Commons Sitting of 17 February 1826

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.
The order of the day for going into a committee on the Charge against Mr. Kenrick was read. On the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,"
The Speakersaid, that before he quitted the Chair, it was fit that the House should thoroughly understand the course to be pursued in the committee. If the committee were left without any instruction, it would be its duty not only to inquire into the charge by evidence, but to come to some resolution upon it, afterwards to be reported to the House; if, on the other hand, the committee, by a special instruction, were confined only to the taking of evidence, that evidence would be reported without the declaration of any opinion. Thus the result in the two cases would be different, and the course of proceeding would also materially vary. It would be observed also, that no speech from counsel could be heard, if the committee were only to take evidence, though the learned gentlemen might cross-examine the witnesses. If there were no restriction on the committee, and the whole subject were left open to its deliberation, then, of course, it would be its duty to listen to counsel on behalf of the party accused.
Mr. Denmanwished the committee to inquire into the whole matter, and that Mr. Kenrick's counsel should have an opportunity of addressing the committee, when the evidence was gone through. He should think it his duty, after the inquiry was over, to propose certain resolutions.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought the better way would be to confine the committee to receiving the evidence. The House was aware that a judge was independent of the Crown, and could be removed only on an address from parliament. It was possible that the House might, in this instance, have to discharge that important duty. He merely supposed the possibility of such a contingency. Was it not, then, better that the House should have all the facts laid before it, and, on a full revision of the case, adopt such measures as were best calculated to answer the ends of justice?
Mr. Denmanthought that justice would be more likely to be done, while the proceeding would be infinitely more satisfactory to all parties, if a committee of the whole House inquired into the case without restriction. Any address to the Crown to remove a judge, must of course be the act of the House; but he did not see why a committee should not so pursue the inquiry, as to arrive at a termination which warranted it in reporting its opinion. First, the proof of the charge would be given, and upon that proof the committee might or might not report the charge established. He did not, in fact, see how the whole inquiry could be disposed of otherwise, and could find no sufficient reason, why the reported opinion of the committee, as far as it was of value, should not have its weight with the whole House.
The Speakeragain pressed upon the House the necessity of settling the course of proceeding. He had omitted to state, that if the committee went through the whole of the testimony, and registered its opinion in resolutions, those resolutions, as a matter of course, would be reported, but unaccompanied by the evidence. If, on the other hand, the committee were confined to the taking of evidence, that evidence would form the report, and the House might arrive at its own decision. It was true, that evidence could be laid upon the table upon the motion of any hon. member, but such a proceeding always implied a doubt as to
502
the propriety of the determination of the committee.
Mr. Peelthought, that in so grave a case, it would be well for the House to reserve its power till after the committee. Suppose the committee should be of opinion, that though the individual had not acted quite correct, his conduct had not been so censurable as to call for his removal; would it not be desirable to avoid as much as possible casting a stigma upon a public functionary so placed? He thought, upon the whole, the better course would be for the committee to take the evidence, that being the sole duty devolving upon it, and then report it, the House reserving to itself any ulterior consideration. Of the case, he knew nothing, and was therefore free from prepossession and prejudice either way.
Mr. Abercrombysaw no substantial difference between the two courses. The result, in either case, would, in his opinion, be the same; nor did he think that the accused party would be aggrieved by adopting the course suggested by his learned friend. Any case having reference to the administration of justice could not be inquired into with too much exactness. It ought to be thoroughly sifted; for if the opinions which had been broached were to be acted upon, namely, that the House was not authorised to inquire into the conduct of a judge, it would be deprived of one of its most wholesome and important functions.
Mr. Denmansaid, that another reason for requiring an opinion from the committee was, that in that case counsel might be heard before it in the same manner as his learned friend, Mr. Gurney, had been permitted to address the committee of last session.
The Speakersaid, that in either case counsel might be heard: they could be heard before the committee, if the committee were to report their opinion, or before the House, if the House reserved to itself the consideration of the evidence.
The Hon. William Lambsaid, he could not discover in what way this particular charge was connected with Mr. Kenrick's public character, or judicial duties. In the former inquiry, there was at least an allegation that Mr. Kenrick, as a magistrate, had been guilty of a denial of justice; a public wrong was thus done, and a private injury sustained. When, however, the House was now told, that it was its solemn duty to watch over

503
the conduct of judges, he could not help adverting to the point, how far the judicial conduct of the party accused was involved in this question. He had never held so absurd a doctrine, as that the official acts of judges ought not to be investigated by the House; but he begged leave to state, that he should be sorry to see the censorial power of prying into the private lives and domestic affairs of judges, vested in any body of men, and of all bodies of men, he should be most sorry to see it exercised by the House of Commons, where the power was so likely to be abused, and made the instrument of the most iniquitous tyranny. He had no connection with, and felt no prejudice in favour of Mr. Kenrick. He was only anxious to avoid the establishment of so dangerous a precedent—a precedent which might, at some future period, be applied to the ruin of an innocent, but an unpopular and obnoxious individual. He did not feel inclined to resist the motion, that the Speaker leave the chair; but he thought it would be much wiser if the House, in this stage, dropt the proceeding altogether. He did not see that the party supposed to have sustained the wrong, would thus be materially injured; and it seemed to him, that one part of the charge, namely, that which related to the compromise, was a matter of daily occurrence. Juries were frequently desired to find parties not guilty, when the evidence was strong against them, because some arrangement had been made; and he much doubted whether his learned friend himself had not been, in the course of his practice, a party to them. If the House were now to abandon the charge, it would require no explanation; because every man of discrimination and understanding would always see on the face of the accusation ample and manifest reasons for relinquishing the proceeding [hear, hear!]. He had not intended to have offered an amendment, but finding himself supported in his view of the case, he should move, "That this House will not proceed further in the matter of the said Charge,"
Colonel Woodseconded the amendment. AH he knew of the case had been gathered from the votes. He was quite at a loss as to the capacity in which Mr. Kenrick was charged. In the accusation he was spoken of, indeed, as a magistrate and a Welch judge. But, pf what had he been guilty in those characters?
504
The House was not precluded from such inquiries, but to enter upon them lightly was to open a wide and dangerous door. The best and safest course would be to proceed no further.
Mr. Secretary Peelwished to state the reason why he should support the original motion. If the case were entirely a new one, and now brought forward for the first time, he should, as he had said on a former night, feel very much disposed to concur in opinion with his hon. friend, that the proceeding was inexpedient. But, he could not come to that conclusion now. They had permitted the charge to lie on their table. They had so far committed themselves for inquiry; and the learned gentleman had consented to postpone that inquiry, at his suggestion, from the last session, without the least hint given to him, that there was any intention to mar his proceeding in a later stage. In candour, therefore, he could not now interpose an obstacle, however impressed he might be with the injurious tendency of the precedent. He did not, however, see that this was exactly a private or domestic transaction, with which it was clearly beyond their province to interfere. No doubt the learned gentleman meant to impute malice to Mr. Kenrick in Franks case, and in the discharge of his public duty. Beset as he felt the proceeding was with dangers and difficulties, still he could not refuse his assent, under the circumstances in which he was placed, to the learned gentleman's motion.
Mr. Scarlettfelt that the present charge was only part of the proceeding of last session. From professional connexion with the parties, he had, from the first, been unwilling to say one word upon the subject; and he should have been deeply impressed with what had fallen from the hon. member for Hertford, if the present accusation had stood alone. One part of it was for a malicious prosecution, and the other for a libel; and for both, the ordinary tribunals of the country afforded sufficient remedies. Franks might bring his action for a malicious prosecution, if the prosecution were malicious; or he might proceed for damages for a libel, if the publication complained of were libellous. He agreed fully with the hon. member for Hertford as to the nature of the charge; he had never, indeed, read it until that moment, but he found that Mr. Kenrick was not accused in it, either as a magistrate or as a judge. He could easily

