. Did he mean to say, that the interest of the debt paid to the public creditor extended the means of influence. The hon. and learned gentle man had gone into a grave law argument on the subject of Exchequer process. His law argument was filled up with mere jokes; for he must say that the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman was not brought to any logical conclusion.—The hon. and learned gentleman called for information on that subject. He (lord L.) was sorry the returns moved for were not on the table. He had seen the returns for Scotland; and judging from that return, of the number of Exchequer processes for England and Ireland, the amount of them must have greatly decreased. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that those processes had increased to the great loss and inconvenience of the parties. This he denied. The returns from Scotland of the number of Exchequer processes from 1800 to 1810, were upwards of 3,000; from 1810 to 1820, they amounted to about 500 under that number. He thought the hon. and learned gentleman would see reason to correct his facts, and revise his arguments. He had spoken of the severity of the revenue laws. The House were aware that revenue laws in their nature were more or less severe. He certainly was not prepared to follow the hon. and learned gentleman in minute detail; but he would stand upon the general principle, and in opposition to the hon. and learned gentleman, he would say, that he had not proved that the influence of the Crown had increased.—The hon. and learned gentleman had next dwelt upon the supposed influence of the Crown upon the members of that House; and had stated, that the number holding offices under the Crown amounted at present to 80. Here again, he must say, that his information was different from that of the hon. and learned gentleman. He could not find more than sever or eight and forty persons sitting in that House who held offices under the Crown, a sense to which influence could be fairly attached. The hon. and learned gentleman must have had recourse to the stores immediately surrounding him to swell up his number—he must have inducted the hon. member for Calne, the hon. member for Bath, and the hon. and learned member for Peterborough. Surely the hon. and learned gentleman, jealous as he was of the influence of the Crown, and anxious as he was for the purity of that House, would not say that the one was likely to be promoted, or the other endangered, by his own friends who held places under the Crown, and yet sat as members in that House. He never had complained, and he never would, of a just and salutary jealousy in that House on the subject of royal influence; but he must always oppose exaggerated statements, however boldly they might be put forth.—He now felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the conduct of that parliament which the hon. and learned gentleman had reviled in such strong terms. He apprehended that the hon. and learned gentleman might have laid his motion much deeper than he had done—he might have gone much farther back; seeing that his object was, not to regulate the influence of the Crown, but to effect a complete alteration of the present parliamentary system. He ought not to have confined himself to the period when Mr. Pitt came into office, nor to the time when lord Sidmouth succeeded Mr. Pitt; he ought to have gone beyond the year 1780, and endeavoured to show, by a comparison with what then occurred, that the present parliament was corrupt and bad. But, what had been the conduct of parliament during the whole period to which the hon. and learned gentleman had alluded? Had it not proceeded on the principle of restraining, within clue bounds, the whole influence of the Crown, so far as it had any tendency to be employed for corrupt purposes? Had not parliament endeavoured, as much as possible, to contract the expenditure of the public money? And had they not brought it within much narrower bounds than the hon. and learned gentleman had stated? The last forty years was an era during which many signal transactions had occurred. The expenses of the Crown, and consequently its influence, had, in that period, been contracted and regulated. It was true, that Mr. Burke's bill did not prove successful. But the spirit in which that bill was conceived, was sedulously kept alive, and the consequence was, that Mr. Burke's bill was followed up by a number of efficient measures. Did the hon. and learned gentleman consider that there was no change in the system, when Mr. Pitt placed the finance of the country on a new footing? He altered the system under which previously the creatures of government received the donations of the Crown through the influence of the ministers. He threw open the competition for loans, in which the Bank of England saw fair play between the Crown and the public. All the contracts for the state, for victualling the navy, for taking up transports, which were before settled in the private room of the minister, Mr. Pitt caused to be thrown open. He had those contracts superintended by boards, and effected on the principle of open competition. Was this no criterion to show that the revenue of the Crown and its influence had been scrupulously watched? One of the most remarkable eras in the history of the country, with reference to its internal reform, had been alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman; and he must say, that the hon. and learned gentleman had misunderstood every thing which Mr. Rose had stated on the subject. Mr. Rose had not said, that 400 or 300 offices had been