505
foresee that the House might be involved in some difficulty by entertaining it. Suppose the evidence having been gone through, the House should find the accusation true, and Franks, encouraged by the resolution, should bring his action; the jury might find a verdict for the defendant, and thus the decision of the House and of a court of justice would be in direct opposition. He did not mean, that the decision of a jury would be conclusive against the House, or prove that the House had been wrong in its hasty resolution; but he pointed out the manner in which the decisions might clash, in order to show the inconvenience that might result from entering upon the question at all.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that as far as he understood the charge, it did not at all imply malice. It alleged that Mr. Kenrick had preferred an accusation against Franks without sufficient proof; yet it went on to state, that the proof was so sufficient as to induce a magistrate to commit, and a grand jury to find a true bill. Thus, then, it was evident, that the only tangible accusation against Mr. Kenrick was for publishing a libel; but he had not published it, either in his character of a magistrate or a judge. If, indeed, the House had already committed itself on the subject, he should not feel himself at liberty to vote against proceeding further with the inquiry; but it seemed to him, that it was only to investigate the moral character of an individual, and that the precedent about to be established was full of danger.
Mr. Denmanexpressed much surprise at the course which the discussion had taken. It could not be forgotten, that the charge had been placed upon the Journals in the last session; that long previous notice had been given of it; that papers had been laid upon the table; and that the grounds laid for the motion were quite unconnected with the private conduct of Mr. Kenrick. That gentleman had thought proper to apply for a criminal information against a newspaper for some comments upon his magisterial conduct, and he had put in several affidavits, in one of which was this gross libel upon Franks. Was this a private proceeding, or were the materials of accusation taken from an opponent? No; they were publicly and voluntarily furnished in a court of justice by Mr. Kenrick himself. They were in consequence, repeated in thousands of news-
506
papers throughout the country. To say of such a proceeding, that it was an inquisition into a man's private and domestic life, was very much like a perversion of fact. He denied that the transaction had any thing in it of a private character; it was, on the contrary, a most gross act of public oppression, and a great perversion of justice. To say that such things were frequently done by professional men in compromises for their clients was incorrect. For any barrister to have acted so, would have been most disgraceful; and he could assure his hon. friend, that he had never, in his professional course, tolerated such a practice. He was also quite surprised at what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Scarlett), who had warned them against proceeding, because, forsooth, it was possible they might decide one way, and a jury afterwards another. If that argument were valid, there would be an end altogether to parliamentary control; for, in almost every case in which their jurisdiction could be called for, the parties might possibly have a legal remedy elsewhere. He repeated, that he impugned Mr. Kenrick upon his public act—upon that affidavit, the libellous contents of which proclaimed a calumny, to the serious injury of an individual who had already been oppressed for a supposed act of felony. He admitted, that he was bound to show a malicious motive; for without that the libel might be no crime. There were libels in a legal sense, he knew, that brought down punishment upon the writers, although, in a moral sense, they entitled them to the highest praise. But, what mitigation was there in this case I Here was a man who first prosecuted his neighbour as a felon, and, then failing in the attempt, afterwards endeavoured to run him down by a libel, stating false facts to his prejudice. Ought such a person to be permitted to continue in the administration of justice? Mr. Kenrick had thought proper to charge four facts against this poor and unhappy man, every one of which he undertook distinctly to prove false and calumnious. Was the House to look on, and see such acts perpetrated by a public functionary, who was bound to administer strict justice? If they were prepared to sit merely for the gratification of their own individual pursuits and the promotion of their own interests, they might do so, and risk their character with the public. He would ask them, whether there

507
could be any duty more important than that of keeping the judgment-seat clear from stain, of preventing its occupancy by those who could only sit there to disgrace it? If they were prepared to admit this, and make such conduct a stepping-stone to promotion, or a protection for guilt, then, in God's name, let them avow that determination in the face of the public, and dispose of his motion as they pleased. So long, however, as he had a seat in the House, he was determined to do his duty. The argument of some hon. members would go this length—that all propriety, all moderation, all decorum, might be banished from the bench, without requiring the interference of that House. Would this indifference on the part of the House render the office of judge more respectable in the estimation of the public? He contended that, by the act of Settlement, it was the duty of the House to examine the conduct of judges, if notoriously improper, even on matters which affected their private character. If open scandal arose from the private conduct of a judge, which would be prejudicial to the administration of justice in his person, the House was bound to inquire into the affair. The conduct of the learned person, the subject of the present discussion, had been made public, by his own voluntary act, in bringing the matter before a court of justice; and it was, therefore, such that the House could not omit to notice it.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that his argument did not go the length of asserting, that all moderation and decorum might be banished from the bench, and yet no public inquiry should take place by that House. He would admit, that the private conduct and actions of judges might in some cases become the subject of parliamentary inquiry; but these were extreme cases. If a judge was guilty of a libel, the law would reach him as well as any other person; and where that remedy might be had, he did not think, except in extreme cases, the House should interfere in matters affecting private conduct.
Mr. Stuart Wortleythought the present case rather a curious one for the interference of the House. He would admit that the House might be called upon to interfere in certain cases, but he thought the present was not one of them. According to the statement of the hon. and learned mover, the first two parts of his charge were not offences of Mr. Kenrick, nor offences at all. It was another
508
magistrate by whom the man was committed. Then, as to inducing a man to plead guilty, it was a thing done every day. What was more common than to ask a roan accused of forgery to plead guilty to the minor offence? In these there was nothing of which that House or any tribunal could take cognizance. He objected to the motion, because he thought it would lead to a very bad precedent. He should be sorry to see the House of Commons made judges of libel. The House took that office with respect to its own privileges; and though he did not think that, even in such a case, they were at all times the best judges, yet they did claim that power, and would allow no other party to be judges of it but themselves. God forbid, however, that they should ever become the judges of the question of libel in private cases; for he considered that they would be the worst possible judges of such matters. From the very nature of the case, they must be prejudiced. He would therefore advise the twelve learned gentlemen to let the question of libel be decided by a jury of twelve men, and then, fortified with their verdict, if he should obtain it, let him come to that House with a motion respecting the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, and they would no doubt deal with the case as it might require. Having this view of the case, he felt obliged to the hon. member for Hertford for having moved the amendment; for, as long as he had a seat in that House, he would never consent to a vote which would make it the judges of libels between individuals.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, he did not know any thing of the merits of the case; but whenever a matter affecting the conduct of a judge came before them, he thought it was their duty to institute an inquiry. The doctrine held by hon. members who opposed this motion, would have the effect of shutting out the exercise of one of the most valuable of their functions. He thought it was not too much to say, that if an individual, by acts of his own, had given notoriety to certain parts of his conduct, and those parts were of such a character as that, after they became known, no minister would dare to recommend him to the Crown to fill the office of judge—it was not, he repeated, too much to say, that the same acts being committed by a person who already held the office of judge, the House was bound, by the act of Settlement, to make them the subject

509
of inquiry. Was it denied that the judges, who had to decide on questions affecting the lives and property of the king's subjects, ought to be men of pure and unblemished character? And, if this was important to the due administration of justice, was it too much to ask, that inquiry should be made, when charges affecting the character of a judge in a very serious manner, though not in his judicial capacity, were brought before the House? Some gentlemen, who thought it beneath them to protect the purity of the administration of justice, might wish to get rid of all inquiry; but he took a very different view of his duties as a member of that House, and of the importance of the matter before them; and he thought it would be no excuse for their neglect of this subject to say, that the House had already decided on a former case affecting the gentleman whose name was mentioned. This case was the following up of that which they had before them last session. It might be a matter of regret that they were not both together; but that ought not to hinder them from being considered as affecting the character of the individual, as to his fitness for being continued in the office of judge. Taking the two cases together (should the present charge be made out), the question would be, was the conduct of this gentleman, on the whole, such as that no minister would recommend his appointment as a judge; and if not, ought he to be continued in that situation? He did not mean to say it followed that, because he could not now be recommended to the office, he ought therefore not to be continued in it; but the question, as was properly observed by the right hon. secretary, was one of degree; and it would be for the House, considering all the circumstances of both cases, to say, whether they were such as should induce them to send up any address to the Crown on the subject of this gentleman's removal from office. As to the case itself, he would not go into it; but he thought it was almost impossible, that any man could read the charges, and not say there was a case for serious investigation. He regretted to find that it was viewed so lightly by some hon. members, or that they should feel disposed to throw so important a duty from their own shoulders.
Mr. Secretary Canningobserved, that of all the questions which came under the consideration of that House, those which partook of a judicial character were the ques-
510
tions on which every hon. member must act on his own individual impression. Without at all entering into the merits of the case itself, he was desirous briefly to state the grounds on which he should vote against the amendment, and for the hon. and learned gentleman's motion. If the question were now brought forward for the first time, he might, perhaps, be inclined to agree with those who were of opinion, that there was not that in the charge on the table, which ought to induce the House to enter into the consideration of the subject. But, he could not forget that a proceeding, of which this was a part, was received and countenanced by the House last session; nor could he forget, that he was one of those who concurred in inducing the hon. and learned gentleman to postpone that proceeding to the present; without, of course, entertaining the slightest intention of interposing any obstacle to that proceeding, whenever the hon. and learned gentleman might think proper to bring it forward. He therefore found himself compelled, by a sense of consistency, in this view of the case (although he did not know what he might have done, were the subject now an original one), to abstain by his vote from throwing any impediment in the way of a proceeding, which the learned gentleman, for the convenience of public business, had last session consented to stay. This was certainly not more than the learned gentleman had a right to expect in return for his courtesy.
Mr. Denisonsaid, he had just had a communication with Mr. Kenrick in the lobby, who had told him, that he was perfectly prepared to meet the charge preferred against him, but would cheerfully submit to any course the House might think proper. He entirely concurred in the sentiments of the hon. member for Yorkshire; there was one observation, however, in the speech of the learned member for Calne, on which he must make a single remark. That learned member had supposed, that Mr. Kenrick's magisterial character would influence the committing magistrate to commit the person against whom he preferred the charge, and would afterwards influence the grand jury to find the bill. Now, really he thought the learned member knew the law too well not to be aware that no committing magistrate would have dared so to act, liable as he would be to severe punishment for his conduct; and

511
that it was not probable the grand jury, who were on their oaths, would be induced, by fear or affection, to commit gross and deliberate perjury.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that if the hon. member for Hertford pressed his amendment to a division, he should vote for it. He could not concur with those gentlemen who thought that this charge was a necessary sequel of the charge of last session. They were quite distinct, and he thought it would be injustice to Mr. Kenrick for hon. members to allow their opinions on this case to be influenced by what took place on that occasion. The ground on which the case of last session went was, that if it could be proved that this gentleman had acted improperly in his character as a justice of the peace, that ought to be a reason why he should be considered unfit to fill the higher office of a judge. The transaction in the present case did not affect him in his public capacity, but had reference to him solely as a private individual, for which he was liable, if he were in fault, to be called to account before the ordinary tribunals of the country. The House should recollect, that whatever might be their decision on this case, it would not ultimately rest with them alone. The concurrence of the other House would be necessary; and suppose that concurrence could not be obtained, what a situation would they be placed in, and what would be the painful situation of this individual, thus allowed to remain with the deep stain on his character, which a resolution of the House against him might imply? Would it not be a much better course for the House to confine itself to cases where guilt had been proved by the ordinary tribunals? He did not mean to say that there were not cases in which the House would be called upon to interfere, before any inquiry by the courts of law; but these were extreme cases, and it was most desirable that the principle applying to them should not be extended. He could not at all concur in the observation of the learned member for Calne, that if the character of an individual were such as that no minister would recommend him as a judge, that therefore (he being already a judge) he should not be allowed to continue to fill that situation. A judge held his situation quamdiu bene se gesserit; but the reasons for which he might be removed were, in general, founded upon his con-duct as a judge. He did not say that
512
cases might not arise, out of his private conduct, which would justify his removal; but the charge before the House was not, in his opinion, one of that description. Taking it for granted, for a moment, that the whole of the charge now preferred were clearly made out, he did not think it would justify the House in agreeing to an address for Mr. Kenrick's removal. One word as to the supposed pledge given by the House last session. He did not think that the postponement of the matter by general consent, implied a sanction of the propriety of its introduction in the present. Even after the charge was laid on the table, and the attendance of witnesses ordered, he thought the House were not precluded from reviewing their decision, and if reasons were shown, from coming to a resolution to proceed no further in the affair.
The House divided: for the original motion 81; for the amendment 42, majority 39.
The House having resolved itself into the committee, Mr. Robert Gordon in the chair,
Henry Peters, Esq. was called in and examined by Mr. Denman, as follows:
Are you a magistrate for Surrey?—Yes.
Where do you reside?—At Betchworthcastle.
Is that near to where Mr. Kenrick resides?—About two miles.
Are you the magistrate before whom John Franks's daughter was brought on a charge of stealing from Mr. Kenrick's family?—I am.
How long is it since that charge was preferred?—It is a great many years; I should suppose seven or eight at least.
Do you remember what the age of Franks's daughter was at the time?—I do not recollect that I ever saw her; but I understood her to be about fourteen or fifteen.
Do you recollect the fact of a charge being preferred before you?—A charge was preferred, but, to the best of my recollection, I did not see the party, I think that I only granted a search warrant.
Do you recollect any evidence being brought before you to affect either Franks, the father, or the mother, with respect to the charge so preferred against their daughter?—Certainly not.
Were they charged before you, as abettors of their daughter, in the theft she was supposed to have committed?—Certainly not.
Are you the person who had some sheep stolen some years ago, when Franks was brought into some suspicion on that account?—I was.
Will you state shortly the circumstances?—

513
It so happens that I had two sets of sheep taken; there were two years elapsed between the two circumstances. The first was, that I had about thirty-eight sheep stolen, part of I them out of a fold by the road side, near a footpath; the last were in the park. There were twenty sheep, I think, taken out of the fold, and there was a footpath leading from a house. There was a paper found by the side of the fold the day after the sheep were missed, and that paper evidently belonged to Franks, and that caused some little suspicion. I was in town myself; but my bailiff, in consequence, went to lord Rothes.
Your bailiff is here?—Yes, he is; this footpath leads from the place where Mr. Franks was working with a Mr. Browne, at the top of the hill. This footpath was in a direct road from where he was working to where he lived; there it was that the letter was found. That was the only suspicion that I ever had, or that ever was entertained of Franks having taken my sheep. Immediately after that, the man who had stolen the sheep was taken up, tried, and convicted.
Did you ever at any other time lose any sheep in which Franks ever incurred any suspicion at all?—About two years afterwards, I had, in another part of the farm, one sheep killed, and I believe taken away; another was wounded; but as to that, there was not the slightest ground of suspicion that I ever heard of against Franks.
Did you, at any time in August, 1824, receive a letter from Mr. Kenrick?—I did. I have got the letter here; but it bears no date except that of Sunday morning.
Is that in Mr. Kenrick's hand-writing?—I have not the least reason to doubt it; and I received it by his servant from him.
[The Letter was read as follows:]
"My dear Sir;—I returned home last night, and found the fair copy I send herewith, of the draft affidavit, which I hastily put together in the two days I could remain in the country, before I was obliged to set out on the circuit, after I was made acquainted with the attack made on me in the Morning Chronicle.
"My solicitor strongly recommends to me lo apply to the different parties whose names are mentioned, to make affidavit of such facts as are stated in relation to them; and shall be therefore obliged by your perusing the second, third, fourth, and fifth sheets of this draft for me, if you will make an affidavit in confirmation of what is there stated.
"I have my doubts of the propriety of stating the circumstance about your two sheep, in pages four and five, and at all events it will not be necessary, if I should be advised or determine to retain that part, for you to enter upon it in your affidavit. I will call on you to-morrow, if you wish it.
"Pray return me the draft affidavit by the bearer, after you have read the pages mentioned, and the rest, if you please. I have
514
directed the bearer to wait for it, if you are at home, any time you may wish. I am yours, truly,
"Sunday morning. W. KENRICK."
Was that letter accompanied by an affidavit?—It was.
Did you see Mr. Kenrick in consequence of that letter?—I did not, but I wrote him an answer to that letter.
Did you see Mr. Kenrick upon the subject of that affidavit?—I cannot say whether I did or not, it is so long ago; I very likely did, but I wrote him an answer to the letter decidedly at the time.
Did you keep a copy of the answer you sent?—No, I did not; I recollect perfectly well what I wrote, and I have no doubt Mr. Kenrick has got the answer.
Did you return the affidavit to Mr. Kenrick?—I did, with a letter.
Was it returned altered in any respect?—I think it very likely that I might have written my opinion upon parts of it; I recollect perfectly well having written a letter, or at least sent an answer.
What was that answer?—I said in that answer, that I did not think that I could make any affidavit to the facts he had alluded to, for that really the circumstances were all out of my recollection, with the exception of my having granted a search warrant; but with respect to the affair of Franks, I told him by all means not to state that, as there was not the slightest proof of Franks' having been guilty of that which he supposed he was. There is one thing I ought to explain, both for Mr. Kenrick's sake and my own. Till I read the letter this very morning, so little notion had of Franks having any thing to do with the second sheep (and I only slightly suspected him of stealing the first), that I thought Mr. Kenrick alluded to the first; and I stated, therefore, that there was no evidence against him, but the piece of paper having been found, and therefore I said he ought not to put it in, because the real culprit had been taken up and convicted.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney.—Is not the constable who acted upon that occasion dead?—I never heard of any constable acting upon the occasion.
A man of the name of Rose?—Rose is dead; but whether he was constable or not, I really do not know.
Do you remember whether there was not a circumstance of a bloody knife as well as a piece of paper?—I never heard of a bloody knife, till either Mr. Kenrick or Mr. Wimburn mentioned it. I never heard of a bloody knife at the time; there was a space of two years between the time of my sheep having been stolen, and the one sheep having been killed; therefore the bloody knife could not be in the fold where the sheep were taken; and I am certain I never heard of a bloody knife at the time.
Examined by Mr. Denman.—Were any sheep