reduced, and 1,500 created; but that 480 offices had been reduced, and 200 and odd menial offices in the revenue created. In 1804, Mr. Pitt abolished 196 sinecure offices, which had previously cost the country 42,000l. a year; and offices of that kind were more likely than any others to secure parliamentary influence. The hon. and learned gentleman had alleged, that offices had increased in proportion to the increase of the revenue. The reverse of this statement was the fact. The revenue had indeed increased; but upwards of 300 offices had been reduced. A much smaller number had been created, and those were of that description which were actually necessary for the administration of the system. What had been the conduct of his majesty's ministers since those situations were reduced? To that he would advert presently, always requesting it to be borne in mind, that a time of peace was the proper period for examining the spirit by which a government was animated. Before he came to that period, he would refer to an intervening year, when the hon. member for Corfe Castle set on foot an elaborate inquiry into the state of the finances of the country. He entered minutely into the constitution of all those offices which Mr. Burke did not think it necessary to meddle with, because he thought them essential to the government. He left them untouched, knowingly and willingly, with his eyes open. He did so on a principle which he avowed in his celebrated speech on the subject. But such was the growing temper for reform in that House, that an inquiry was instituted into the nature, uses, and emoluments of those offices; and many years did not elapse until the whole system of sinecure offices was expunged from the government of the country. So that, when the question of abolishing one of the joint postmasters-general was brought forward a few nights since, the hon. member for Corfe Castle justified his vote in favour of that proposition, on the ground that it was the only office under government that could be denominated a sinecure. Two hundred offices in England, Scotland, and Ireland had been abolished, exclusive of 100 of a minor nature which came within the civil list of the Crown. He knew it might be said, that a corresponding influence was granted to the Crown by an additional sum of money that was voted to it, But this was not the fact. The offices suppressed cost the country 57,000l. a-year, whereas the sum voted was only 30,000l. No less than 39 of the offices thus reduced were compatible with a seat in parliament. The result of the retrenchment consequent on the reduction of offices which took place conformably with the address of last year, might be collected from the official returns. His right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, meant to take credit, this year, on account of the reduction of those offices, for a saving of 150,000l. From the close of the war up to the period of the address of last year, the government had completely examined the whole system of the country, for the purpose of seeing what offices could be suppressed or regulated. He held in his hand a list of every office that existed at present, as well as of those that had been reduced. The result was, that from the close of the war up to the period of the address of last year, 1,699 offices were reduced, and the individuals holding them were dismissed, making a saving of 360,000l. This was exclusive of the offices suppressed at the time the hon. member for Corfe Castle brought forward his proposition, which had the effect of reducing offices that cost the country 220,00l. a-year. So that there had been a reduction between the conclusion of the war and the time of the address last year, of 2,012 offices, and a consequent saving of 580,00l. Besides this, there was a subsequent reduction of offices to the amount of 150,000l., making a total saving of 730,000l. He admitted that much remained to be done; and he could assure the House that no wish was entertained by ministers, not to push reform to every practicable and commendable extent. With the exception of the Customs, there was not a single department connected with the revenue of Great Britain and Ireland, that was not, at present, subject to a strict inquiry; not by persons appointed by the ministers of the Crown, but by commissioners appointed by parliament, and acting under the sanction of an oath. If he could show that proceedings of this kind had been, and were, in progress, he conceived it would be an ample justification, not merely of ministers, but of that parliament which the hon. and learned gent. Had so greatly reviled. Yes: that reviled parliament, much as the hon. and learned gentleman despised it, had saved not only this country but the civilized world. If he could show that, for the last 40 years, every attempt had been made, and not unsuccessfully, to keep down the influence of the Crown, to retrench the public expenditure, and to watch narrowly over the issue of the public money, he should, he thought, go a good way towards rescuing parliament and the ministers of the Crown from the censure of the hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman appeared, indeed, much more anxious to accuse and vituperate the parliament, than the government. For the purpose of impeaching parliament, he had quoted various transactions which had happened during the last 20 years, and had condemned in severe terms the course which that House had pursued with reference to particular measures. He had, more especially, alluded to the proceedings that had taken place relative to the Malt-tax, which he seemed, to