515
killed on the occasion of the first sheep stealing, when the paper was found?—No, there were not.
How many years ago was this affair of the sheep?—I should think somewhere about six or seven. I really cannot remember the year.
You have been a magistrate a good many years for the county of Surrey?—Yes, a great many years.
And residing in the neighbourhood of Franks?—Yes.
Was Franks ever brought before you, as a magistrate?—Never; I never heard his name mentioned before me as a magistrate.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Edward Arnold was called in, and examined by Mr. Denman, as follows:
Are you Mr. Peters's bailiff?—I am.
Do you know any thing of a charge against Franks's daughter, some years ago?—No, nothing.
Do you know of a suspicion that fell upon Franks with respect to stealing some of Mr. Peters's sheep?—When Mr. Peters's sheep were stolen, or after they were stolen, there was a paper found in the field; I took the paper to lord Rothes, and he said he could see nothing to justify him in granting a warrant to apprehend Franks. Mr. Kenrick said, that he thought there was a suspicion to grant a warrant against Franks; lord Rothes afterwards said, that he could see nothing to justify him to grant a warrant against Franks, for any other person might be going up the field, and taking their handkerchief out of their pocket, they might drop a paper out, and it might be carried there by the wind.
Were you the witness that went before lord Rothes, with respect to that business?—Yes, I was.
Was there any other circumstance to charge Franks, except the finding a piece of paper near the fold where the sheep were taken from?—No, nothing that I heard of.
Were any of those sheep killed?—There were none killed at the time those were taken.
Was there a bloody knife found?—Not that I know of.
Was there any other person afterwards tried and convicted of stealing those sheep?—Yes, a person of the name of Bignold.
Did you attend his trial?—I did; he was tried, I believe, before lord Ellenborough, at Lewes. He was found guilty, and afterwards transported for the said offence.
Did you ever hear of any other circumstance that fixed Franks with any suspicion of stealing any sheep of Mr. Peters's?—Not to my knowledge.
How long have you lived near Franks?—Ever since 1811, I have lived little better than a mile from him.
What character has Franks borne during all that time, as an honest and industrious man?—I know nothing in respect to Franks's character; for at the time our sheep were stolen,
516
those sheep that were stolen out of the turnips, when the paper was found, I scarcely knew there was such a man except by name.
Since that time, have you ever had dealings with Franks?—Yes; I think the sheep were stolen in April, in the November following I sold him a sow.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
John Franks was called in, and examined by Mr. Denman, as follows:
What is your name?—John Franks.
Where do you live?—At Alverston, near Stratford-on-Avon.
In whose service?—Lieut.-general Jenkinson's.
In what capacity?—As gardener; I have the care of all out of the house.
Did you live some years at Betchworth, in Surrey?—Yes.
You have a freehold there?—I have.
Do you recollect your daughter being taken before Mr. Peters, the magistrate, on a charge of stealing some articles at Mr. Kenrick's?—Yes, very well.
Did you attend before the magistrate at the same time?—I did.
Was any charge made against you, of being an abettor in that theft?—I do not know that there was any charge made against me, only Mr. Kenrick rose up in a passion, and told me, if he could get any hold of me, he would make a public example of me.
Were the articles missing found any where in your house?—They were.
In what part of the house?—In a little small box belonging to the girl herself.
How old was the girl at the time?—Nearly about ten years of age; I do not know to a month or two.
What were the articles that were found in the box?—I cannot say exactly, for I never saw them till I saw them in the room; but they were slips of silk, or something of that kind, and a bit of lace, and a pair of small scissors.
Were those things found in your bed-room?—They were beside the girl's bed; she sleeps in the same room.
Were they concealed any where?—No; only in a little deal box, where she kept a doll and other things; it was a box given her by her godfather.
The charge was dismissed, it was not prosecuted?—It was not.
Out of compassion, probably, to the youth of the child?—Yes, it was.
Did Mr. Peters say any thing to you on dismissing the charge?—Not that I recollect, he did not. Mr. Adams called to me, that was Mr. Kenrick's butler.
Was that before the magistrate?—It was just withoutside of the door in the passage; but he went in to the gentlemen, and sent the constable out after me to call me back.
You were sent to prison on a charge of stealing a piece of wood?—I was.
That was in the summer of 1824?—It was.
You were in prison two months on that charge?—Exactly.
Did you give your wife any authority to intercede with Mr. Kenrick to show you any lenity on that occasion?—Not at all; I never spoke to her any thing on the subject: the last thing I spoke to her when I went out of the house was, to be sure that the children did not make use of any ill language to any of Mr. Kenrick's people, though I was sent away.
Did you ever express any gratitude to Mr. Kenrick, or his bailiff, or any of his people, for his conduct to you in the course of that prosecution?—Not at all.
Is your wife here?—I do not know that she is, unless she has come in by the coach since I came down here.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
The Counsel for Mr. Kenrick being asked what course they wished to pursue, Mr. Gurney stated, that he proposed to call a witness to deliver in certain documents.
Charles John Lawson, esq. was called in, and examined by Mr. Gurney, as follows.
What is your name?—Charles John Lawson.
You are clerk of the peace for the county of Surrey?—I am.
Are you possessed of the depositions taken by Mr. Burges, the magistrate who committed Franks?—I am.
Will you produce them? [The Witness produced the Lame, and they were read as follow:]
"The King against John Franks. The Information of James Scragg, of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, labourer, and James Beal, of Betchworth aforesaid, yeoman, taken on oath before me, Ynyr Burges, esq. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace, acting in and for the said county of Surrey, this 14th of May, 1824.
"James Scragg—Says: I am a labouring man, and work for William Kenrick, esq. in Betchworth. About five weeks or a month ago, I was directed to clean out a ditch on Mr. Kenrick's land, and to take an elm slab from the saw-pit to stand upon in the ditch, which I did. When I had cleaned out the ditch, I drew the plank into a small meadow belonging to Mr. Kenrick, and left it there; and I cannot say that I have seen the slab since, till yesterday, when I saw it in the garden, in the occupation of John Franks, now in custody. The slab was wet and dirty when I had done with using it, which was the reason I did not take it back to the saw-pit; and I did not do so afterwards, because I had forgotten it. The elm slab now produced is the same slab which I used, and is the property of Mr. Kenrick. The mark × of
"JAMES SCRAGG."
"James Beal, Sworn:—I am bailiff to William Kenrick, esq. of Betchworth; and directed the last witness, James Scragg, to take an elm slab, for the purpose of standing upon and
518
cleaning out a ditch on Mr. Kenrick's land. This was about five weeks ago; and about a week ago I missed the slab, which had been used by Scragg, which had not been returned to the saw-pit. In the morning of yesterday, the 13th May instant, I saw an elm slab standing against a new building, in the garden of John Franks, in Betchworth, and near to his dwelling-house, and about one hundred yards from Mr. Kenrick's saw-pit. Having a suspicion that the slab I then saw was the property of Mr. Kenrick, I went to-day into the garden where the slab was still standing, and examined it, and found that it was the elm slab which had been used by the last witness, Scragg, and that it was the property of Mr. Kenrick; I then took the slab away, and took it to the timber yard, belonging to Mr. Kenrick, and fitted it to the piece of timber from which it had been sawed off. The pieces now produced are the two pieces of timber, that which I took from Franks's garden, and that I brought from the timber-yard, and which fit together. I am certain the piece of timber or slab I found in Franks's garden, is the property of William Kenrick, esq. and is of the value of one shilling. JAMES BEAL."
"John Franks, in his defence, says:—The piece of timber produced, is the piece which I set up upon my premises, but I do not know where it came from; I first saw it there about a fortnight ago. It was lying down, and I set it up. I made no inquiry about it, as to where it came from."
"Surrey. The Examination of John Franks, of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, labourer, taken before me Ynyr Bulges, esq. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the county of Surrey, this 14th day of May, 1824.
"This Examinant being charged before me the said Justice, on the oaths of James Scragg and James Beal, with having, on the 14th day of May, 1824, at the parish of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, feloniously stolen and carried away one piece of elm timber of the value of one shilling, the property of William Kenrick, esq., on his examination now taken before me, saith, That he is not guilty of the offence aforesaid, though the piece of timber was on his (the Examinant's) premises; but how it came there, he this Examinant doth not know.
"JOHN FRANKS."
During Franks's imprisonment for trial, did you receive a letter from Mr. Kenrick, respecting the stopping of the prosecution?—I did.
Will you produce the letter. [The Witness produced the same, and it was read as follows:]
"Dear Sir;—I wish to have a little of your advice, arising from your practical knowledge as clerk of the peace. John Franks was committed by Mr. Burges, of Ryegate, for stealing a plank, valued at one shilling, from me, a day or two after the late sessions, and of course has been in gaol nearly three months, a punish-

519
ment perhaps sufficient for such an offence. The man has, I learned, behaved very well since he has been in gaol. He has a large family, and is a member, and has been some time so, of a benefit club, the advantage of which, by one of their rules, he would forfeit on a conviction of felony. The facts are so short, and so very clear against him, that such conviction must I think follow. Though I cannot speak in favour of his character, I believe the confinement he has suffered will operate as much, and perhaps more in his reformation, than any further punishment the court might be disposed to award; and I am unwilling to inflict upon him and upon his family, for so it would be, the further consequential punishment of forfeiting the benefit he may be entitled to from his club, if I could avoid it. I do not know if Mr. Burges has returned to you the recognizances. Would the court, upon this statement, permit me to decline prosecuting, and cancel the recognizances? Would you enclose this to lord Middleton, or should I ask Mr. Burges to withdraw or not return the recognizances? I am desirous the man should not be punished beyond what he ought, and am willing to take any course it may be thought proper. I shall probably see Mr. Burges at the bench on Tuesday, after I get your answer, if you write by Monday's post.
"Yours truly,
"Broom, Dorking. W. KENRICK."
Did you transmit that letter to lord Middle-ton?—I did.
Lord Middleton was the chairman of the sessions, was he not?—He was.
Did you receive an answer from lord Middleton?—I received an immediate answer from lord Middleton.
In the negative?—Yes.
And you communicated that to Mr. Kenrick?—I did.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Gurney stated, that he had now concluded the evidence he proposed to adduce, and that he was desirous, either at the present or a future time, to address a few observations on behalf of Mr. Kenrick.
Mr. Denmanapprehended, it would be infinitely better if the observations of his learned friend at the bar should be reserved until the evidence had been in the hands of members.
Dr. Phillimoreconcurred in the propriety of the course marked out by the learned gentleman.
The Chairmanthen asked the learned counsel whether they meant to produce any other evidence?
Mr. Gurneyhaving replied in the negative, counsel were ordered to withdraw. The House resumed; the chairman reported progress; minutes of evidence were ordered to be printed; and
520
the report was ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Navy Estimates,
Mr. Humesaid, it appeared to him that the House was proceeding much too rapidly with respect to these estimates. He well knew, if ministers persevered in the course of expenditure which they had pursued for the last few years, the country would be little able to bear it, in the new circumstances in which it was placed. The House should be made acquainted with the amount which would be necessary for the army, navy, ordnance, and other establishments; as the amount of the last year had greatly exceeded those of former years. It might not be improper to recall the attention of the House to the fact, that in 1816, a committee had sat, composed, he might say, of his majesty's ministers—called the Finance Committee, and had reported, that the amount of the expenditure of the said establishments, after paying two millions to the India company, would not exceed 17,350,000 l. It would be recollected, that the late lord Castlereagh had confidently pledged himself and the ministers, that after the arduous struggle in which the country had been engaged, the public expenditure should be reduced to the lowest, after 1818, and the committee had reported that 17,350,000 l. would be adequate to a permanent establishment. It would be well for the House to inquire how things had been managed since; for they would scarcely believe, that each succeeding year had surpassed the expenses of the former; and that it was now three or four millions above that estimate. In 1818, the estimates were confidently stated to be 17,350,000 l.; but on referring to the actual expenditure of that year, it would be found to amount to 19,136,000 l. The next year it was 19,280,000 l. In 1820, it was 19,280,000 l. In 1821, it was about 20,000,000 l., and at that rate it has continued. Now, if any effectual relief was to be afforded to the country, it must be begun by reducing the establishments. The most effectual strength of the country was the navy; but he thought it would be injudicious to add to its numbers without diminishing the army, which was three millions more than the finance committee considered would be sufficient to maintain a permanent