think indicative of the corrupt state of the representation. But, if the Malt-tax were repealed in a very thin House, was not the duty of ministers to introduce the question when there was a more full attendance of members? If he (lord L.) should ever have the good fortune to persuade the House to adopt any particular measure, would not the hon. and learned gentleman take the most favourable opportunity to resist, and, if possible, to defeat that measure? If such a plan were good for one side of the House, assuredly it must be good for both. The hone and learned gentleman could not suppose that a privilege of that kind—the privilege of selecting the best opportunity for effecting a particular object, belonged only to himself and his friends. It was perfectly clear, from all that had been said by the hon. and learned gentleman, that parliamentary reform, and nothing else, was, the end and object of his motion. He seemed to have no other view save that of degrading, not the present House of Commons, which he appeared, to hold in perfect respect,—but every House of Commons that had preceded it for many years. He was not prepared to go through all the historical matter which the hon. and learned gentleman had introduced. His invective was not directed against parliament because they had supported the present ministers for many years, but because they had generally supported that system which, he conscientiously believed, had wrought the salvation of the country. He was yet to learn that that House ought to nominate the ministers of the Crown. For his own part, he thought it was the bounden duty of the members of that House to support the minister of the Crown for the time being. It, was in consequence of the support which ministers had received from the legislature, that this country had bean enabled to keep up a successful struggle against the acts of revolutionary governments, and to meet the machinations of some of the infatuated subjects of this country. Steady in the march he had described, government had adopted every practicable measure for ameliorating the state of the country. Every reasonable man must perceive, that it had gone along with those principles which were bound up with every thing that was valuable to the people of this country—with every thing, that was essential to the liberties of Europe. This reviled par- liament, which the hon. and learned member would that night degrade for the purpose of bringing it to some of those standards which he thought better than the present, had done its duty to the empire. It was not the sarcasms of the hon. and learned gentleman, nor his gloomy forebodings, nor his vehement attacks against the minister of the day, that could divert the parliament of the country from that great career of honour and of glory, which it was pursuing. He would maintain, in the face of all the charges which the hon. and learned gentleman had made against parliament, that it had conducted this empire, most successfully, through a crisis fraught with unexampled difficulty and danger. It had, by its wisdom, its firmness, and its prudence, saved this country from ruin, and rescued the remainder of Europe from hopeless slavery. He, therefore, would never stand by and hear the parliament of England calumniated, after the glorious acts which it had achieved. He called on the House that night to oppose the resolution of the hon. and learned gentleman. He would warn them, that the hon. and learned gentleman had not introduced it for the purpose of effecting the repeal of a few petty bills, nor was his object the reduction of one or two offices, neither was his intention confined to preventing a few placemen from sitting in that House. No: he looked far beyond these trifling points; and if he carried his motion, he would, on some other occasion, come down to the House and say, "I should not act up to the principles I laid downy, if I rested here. I feel that I should deceive you, if I said, that any thing I have done towards excluding placemen from this House was sufficient. Nothing has been done, so long as this guilty parliament, this nuisance, which poisons the source of our prosperity, is suffered to exist. Be true to yourselves, and to the interests of the public, and effect that reform of parliament for which you have laid the basis, by agreeing to my resolution." He protested solemnly against the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman because he had proposed one thing, while, in fact, he meant another. He wished to sap the foundation of the character of parliament, knowing that, if the House were base enough to sign its own honour, a dissolution of the present system must inevitably follow He hoped, therefore, that the House would immediately pass to the other orders of the day, and not give any countenance to so destructive a proposition. He called on the House the more earnestly to do this, because he gave them not merely his conscientious assurance (which would undoubtedly be a weak ground for them to act upon), but the evidence which was placed on their table, that at the present moment measures were in progress, to search and investigate every office to which the idea of influence could be attached, for the purpose of placing it on the most economical footing. Those offices would be placed on grounds very different from those on which they had formerly stood; and he now gave to the House the best pledge he could, that ministers would not relax in their efforts to introduce a system of the most rigid economy. He would therefore conclude with moving, "That the other orders of the day be now read."