521
establishment. He thought the House was not in a condition to go into a committee, until the chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the amount of the resources of the country, and what taxes he meant to reduce; for it was not possible for the country to sustain the same load of taxation in a metallic currency, as it had done in a paper one. He should have been very glad if the right hon. gentleman had brought forward the whole of his financial statement at once. He trusted the House would not suffer itself to be led away any longer by flattering and delusive statements, which ultimately turned out to be nothing but mere words. Ministers had told us, in his majesty's Speech, that professions of friendship and amity had been received from all foreign courts. If this was the fact, surely, especially when we took into consideration our insulated situation, there was no need for our keeping up, at such an enormous expense, such large military and naval establishments. Last year we had 29,000 seamen; this year it was proposed to add another thousand; whereas, the number appointed by the finance committee as a sufficient peace establishment, was only 19,000. If we went on in this way, it was quite impossible that our finances could ever recover, or that we could ever be prepared to carry on an effective war. No naval establishment in the world amounted to one-half of our own. What was the navy of the United States, from which we were constantly told we had so much to fear? Why, the number of line-of-battle ships in the American navy was only seven, whereas the number of our ships of war was 509. Surely, then, we ought to pause before we added to our expenditure in this department. For his part, he would not consent to vote a single man or a single pound until the chancellor of the Exchequer had made a statement of the revenue and the expenditure. It should be recollected that, en a former occasion, ministers, after stating that it was quite impossible for them to make any reduction in their military establishment, had, of their own accord, when they found the revenue insufficient for the support of it, made a reduction in it, of from ten to twelve thousand men. Our army might, without any danger to the country, be decreased one-third, and then we might well afford to keep up a respectable naval establishment. He would move, by way
522
of amendment, "That it is desirable, before the House should vote any part of the naval and military establishments for the year, that the extent of those establishments, and the estimates of them, should be laid before the House, particularly as the naval estimates for this year exceed in amount those of the last year."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the only mode the House had to determine why it was that the estimates of the present year exceeded those of the last, was by going into a committee of supply, in which his hon. friend (sir G. Clerk) would explain them, item by item. Although, for the last few years, he had felt it due to the public convenience to give as early an explanation as he could of the state of the finances of the country, yet he had never supposed the House would have been precluded from pursuing the usual course of going into a committee of supply for the purpose of inquiring whether the amount proposed ought to be voted. If the House were to abstain from investigating the estimates, item by item, until he had made his general statement of the finances of the country, it would be imposing on him a task which he should be unable to perform; for he must, in that case, take upon himself to explain the duties of his hon. friend near him, and of those other hon. friends who were engaged in the various public departments. It would be the most inconvenient course possible, and, in fact, was calculated to throw obstacles in the way of the views of the hon. member himself. If when the different items were explained to the committee by the head of the department to which they belonged, they were not explained in a satisfactory manner, the committee could reject them. The usual practice appeared to him to be at once the most convenient and the most salutary; and he therefore could not acquiesce in any proposal for departing from it.
Colonel Daviescontended, that it was the duty of the House to make the government reduce its establishments, in order to secure a reduction of taxation. It was possible, that when these estimates were produced, he should give them his support, for they related to a branch of the public service towards which he, is common with every man, was disposed to act liberally. He was anxious to support the navy upon every occasion, as it was

523
the right arm of our strength, and the chief source of our glory. If the military establishment were not less for the present year than it was for the last, he should certainly move for a considerable reduction of it.
Mr. Brightcalled upon ministers to take the state of the country into immediate consideration. He took the present opportunity of protesting against their inactivity, in order that he might not, on some future occasion, be blamed for having participated in it. Indeed, if some explanation were not given before the House resolved itself into the committee, he did not know whether he should not be provoked to create an opportunity for delivering his own sentiments upon the present condition of the nation. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that it would be inconsistent with the ordinary practice of parliament, if, when he entered into his financial statements, he were to go into the estimates point by point. Did, then, the right hon. gentleman mean to put off his statement till all the estimates were voted? The sum voted as a supply might not be such as he proposed; and therefore it was necessary for the House to know how to apportion it to the different branches of the public service. The estimates Ought to be examined in detail, with a view of making every possible reduction in them. He doubted much whether the revenue, under the new system of currency which was going to be introduced, could be raised to any thing like its old amount. Sure he was, that the proposed alteration in the circulating medium would cause great heart-burning in the collection of the ordinary taxes of the country.
Mr. Hutchinsonsupported the amendment. The going into a committee upon the estimates without having an account of the financial state of the country, appeared to him to be as absurd as it would be for a gentleman to order a carriage and horses, without knowing what fortune he had to support it. Ministers acted as if they wished to pledge the House to support a certain amount of expenditure, without allowing it to judge of its means of meeting it.
Mr. Humesaid, that ministers, at the commencement of every year called on the heads of their different establishments to give them an account of the sums they wanted for the ensuing year, in
524
order that they might lay them before the House within fourteen days after the meeting of parliament. Now, what he wanted ministers to do was this—before the House voted away any sums to one department, to let it know what the estimates for the whole year would amount to. It would then be able to decide what part of its funds it ought to apportion to the supply of the navy. If 17,000,000 l. were the sum agreed upon for the service of the year, they could then determine whether it was right to vote 6,000,000 l. to the navy, and 8 or 9,000,000 l. to the army. At present, the House had not the necessary data to decide upon the proportions.
Mr. Secretary Canningobserved, that whatever might be the distress of the country, he could see no reason why hon. gentlemen should set themselves in array against the forms of parliament, and should insist that business should be transacted in a different mode from that in which it had been transacted for ages. He believed that never, on any account, had there been any deviation from the course which government had proposed that night to take; that never, not merely since the Revolution, but before it, in the most turbulent times, had a vote been taken in objection to the Speaker's leaving the chair, when the purpose of it was to vote a supply in committee for the navy; and that never had such a demand been made upon any head of a department as that which had just been made on his hon. friend, to open his statement of the estimates before he went into the committee, where alone that statement could be productive of any practical result. The House went into a committee, in order that explanations might be asked and given of the different items in the estimates, without infringing upon the usual orders of the House; and the hon. member now asked, that for the first time these explanations should be given in the House itself; and because he had a speech within him, which he had declared his intention if provoked, to make, now called upon them to depart from their usual custom of voting each of the estimates separately in a committee. He would rather hear his speech now, and then go into the committee, than depart from the ancient and long-established practice of parliament. But, said another hon. gentleman, would it be right for a man to keep a house in town and another in the country, without

525
first examining into the amount of income he had to meet such an expenditure? The allusion, he conceived, to be ill chosen. For, in this case the man's books were forthcoming, to prove that he had supported a similar expenditure before. Besides, the house in the country might be considered as a sort of luxury; whereas what was now wanted was absolutely necessary to the defence of the country. If his servant were to tell him, that he wanted locks for his doors in order to secure his properly, he would order them to be got, without making a previous inquiry into the general state of his affairs. So he would advise the House to act upon this occasion. The grant of these estimates was necessary to the defence of the country. He admitted, that the situation of the country was such as to require serious attention and deliberation; but, he would never admit that it was in such a condition, that its? ordinary establishments could not be maintained, and that it was in such danger that the ordinary forms of parliament must be dispensed with. He should be sorry that the House should come to a division on this point; because the construction put upon such a division out of doors would be, that it was a sign of irritated opposition, which, as the hon. member's speech was not an angry speech, he did not believe had any existence in his mind. He therefore hoped that the hon. member would waive his opposition, and that he would consent to gain in the committee that information which, according to all prior usage, could be given in the committee alone.
Mr. C. F. Palmerthought that government should ascertain the effect of the alteration in the currency before it proceeded to levy taxes on the country. He asked, whether the salaries of certain functionaries filling high public situations, had not been raised in the course of the last year; and if so, whether they would not be still further raised, in consequence of the alterations which were now making in a depreciated currency?
Mr. Humesaid, he was so far from being actuated by any angry feeling, that he would not press his amendment to a division. If his proposition went to introduce a new practice into the House, he was not aware of it. At any rate, whether new or not, he thought it highly advantageous to the public service.
The amendment was then negatived,
526
and the House having resolved itself into the committee of supply,
Sir George Clerksaid, that it now became his duty to explain to the committee why the navy estimates of this year were greater than those of the last. He expressed a hope that he should be able to satisfy the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the navy estimates of the present year were drawn up with every attention to economy, which the safety and the honour of the country admitted. The hon. member upon this occasion, as upon many others, had referred to the opinion given by the committee of finance in 1817, as to the requisite magnitude of our naval force, and had contrasted the navy estimates of that year with the navy estimates of the present. Now, upon that head, he would say, that owing to the great extension of our commerce with the nations of South America, the calls on the Admiralty for ships of war to afford it protection had very much increased; and that with the force now voted, the Admiralty had not been able to meet the demands which had been made upon it from several quarters to send an adequate force into all those seas. The committee would recollect, that there was no part of South America with which we did not trade at present. The unsettled situation of those states, arising partly from their struggle with their mother country, and partly from their jealousy of each other, rendered it absolutely necessary for this country to have an adequate naval force on the coasts of all of them, to guard our commerce from the insults to which it would otherwise be infallibly subjected. The hon. member for Aberdeen had stated, that the increase in our naval establishment had been occasioned by a corresponding increase in. the navy of the United States. To that statement he must give an unqualified denial. The increase in our navy, since 1821, was occasioned by the increase of our commerce with South America. Its unsettled condition, which had been felt by the United States, by France, and by every naval power which had any commerce at all, had rendered an augmentation necessary in the naval force of each state. For the same reason, a necessity for increasing our force in the Mediterranean had risen out of the war now raging between the Greeks and the Turks. If we had not had a considerable naval force in that sea, we should have suffered