Mr. Bennet

said, he rose to address the House with considerable diffidence, after the eloquent and argumentative speech of his hon. and learned friend, and the able speech, for so he must in candour call it, of the noble lord. The noble lord had assumed pretty nearly the same tone which one of his predecessors had adopted when Mr. Dunning brought forward his celebrated motion. But, what was the answer of that House to the then minister? The answer then given was the same which ought now to be given. The minister was left in a minority. The country found that the interest of the Crown, in every department of the state, was too strong for the interest of the people, and therefore the House acceded to the proposition. The noble lord had gone through the different departments of the state, and he (Mr. B.) deemed it necessary to touch upon some of them. What, he would ask, was the amount of revenue at present collected? He did not look so much to the amount, as to the expense of its collection, and the influence necessarily connected with it. In 1792, the expense of collection was little more than one million: in 1822, it was between four and five millions. Was it not, therefore, impossible to deny that the influence of the Crown had increased in the same ratio? There were between 18 and 20,000 civil officers, whom the Crown nominated and paid, and who were directly under its influence. Now, would any one be hardy enough to contend, that such an extensive patronage as this might not be used for corrupt purposes? It was a mere joke to suppose that ministers looked about for persons who were the best fitted to fill this or that office; and that no unworthy solicitations were ever made, or attended to, when a place happened to be vacant. How the noble lord could assert this in the presence of so many individuals, the object of whose frequent visits to the Treasury could not be mistaken, surprised him not La little. The noble lord challenged any member of that House to show in what instance the long arm of the Treasury was stretched for to exert any improper influence, Now, he would, for example, point out two instances. One of these was the Post-office. He happened to have some knowledge of the system of administration there. He knew that in 1780 the patronage of that department was entirely in the hands of the postmaster-general. Now, however, it was wholly and entirely in the hands of the Treasury. In the department of the Customs in England, Scotland, and Ireland, there were about 9,000 persons, and in the Excise, 6,000. There was in fact a large army in the Customs and Excise—a body equal in number to the standing army kept up in this country in the good old times. Was there not also an immense increase of influence in the naval and military departments? The noble lord thought, perhaps, that the spirit of persecution which formerly prevailed, on account of political opinions, did not now exist. But he could point out to the noble lord persons whose military services entitled them to honours and rewards, and who would have received those honours and rewards, if they had sat on the ministerial side of the House. The noble lord asked, "Do you think the political conduct of individuals operates against them in the eyes of ministers?" He would say, "Yes;" and he would tell the noble lord why he thought so. He did not mean to build his opinion on the case of his gallant friend, the member of Southwark, scandalous and revolting as was the treatment he had received. His opinion was founded on the fact disclosed by the papers on their table, from which it appeared that, since the year 1793, no less than 989 officers had been dismissed the service without trial, and almost without accusa- tion, So much for the influence of the Crown; and it was impossible that such an exertion of power should fail to have an influence. The true proposition which his honourable and learned friend had made out was this, that the expenditure of the government had increased, and with it the influence of the Crown. The noble lord had alluded to Mr. Rose's pamphlet, to show that in former times there were more placemen in parliament. Mr. Rose was not very remarkable for the accuracy of his statements. He had asserted, it was true, that in 1762 there were 96 persons in the House who held places, but on what authority he (Mr. B.) had been unable to find. All he answered for was, that 87 persons were now in the House who held places, though some of those places were merely honorary—as king's counsel, king's serjeant, &c. Yet even these were valuable in a professional way. The 87 persons