527
numerous insults from both the belligerents, of which ministers, had they taken place, would have heard pretty loudly in that House. The situation of the Spanish West-India islands, also, required the presence of a force to put down the practical squadrons which had recently cruised in their neighbourhood; and though, by the conjoint efforts of our own navy and that of the United States, they had recently been driven into holes and corners, still they were not exterminated; and if we diminished our force, they would soon recommence the depredations we had stopped. A large force was also stationed off the coast of Africa, to put down the traffic in slaves, and another for the same purpose, off the island of Cuba. If the committee, therefore, would consider the various calls which were made upon the Admiralty, it would see, that a force of 29,000 men was scarcely sufficient for the service. For the present year, a force of 30,000 men was deemed absolutely necessary. A requisition had been presented to the Admiralty from the East India company, praying that an additional naval force might be sent into the Indian seas, on account of the hostilities which now raged between the Burman empire and the East India company. A thousand men was the force required by them. As that force was sent into the Indian seas, not to protect British commerce, but to assist the East India company and to secure their territory, an arrangement was now in progress, by which the greater part of the expense of providing for it would be thrown upon the company. They were to furnish the sum of 60,000 l. for that purpose; but as some additional powers would be wanted, to enable them to complete that arrangement, the mode in which they were to pay it would be explained on the introduction of the necessary bill. The amount of the estimates for the present year showed an excess above those of the last, of 180,000 l. One cause of this increase was the additional force of 1,000 men. Another cause was, that the expense of victualling the navy had increased, in consequence of the advanced price of all kinds of provisions, and particularly of Irish pork and beef, of which the consumption was very considerable. An increase of 3s. a month in the victualling of each man had therefore become necessary; and thus notwithstanding the victualling of the navy was conducted
528
with the utmost economy, an increase had been caused of nearly 100,000 l. on these two heads of expenditure. The expense of the civil establishments of the navy had not increased. On the contrary, in some respects, it had considerably diminished. Indeed, he had no hesitation in saying, that had it not been for the additional force of 1000 men, and the increased price of provisions, the estimates for this year would have been much lower than for the last. Gentlemen would observe, that a change had been made in the drawing up the estimates. Under the first head of expenditure the vote for wages, for victuals, for wear and tear, and for ordnance, had generally been included. Neither of the two latter items of expenditure were found under that head in the estimates of the present year; and he would state the reason why. The sum voted for wear and tear was supposed to be expended on behalf of the ships which were actually afloat, and was calculated at so much a head. An objection had been made by the hon. member for Aberdeen to this mode of calculation. He had stated, that it was absurd to calculate the wear and tear by so much a head, instead of calculating it by the stores consumed. As soon as the objection was made, it was thought advisable to remedy the evil, and bring it entirely under the head of stores. There was this year a diminution of 320,000 l. under the head of wear and tear. Under the head of ordnance there was a considerable increase; but, in the two articles of wear and tear, and of ordnance put together, there was a saving of 30,000 l. With regard to the head of ordnance of the navy, as it was a matter over which the navy board had no control, it had been omitted in these estimates, and would be moved for when the ordnance estimates were brought forward. He did not think it necessary to say any thing on the ordinary estimates of the navy, as they were the same as last year. Ministers had reduced them to the lowest possible scale; and a proof of it was, that, with a force of 30,000 men our expenditure would not be greater than in 1821, when we had only a force of 23,000 men. There was one item which was inserted in these estimates for the first time for some years, and that was an item for the building of ships at Bombay. After the year 1822, this item had disappeared from the list; but the quality of the Indian timber had been found so ex-

529
cellent, the labour so cheap, and the workmanship so completely equal to that of our dockyards at home, that it had been deemed expedient to continue the building of vessels at Bombay. In the extra-estimates would be found an account of the sums to be expended upon works of the yards. He had stated on a former occasion, respecting the works at Sheerness, that if government were provided with funds to finish them in four instead of ten years, it would make about a saving of 14 per cent to the public. The cost of erecting the proposed works had been calculated by the late Mr. Rennie at 921,000 l., but an offer had since been made to government, to complete them in four years for 780,000 l. The plan containing that offer appeared so beneficial to the public, that government had no hesitation in acceding to it; so that, instead of calling on the committee for the vote originally mentioned for this head of expense, he should call upon it this year for a vote for 150,000 l. There was an item of 50,000 l. for completing the works of the Break-water, on which it was found necessary to employ a greater number of men than had yet been employed there. Under these two heads there was an increase of 181,000 l. in the estimates. This, added to the increase of nearly 100,000 l. for which he had before accounted, made a total increase of 281,000 l.; from this was to be deducted a sum of 94,000 l. voted on account of the ordnance stores last year, and not yet expended; so that the real increase of expense to the country, after making allowance for the ordnance, &c. would leave the estimates of the year greater than those of the last by 180,000 l. The whole of this increase arose from the necessity of employing 1,000 additional men, from the increase in the price of provisions, and from the necessity of proceeding with their engagements at Sheerness more rapidly than was originally expected. That rapidity was rendered the more necessary by a great part of the works being at present under water, and therefore in a state very liable to be injured by violent winds or high tides. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That 30,000 men be employed for the sea service, from the 1st of January 1826, including 9,000 royal marines."
Mr. Humeobserved, that it was difficult for him to say whether 29,000 or 30,000 men were the exact number required for the sea-service. He should not, therefore,
530
object so much to the number of men employed, as to the amount of expenditure contained in these estimates. He was convinced that; there must be something radically wrong in it, from finding that, at former periods of our history, we had kept up a much larger navy at one-third less expense. It was easy to say, that the navy was an important branch of the public service, and therefore ought not to be neglected. He admitted that it was important; but still it was only important in, degree. When he objected to the increase of our naval force three years ago, the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs said, that it was impossible to protect our commerce with the states of South America without a large disposable force, on account of the unsettled nature of their governments, and their war with the parent state. That consideration induced the House to acquiesce in that increase. He was now surprised at hearing the same cause alleged for another increase, when these states were at peace with one another, their struggle with the parent state at an end, and three distinct treaties of peace had been made between us and them. But it was said, that the presence of a large naval force was required in the Mediterranean. He did not think so: he had never yet heard of any English vessel having been either plundered or stopped by either Greeks or Turks, except when they were dealing in articles contraband of war. But then, the revenue at home required protection. And why did it? Because they kept up a system of high duties, and so spent in maintaining the preventive service a sum larger than that which would have been lost to the revenue by establishing a system of low duties. He thought that, by a reduction of duties, an end might not only be put to the smuggling which now existed on our coast, but also a saving be effected to the nation of 500,000 l. The keeping up a naval squadron on the coast of Africa, which was the grave of our brave seamen, for the purpose of suppressing the slave trade, appeared to him, though the object was certainly laudable, to be a measure that ought to be dispensed with: of every negro whom they intercepted, for they could not save them from slavery, the purchase was the life of an English sailor. On the whole, he thought that 30,000 men were not wanted for the service of the navy. The flag of Great Britain would be as much respected at the mast-head of

531
a frigate, as on that of a ship of the line. If the estimates were increased in one item, on account of the increased price of provisions, there were other items on which they might be diminished. If they were not, they would go on increasing as they had done year after year, till they would soon become ten millions instead of six. The want of economy was an addition to the difficulties of the country. Let but a gun be fired in hostility against us, and government would soon discover the situation to which they had reduced the country by the neglect of its finances.—He proceeded to point out the great increase which had taken place in the half-pay and pension list since 1817, and to infer from that increase, that there was great abuse in the management of it. Any officer who had not parliamentary interest, found great difficulty in getting promotion; and any officer who had, was promoted up to a certain grade, and then placed on the half-pay list to make room for others. It appeared by the estimates, that there were already 250 ships more than the finances of the country were enabled to man; and he therefore thought that it was a mere waste of money to promote so many officers as had lately been raised. The consequence of that increase was also objectionable in another point of view: by adding to the amount of the half-pay, it augmented the dead weight, as it was very properly called. By the estimates which had been formed of that payment, it ought to have been reduced from 1,100,000 l. to 550,000 l.; but, so far from this being the case, the sum paid to pensioners now was 300,000 l. more than it had been at the end of the war. Surely no gentlemen would gravely say that such a state of things as this ought to be tolerated. In the year 1822, in consequence of the very strong representations which had been made in that House, a reduction had taken place in the salaries of the civil officers of the establishments, and they amounted then to 714,000 l. In the present year, however, an increase appeared to have taken place, and the same salaries were 789,000 l. The charge for the half-pay of 896,000 l. was, as he had often observed before, when alluding to that item, quite enormous, and might, he really believed, be very much reduced under a better system, if the Admiralty were compelled to make selections from that list for the public service. In the superannuation allowance, he would not
532
say any thing else, than that a great portion of the sum was money actually wasted. He did not mean to assert, that there were not many highly deserving individuals who had honestly earned that bounty; but, if any man would look back to the estimate of 1817, which was only 85,000 l., and consider that they were now called upon to vote 164,000 l. for the same allowance, they must agree that it was a very lavish expenditure. As long, however, as they continued to allow the Admiralty to make promotions in the manner they did at present, they could not expect any reduction, but rather that they should every year be called upon to vote even larger sums for the superannuation list. In the marines, where there had been little or no new promotions since the termination of the war, large reductions had been, of course, effected under the head of "Superannuation," and yet he believed the marines were as effective as any corps in the service. If the Admiralty were restricted as to the promotions in the navy, they would soon find a similar result in the Superannuation list of that branch of the service. In the same manner, under the head of Pursers, they would find that the absence of promotion had effected a similar reduction, and he had no hesitation in again asserting, that if the same rule was applied to the other part of the navy establishments, instead of being called upon to vote 1,388,000 l., they might be able to discharge all demands with 560,000 l. The next estimate was a sum of 1,980,000 l. for building and repairs of shipping, and the supply of stores for the navy. Of that sum, 1,395,000 l. had been expended upon building and repairing alone. He had, on a former occasion, shown, very satisfactorily, from returns on the table of the House, that a sum of seventeen millions had been expended upon that branch of the service alone, since the conclusion of the war; and that the sum total for building, repairing, and providing of stores for the navy, amounted to twenty-three millions—a sum sufficient for the full support of two navies, such as the country required. Instead of keeping up a navy of 500 ships, of all sizes, which required a million sterling to supply its losses, and three or four hundred thousand pounds for wear and tear; instead of supporting an establishment of that kind, which, whatever they might daily hear of its sound and