had amongst them 163,000l. There were, moreover 73 persons holding military and naval commissions—a number grater than was ever known before. It was evident, too, from the words of the questions in that resolutions of former times against placemen in the House, that members holding commissions were included in that description. Another point of view in which it was not possible to avoid putting the question of the influence of the Crown was, its influence through the church? That reverend body always, perhaps from good motives, went with the Crown, even in matters in which it should seem difficult for any persons, having religious feelings, to fallow it. Not to speak of the establishment of Ireland—where the nobility parceled out the lands of the kingdom among the younger branches of their families, under the names of bishops and archbishops—where there was a church of 500,000 Protestants, with a body of' ecclesiastics richer even than those of Spain had been—a body of ecclesiastics having less to do, and more to receive than any in the world, there were in England alone, in the gift of the Crown, two archbishopricks, 24 bishopricks, 38 deaneries, 46 prebends, and 1,020 livings. He would ask whether the gift of this enormous patronage had not necessarily an immense effect on the country? He would call their attention to what had been done by the Crown in the purchase of that House. The great creations of peers during the last 20 years had been persons brought out of that House on account of the number of seats which they held there, and which they left to be occupied by their nominees. In 1780, there were 225 peers; and in the discussion on Mr. Burke's bill, it was asserted by the late lord Liverpool, that this number was rather fewer than they were in 1760. At the present moment there were 378. It might be curious to compare some particular ranks of the peerage at the two periods. In 1780, there was but one marquis, now there were 18. In 1780, there were 78 earls, now there were 109. There were in 1780, 65 barons, now there were 142. It was to be remarked, that this last numerous class was the first step from this to the other House. If they went through the great batches of peers made during the war with France, they would find that in the great majority of instances, the consideration had been political services in that House—the voting for the ministry, or the filling of seats with those who might vote for then The noble lord had made a general panegyric on the parliament; but he had found it difficult to follow his hon. and learned friend through the specific in stances of the degradation of the House of Commons—of their voting against proposition one day, and turning round at the beck of the minister to vote for it the next; voting in favour of a man when he was minister, and leaving him in a minority the moment he had left office. The noble lord had not adverted to the time when Pitt, Fox, Windham, and all the able men in the House, were sitting on one side, and opposed to the weakest and most confessedly imbecile government that had ever existed in the country. The House of Commons stood by that government; and after having supported Mr. Pitt while in office by overwhelming majorities, left him, when he opposed Mr. Addington, in a minority, in the proportion of one to four. When the noble lord praised the conduct of the parliament during the last war, why did he not look to the general result? They had found the country "a garden of Eden," and had left it "a desolate wilderness." The agricultural interest was reduced, as the noble lord acknowledged, to beggary and ruin. The commercial interest was reduced almost to ^* See Parl. Hist., vol. 21, p. 203. the same condition, and the colonial interest, was in a state of confessed bankruptcy. The condition of the country called for a reform in the House of Commons. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend, that there were two ways of reforming the House; the one was, to get rid of the pensioners and placemen in the House; for when they looked back to the lists of divisions, they would find that the votes of disputed millions of the public money had been decided by the votes of the paid servants of the Crown. The other was a reform in the mode in which members were returned to that House. Without that change, it was to little purpose for his hon. and learned friend, as far as that House was concerned, to make those speeches which were so well calculated to instruct and enlighten; he well knew that they were all as waste paper, without a cheap government under a reformed parliament.

Mr. Stuart-Wortley

said, if the bill of indictment against the House of Commons, which had been preferred by the hon. and learned gentleman, and the hon. gentleman who had spoken last, was a true one, he should feel disposed to become a reformer, and the sooner they began a reform the better. He asserted, however, that the charge against the House of Commons had been made on false grounds, as the hon. and learned gentleman had assumed reasons for the votes of that House, which, if he had read the history of his country, he might have known were not the real ones. The motion of the hon. and learned gentleman, professing to be for the reduction of the influence in the Crown, really did nothing to that end, but went directly to parliamentary reform.; as did also the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennet) who had recently proposed measures for the reduction of that influence. Now, he would say that there was no need of a reform in parliament, and that the gentlemen opposite might not mean to destroy the monarchy, yet that reform must lead to its destruction. If the influence of the Crown was strong in that House, they should recollect that on all important questions the House of Lords had gone with the Commons, except on one important occasion, when the Commons, having attempted to dictate to the whole country, had been successfully resisted by the House of Lords, supported by the people. To come to close quarters with the hon. and learned gentleman. He had, said that the House of Commons having supported Mr. Pitt when in office had, when Mr. Addington was minister supported him by large majorities against Mr. Pitt. The fact was undoubtedly true; but he denied that the inference was correct. The circumstances should be considered. Mr. Pitt having by his influence, and almost direct nomination, placed Mr. Addington as prime minister, for some reasons (which no doubt were satisfactory to himself) turned round and opposed him. He (Mr. Wortley) had said then as he said now, that Mr. Pitt gave no reason to the House of Commons why they should withdraw the confidence they had placed. The House of Commons was not to appoint the ministers of the Crown; it was the business of the House to deliberate on the measures proposed to it, and then only to withdraw its confidence from ministers, when their measures showed them to be undeserving of it. It was said that only 60 persons voted with Mr. Pitt against Mr. Addington; and for a very good reason—no one voted with Mr. Pitt on that question but his own personal friends. The adherents of Mr. Fox for the most part (Mr. Sheridan among them), who were in the habit of attacking, the then administration for its imbecility, nevertheless voted against the motion of Mr. Pitt. It ill became those, therefore, who professed to succeed to the party of Mr. Fox, to make the conduct of the majority in that division aground of blame to the House of Commons. At the death of Mr. Pitt, the government of the country devolved, he might say naturally, on Mr. Fox; he was the great rival of Mr. Pitt, and led the opinions of a great political party. Having entered office, the House of Commons would not have done right if they had not allowed him a fair chance. He thought it a most improper act to give the chief justice Of the King's-Bench a seat in the cabinet, and he had been among those who voted against it; but he well remembered how slightingly the matter was treated by Mr. Fox, who declared, that if he was to have an opposition, he hoped they would always take their stand on such a point as that. The hon. and learned gentleman had then talked of the turning of the House of Commons against the same ministry, when they were put out of office for having proposed a measure which had been since passed sub silentio. He should remember, however, the circumstances of the case. The idea was, that the ministry of that day had been determined to press that measure in spite of the scruples of the king. The king having then found it necessary to get rid of them, the question was, whether they should not allow another ministry to carry on the government? He would say more; the people were in favour of the ministry that succeeded them—a fact which the cry of "No Popery," whatever might be said of those who raised it, sufficiently proved.