533
efficient state, he thought could only, in the present state of the country, be kept to rot; it would be well to consider, whether it was right to support them at all, or whether they would eventually be found as beneficial in case of war. If it cost now above six millions to keep only 130 of these ships in commission, what sum, he would ask, would it require to fit out the five hundred, if they were once more called into action? Was the country in a state to admit of such an outlay? They never could repay in value the sums which were wasted upon them; and he would humbly submit, that the best policy in their present state, would be, to keep the vessels they now possessed in an efficient state, and give up that rash and improvident system of building new ones, which were only destined, like their predecessors, to rot in the dock-yards. He should be glad to see the attention of the Admiralty turned to the recent discoveries which had been made respecting steam-vessels used as ships of war; and to consider, that in the event of this country being engaged in war, a great change must of necessity take place, by which many of our ships would be rendered wholly useless. Upon this subject he could assure the House, that the expenses which were constantly incurred were, in the opinion of persons well qualified to judge, a downright waste. The expenses of improving and finishing the dock-yards at Sheerness would amount to little less than 2,000,000 l. The estimate for this year alone amounted to 50,000 l. It had been admitted, that if the use of steam-boats in taking vessels up and down the river had been known, these works would not have been begun. But surely, now that the advantages of steam-boats were duly appreciated, the extensive dock-yards at Chatham might be appropriated for all the necessary purposes; and as there was no longer any difficulty in taking ships thither, it could not be prudent to throw away this 150,000 l. at Sheerness. He was not sure that the accounts contained any other items which required a particular notice. The aggregate amount appeared to be 6,135,000 l., which he thought a great deal too large at this time. In 1792, the character of the British navy had been no less high, nor was it less respected abroad than at the present moment, and then one-fourth of its present number of ships had been found enough for all useful purposes. He took it to be
534
a most unsatisfactory reason to say, that the protection of the revenue required this expense: if that were true, it would be better, in every other as well as in a pecuniary point of view, to alter the laws, so as to prevent the necessity of any such extraordinary protection. He saw there was a charge for hired packets, and this charge was connected with the Post-office department. He thought these two establishments ought to be kept entirely separate, and that the House ought to see distinctly what was paid for the Navy, and what for the Post-office.—He was sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the committee, but he thought it necessary to express his disapprobation of the estimates, because he was convinced they were such as the state of Europe did not require. He disapproved also of the manner in which promotions had been made in the course of the last year, and of the number of those promotions. By increasing the number of pensions it added to the dead weight, and would continue to do so, while the present establishment should be kept up. The officers themselves were dissatisfied at the unfairness and hardships which they experienced in having young men, who had no other claim to promotion than their family influence, raised above them, and being thus deprived of the rank and advantages to which their long services entitled them. He trusted that ministers would do something to check the injurious system which prevailed, and that they would be convinced of the inutility of promoting so many officers. He did not know how many promotions had taken place this year, but he believed the numbers were between 500 and 600. Many persons, he knew, were of opinion, that promotions should go on; he thought that if they did, they should at least go on very slowly. All the promotions should be made on account of long services alone; and in time of peace, no new ones should take place.
Sir G. Clerksaid, he had no wish to complain either of the statements which had just been made by the hon. member, or of the manner in which he had brought them forward; for he had done no more than what he conceived to be his duty, in directing the attention of the committee to such matters. The hon. gentleman had objected to the aggregate amount of the half-pay and pension charge, as being this year excessive, instead of exhibiting

535
a decrease. Now, taking the whole of the half-pay, he would admit that this charge had increased; but if the hon. gentleman alluded to the half-pay of officers, he would find that, in truth, a material reduction in the amount had taken place. The increase was in the civil class of the half-pay; and it was great undoubtedly, owing to two causes. The first of these was the material reduction of official establishments which took place in 1822, when a vast number of clerks in particular departments of the public service, connected with the navy were discharged. None but the ablest and the most efficient clerks, in many instances, were retained; but they who were so discharged, had the strongest claims on account of their long services, upon the consideration of government. Another cause, which had swelled this aggregate to its present amount, had been the great diminution of the funds for the Widows' pension. During the war, large contributions were levied on the pay of officers and crews of ships, and to such an amount, that no calls were made on the public bounty. But now, from obvious causes, these funds had become much exhausted; and the consequence was, that a charge of 90,000 l. appeared in these estimates for that item alone, which had not appeared in the former estimates to which the hon. gentleman referred. For the same reasons, Greenwich Hospital, which, in war-time, had contributed to these objects very large sums of money, accruing from unclaimed pay, wages and prize-shares, had now become dried up. And though parliament had directed, that the funds in question should contribute to the payment of these services, as long as they lasted, still, when they became so far extinct as to furnish sufficient only for the payment of in-door pensioners, &c, it became necessary to apply to this House for the means of replacing them. The item of "Greenwich Hospital" was 260,000 l.; and if the hon. gentleman would add this sum, and the deficiencies he had spoken of, together, he would see they amounted to about 400,000 l.; which amount he would, of course, take into account, as forming a large portion of the excess of charge that he complained of. In the half-pay of officers there was a decided decrease of charge. As to what the hon. gentleman had said, respecting promotions, the marines were, in this respect, quite a different service from the navy.
536
In the latter, commissions were granted to lieutenants, who must have already passed through a long period of service: in the marines, they were given to individuals without regard to the same conditions of previous service. It was impossible to stop promotion in the navy for several reasons. Many of those promotions took place on foreign stations, and were but a moderate reward for the services of persons who were induced principally by the chance of promotion to go to the coast of Africa and other unhealthy climates. If the chance of promotion did not exist, it would be difficult to find persons to go on such hazardous service. The hon. member had also said, that there was a great increase in the item for salaries for clerks in the civil departments of the navy. The hon. member must have known that those clerks were entitled to a small progressive increase of salary, and if he had taken the trouble to look into the subject, he would have discovered that this circumstance, and nothing else, was the cause of the increase of the item alluded to. The hon. gentleman, in alluding to the million which he supposed was paid for building and repairs, had fallen into an error similar to that which the lion. Secretary for the Admiralty had set him right about some time ago. He was, however, happy to say, notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's misinformation on this subject, that at no period of the history of this country had the ships in ordinary been in a better state than they were at present, and that being repaired with seasoned timber, they had shown no symptoms of the ravages of the dry-rot. A great expense was necessarily incurred for the purpose of keeping the ships in repair; but it was an expense which was wholly unavoidable. The hon. member had objected to the works going on at Sheerness, now that steamboats would answer all the purposes for which those works had been undertaken. He would give the hon. member the benefit of his argument, which only amounted to this, that by transferring the vessels from Sheerness to Chatham, the establishments at Chatham must be increased. By having those docks at Sheerness, an opportunity offered of putting every ship into dock, and of inspecting them in every part. The hon. member had complained of the expenditure of two millions upon those docks; but, when the hon. member made that com-

537
plaint, he ought to have remembered, that this work was undertaken for the purpose of saving a sum of ten millions, the estimated expense of works proposed to be erected at Northfleet. He should only further observe, that if unfortunately this country should be again involved in hostilities, it would be found that advantage had been taken of every invention necessary to maintain the naval superiority of Great Britain.
After a short conversation, the several resolutions were agreed to.