—He now came to the Walcheren expedition; and in that case he (Mr. S. W.) was in the majority, and was a culprit if there was any criminality They should member the circumstances. The time was just after the battle of Talavera; and the impression among the people was, that the gentlemen opposite him, if they displaced the ministry, would not prosecute the war in Span with the vigour that was desired. Those gentlemen had rather shown exultation at the failure of that expedition, the conduct of which was no doubt, highly blameable. But it became the House to consider the effect; and if the ulterior results might be mischievous, it did right to support the government. A most extraordinary charge on the House was that for its conduct on the Salt tax, because at one time this session it voted to continue the tax, and some time after, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, it voted its repeal. Now, was a first vote always to be taken as a deliberate vote? In the case of the postmasters-general, on the first vote the House supported the offices; but; having taken time to consider, they voted for the reduction. He himself was in the majority against the first motion, and for the second. The House was taken by surprise on the first motion respecting the Salt tax. In like manner, in 1812, he had thought that the death of Mr. Perceval was a death-blow to the administration, and he had persuaded a majority of the House of Commons to vote an address for the formation of a new ministry. The prince regent thus naturally addressed himself to the leaders of the Opposition party, and was met with, what he must now say were, very unreasonable propositions on their parts. In three weeks the country was tired of this state of things, and thought any government better than none. He (Mr. S. W.) again endeavoured to enforce his proposition; but the mind of the House had been changed: he had himself thought, that the Opposition had become so pledged to the war in Spain, that they were no longer to be considered dangerous as a government. He might now tell the hon. gentlemen opposite, that if the country had had confidence in them, they would have been in office more than once. But they had not only lost the confidence of those who were opposed to their principles, but they were outbid in popularity by others, who were willing to go greater lengths than they could promise. He would not use the words of Mr. Windham, that they "pandered to the base passions of the people;" but he would say, that so long as they attempted to take advantage of the prejudices of the ignorant, they would not have the confidence of the sound part of the country. They now assumed much on parliamentary reform; and the temper of the people was with them. But there was a remedy, which he should be glad if they would apply—frequent discussion of the question there and elsewhere. For the oftener this question was discussed, the sooner, he was convinced, would the people come back to good sense on the question, and see that their safety was in the continuance of the present constitution of the House of Commons.

Mr. Secretary Peel

rose to rescue his constituents from an unjust imputation. The distinguished body which he represented (the university of Oxford) might, he said, refer for an answer to the imputation, to their general conduct. As to the particular facts mentioned by the hon. and learned gentleman, they did not hear out the specific charges. Those charges, he understood, were founded on the election of lord Grenville, as chancellor, at a particular period; and, on their allowing a measure to pass in silence in 1817, which they had protested against in 1807. When they looked at the high character of lord Grenville—to his attachment to our ecclesiastical establishment—to his general line of policy—to his opposition to the principles which had marked Abe early part of the French war—when they remembered the station he had held in the university, as one of her most distinguished scholars, and as a member on the foundation of one of the most illustrious of her societies—and when they considered that his opponent was lord Eldon, the lord chancellor—the learned body that' chose him stood sufficiently vindicated, both as to the object and the motives of their Choice. As to the measure which they opposed in 1817, it was not precisely the same as that which passed in 1817; but if it had been, the circumstances were changed. The conscientious feelings of his late majesty had been against that measure; and many of those who now zealously advocated the claims of the Catholics, had, up to the death of the king, been on that account professedly adverse to them. The feeling of the country, though not changed as to the general question, had certainly been since that time changed as to the general question.

Mr. Brougham

briefly replied. He observed, that the right hon. secretary was naturally anxious to preserve the reputation of those who sent him to that House, but he had been misinformed as to the nature of the remarks on their conduct. He (Mr. B.) had not blamed them for choosing lord Grenville. Quite the contrary. He had said, that lord Grenville was every fit and proper person, for some of those very reasons urged by the right hon gentleman. But he did think, that in spite of all his natural and acquired talents, and of other qualities—all of which in his opinion should be recommendations, but some of which were more likely to be disqualifications at Oxford—if it were not for his near approach to power, lord Grenville would not have been elected. This showed the influence of the Crown out of doors as well as within, and the magnitude of the power it was their business to limit. As to the bill of 1807 they opposed it, not on the score of the king's conscience, but its own merits. He complained much less of those who yielded to those scruples, unconstitutional as such a compliance was, than of those who raised the cry of "No Popery," caring as much for popery as for the king's conscience, and as much for the king's conscience as for the opinions of William the Conqueror. It was the doctrine of the hon. member for Yorkshire, that it was the duty of the House to give its confidence to any ministers until they had proposed some measures that proved them to be unworthy of confidence. This he denied. It was the duty of the House to be satisfied as to the fitness of the persons, before, by their misgovernment, they had led the country into misfortunes. During the last war, the country was, as it were, struggling for life, when France was thundering at our gates, and when the country was torn by civil and religious dissentious. If it was proper at such a time for the House to wait till the country was plunged in utter ruin, he had ill read the constitution. As to the noble marquis, he had left all the sore places untouched, and had gently covered them in general panegyric. A more lame and impotent defence he had never heard. The question did not merely respect places and offices in that House. From that source much influence arose, which was felt in the deliberations and votes of that House. But there was a large debt. For the payment of the interest of that debt a large amount of money must be yearly levied. The collection and expenditure of that money necessarily conferred influence upon the Crown. And to meet that influence, a counterpoise was required. If they would preserve the balance of the constitution, they must introduce changes on the one side equivalent to the changes created on the other. Changes had been created by the debt and its machinery; changes were therefore necessary to be placed on the opposite side of the beam, in order to restore the equipoise. The members of that House must therefore be brought more into contact with their constituents, in order to give to the people the counterpoise required by the principles of the constitution against the influence of the Crown. He called upon the House, if they valued the goodwill and confidence of the country, to restore this counterpoise; for if they turned a deaf ear to the voice; of the people, the consequence would be well-founded dissatisfaction, and all the evils which must arise from an entire derangement of our boasted constitution.

The question being put, "That the other orders of the day be now read," The House divided: Ayes, 216: Noes, 101.

List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.	Calcraft, J.
Allen, J.H.	Calcraft, J. H.
Althorp, Visc.	Calvert, C.
Barham, J. F. jun.	Carter, John
Baring, A.	Cavendish, lord G.
Benyon, B.	Cavendish, C.
Bernal, R.	Coke, T. W.
Birch, Jos.	Colburne, N. R.
Bright, H.	Crespigny, sir W. De
Brougham, H.	Crompton, S.
Browne, Dom.	Creevey, t.
Byng, G.	Davies, T. H.
Bentinck, lord W.	Denman, T.
Benett, J.	Dundas, hon. T.

Denison, W. J.	Powlett, hon. W.
Ebrington, Visc.	Price, R.
Fitzroy, lord C.	Prittie, hon. F. A.
Fitzory, lord J.	Robinson, sir G.
Frankland, R.	Rice, T. S.
Graham, S.	Ricardo, D.
Grant, J. P.	Rowley, sir W.
Grattan, J.	Robarts, A.
Griffiths, J. W.	Robarts, G.
Glenorchy, lord	Rumbold, C.
Guise, sir W.	Russell, lord J.
Gaskell, B.	Scarlett, J.
Hamilton, lord A.	Scott, James
Hobhouse, J. C.	Sefton, earl of
Honeywood, W. P.	Smith, S.
Hume, J.	Smith, W.
Hurst, Robt.	Stuart, lord J.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.	Tavistock, marquis of
James, W.	Taylor, M. A.
Jervoise, G. P.	Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Kennedy, T. F.	Titchfield, marquis of
Lamb, hon. G.	Tennyson, C.
Lambton, J. G.	Warre, J. A.
Lemon, sir W.	Western, C. C.
Lloyd, sir E.	Whitbread, S. C.
Lennard, T. B.	Whitbread, W. H.
Leycester, R.	Williams, J.
Maberly, J.	Wilson, sir R.
Maberly, W. L.	Wood, alderman
Macdonald, J.	TELLERS.
Mackintosh, sir J.	Bennet, hon. H. G.
Martin, J.	Duncannon, visct.
Maule, hon. W.	PAIRED OFF.
Maxwell, John	Aubrey, sir J.
Milbank, M.	Barham, J. F.
Monck, J. B.	Baring, H.
Moore, P.	Curwen, J. C.
Mostyn, sir T.	Ellice, Ed.
Newport, sir J.	Hill, lord A.
Nugent, lord	Lushington, S.
Normanby, lord	White, L.
Plamer, col. C.	Fergusson, sir R.
Phillips, G. jun