PROMISSORY NOTES BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. Before he did so, he wished to state to the House, that it was his intention, in the committee, to submit a proposition, not to the extent suggested by the hon. member for Newton (Mr. Hudson Gurney), which he thought went too far, but a modification of it. The proposition of the hon. member was, if he understood him right, that the circulation of small notes should be prohibited to the country banks, and yet the issue should be permanently allowed to the Bank of England. Now, this proposition would be very unjust to the country banks, and inconsistent with the whole principle of the measure. But, it had been represented to him, that a limitation of that proposition, so far from impeding the measure, would promote its success. It was his intention, therefore, to propose, that instead of prohibiting the Bank of England from issuing small notes dated subsequently to the 5th of February last, it should be left to them to issue such notes dated previous to the 10th of October next. The object of this proposition was, to give the country bankers facilities for preparing themselves for the effects of the bill, and the gradual withdrawal of their notes. It had been stated, that the greatest possible inconvenience would arise, if all the small notes were completely withdrawn at one moment. When the bill came into the committee, he should propose that there should be such a limitation as he had stated. He should, however, propose, that the notes of the Bank of England should be finally withdrawn, at the same time as those of the country banks.
Mr. Elliceasked, what great relief was to be afforded by this- alteration, and Whether it was not, in fact, an abandon-
538
ment of the main principle of the bill? And was this to be the result after all their anxiety to get the small notes out of circulation, and after all the executions at Newgate? There was no boon in the proposed change; it was a paltry alteration. He had been desirous not to discuss this question, so as to excite any popular feeling, especially when the country was in such difficulties; but, after the communication that had just been made, he could not avoid speaking of it as a paltry proceeding. A superior necessity had occasioned the recent issue of Bank of England small notes: to that necessity he bowed; but, after what had been promised, he did not expect this alteration, and thought the directors deserved to be arraigned for their conduct. He called upon the House to consider what they were about. Would they, or would they not, put down the evil which, by the gigantic rapidity of its advances, had brought the country to the brink of destruction? What was the paltry consideration that was to induce the House to abandon the original principle of the bill? For his part, he would not lend his humble countenance to such deviation, but would, even if he stood alone, divide the House upon the subject. It became the House to show the country that, however pressing might be the difficulties, they were resolved to surmount them by steadiness and discretion, rather than suffer themselves to be led into an abandonment of those principles which they proposed as the groundwork of a remedy to the existing evils.
Mr. Brightsaid, he felt strongly for the distresses under which the country continued to labour; and would ask, were not he and his friends fully justified in voting against the bill? Were not he and his hon. friends justified in asking, whether the present was a proper time for the introduction of such a measure? Were they not justified in having voted against it, under the existing circumstances of the country? Were they not justified in the belief which they had expressed, that ministers could not carry it? Were they not justified in their assertion, that it was impossible that the country could bear the operation of the bill? Were they not justified in stating that, taxed and impoverished as they were, the people ought not to be additionally distressed by the withdrawal of the small-note currency? He had already declared his intention of

539
accusing ministers of supineness, during the late distress, and had asserted that the measures proposed were not adequate to meet the existing difficulties. On what principle, he would ask, had the Bank of England been instructed by government to buy up Exchequer-bills within these three days? For the benefit of the public he would be told; but that was not the effect which that extraordinary proceeding was calculated to produce. Nothing but a large issue of Exchequer-bills could relieve the distress which prevailed at present; and, moreover, that distress was not confined to one class of persons. The stock-broker might, it was true, be relieved by that operation; but the regular, fair, honourable merchant, who was a much more important member of the community, would derive no benefit from it. There were other classes, too—the small trader, and those immediately connected with him—whose sufferings should be taken into consideration; and it was the duty of the House to provide funds to enable them to carry on their business. He would again complain, that ministers were inactive and supine, and, if they intended to continue to administer the affairs of the country, they must change their mode of proceeding, and become more active. He had hoped they would have profited by the recollection of what had been done by their predecessors in 1793, and the report of which lay upon the table of the House; by a reference to which, the strong analogy between the circumstances of that time and the present would be found. What did Mr. Pitt do, at that period, at the recommendation of the merchants? He issued a small number of Exchequer-bills, and the evils were cured; cured too, not merely without loss, but with absolute profit to the Treasury. The distress at both periods being the same in principle, the same principle of relief should be afforded. Why should we now adopt new expedients? Why not profit by the experience and the wisdom of our ancestors? He was no speculatist, no theorist. He disliked the fashionable philosophy of the day, and called on the House to adopt the wise measure of Mr. Pitt. He should not have risen, but was driven to it by the jibes of the right hon. gentleman opposite. He should reserve the rest of his argument for another day.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he was not at a loss to account for the extreme degree of heat
540
displayed by the hon. member for Bristol; for, if the arguments which he had reserved for another day, were not of a better and more wholesome nature than those of which he had delivered himself, he was not surprised at their sitting so heavily and unpleasantly upon him; for, he would say, a speech more inconsistent, more directly opposed to sound reason, than that of the hon. member, had never been made in that House. The hon. member blamed ministers for their supineness at the period of the late distress, and then, when he found that they were about to bring forward a remedy, he proposed the appointment of a committee to inquire into the state of the country; and no sooner had he said so, but he told the House what he himself would do, without any committee at all. He next found fault with the prohibition of small-note currency, and in the same breath condemned the issue of small notes by the Bank. He blamed government for having directed the Bank to buy up the Exchequer-bills, and increased thereby the distress; and the next moment he said to them, "Issue a large number of Exchequer-bills, and you will effectually remove the existing evils." Where were purchasers to be found for those millions of bills which the hon. gentleman would thus throw into the market? No where, but in the hon. gentleman's own imagination. So that he condemned government for having, within a few days, bought up Exchequer-bills, they being then at a discount, and at the same time called for an extended issue of them. He should leave the learned member for Bristol to reconcile these inconsistencies. The hon. member for Coventry also had lost his usual placidity. He talked of impeaching the Bank directors for having lately reissued one and two pound notes. Now, he had yet to learn, why a body of men, authorized by the legislature to do an act, should be impeached for doing that which the law entitled them; and he thought it would require all the legal acumen even of the learned member for Bristol to draw up the articles of impeachment.
Mr. Ellice.—I never used the word impeach. I said arraign.
Mr. Huskisson—Well, arraign let it be; but let the House inquire what had been the conduct of those individuals. The moment the Bank directors found themselves in possession of a sufficient quantity of gold coin to supply the place of their

541
small paper, they withdrew their one-pound notes from circulation. Did that look like a desire to force them into circulation? On the contrary, so well were they satisfied with the results of the step they had taken—so strong was their recollection of past difficulties, and of the thousand unpleasant circumstances attendant upon the existence of a small-note currency—that, so far from wishing to send their one and two pound notes again into circulation, they were most anxious, as their conduct had evinced, to withdraw them entirely. The hon. gentleman came down on one night and arraigned the government, and the next he inveighed against the Bank; but, he would ask the hon. gentleman, whether he really thought he had any grounds for those attacks? for it must be apparent, that, as far as the Bank was concerned, they had, in order to supply the vacuum created by the withdrawal of the country notes, issued a certain number of one and two pound notes, and they had no possible objection to withdraw them. It was reported to government, that the country banks were suddenly withdrawing their small notes, and it was to meet the want that would thus be created, that the proposed alteration was intended. He assured the hon. member for Coventry, that he could not be more anxious than he himself was, to make the pressure that would ensue from the withdrawal of the small notes operate as evenly as possible. If danger could be apprehended from that being done too suddenly, the House would give great facility to its own object, by averting that danger. There was this great difference between the two hon. gentlemen: one said, that the whole issues ought to be withdrawn, no matter what might be the consequence; the other said, "you never can withdraw them at all." He was quite sure, notwithstanding all that had been said to the contrary, that the metallic currency would, in a very short period, entirely supersede the dreadful issue of small notes.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, he was apprehensive that the incidental wants of the country would oblige ministers to abandon their original principle, and that when they should have abandoned their principle, his hon. friends, of the philosophic club behind him, would come down upon them. Do what they would, ministers could not please. The system of going on upon principle and theory was to him so novel
542
and extraordinary, that he found a difficulty in conforming to it. In after-years, when the history of this country should be narrated, it would be said, "This little island was originally called Lilliput, and it was then governed by dwarfs; it next assumed the name of Brobdignag, under the sway of giants. Finally, its name was Laputa, and its rulers were philosophers. From that period its glory began to vanish, its strength to decay, its might to decline, and it has degenerated into a state commensurate with the insignificance of its geometrical extent." The right hon. gentlemen on the other side had, as it appeared to him, deviated from their principle. They had set out on the theory of introducing a metallic currency and withdrawing the paper money from circulation. And what was the purport of their present proposal? Why, merely to substitute for the paper of the country banks, the notes of the Bank of England—notes which were more liable to be forged than any other. He (Sir J. W.) had never wished to see one-pound notes issued, but that they afforded facilities to manufacturers and workmen. He knew it to be a fact, that within fourteen miles of Birmingham, forged Bank of England notes had been offered eight and forty hours after the time those notes were re-issued. The bulk of the provincial notes came back to the country banks, upon an average, in six weeks. Now, if the banker must bring gold from London, he would not re-issue his notes, and the country would have no circulation at all. With respect to the metallic currency, he had been informed that ten out of every fifteen sovereigns brought to the Bank were not worth 18 s. from their having been sweated down. In this dearth of genuine circulation, ministers were taking away country bank notes, which were seldom forged, and suffering the reissue of Bank of England notes, which were easily forged.
Mr. Hudson Gurneysaid, that the degree in which the chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to enlarge the time for allowing the Bank of England to issue small notes, was, in his view, so far from being a dereliction of the plans which the right hon. gentleman had brought forward, that he was convinced, that it was the only possible manner in which they could be carried into effect. He had, on a former occasion, entered into the great distinction that existed between the cir-

543
culation of the Bank of England and that which was founded on mere private responsibility, extendable, or liable to diminution, on every fluctuation of the credit of the issuers. The great and pressing danger of the country, at the present moment, was that of being left without any circulating medium at all. The gold issued was hoarded, the notes issued were run in on the bankers. The larger bankers would, of course, be anxious to withdraw a circulation rendered both dangerous and discreditable; and those who might struggle to continue their issues would find their notes return on them so fast, as to render any general circulation impracticable. With regard to the private bankers, he must again repeat, that the three years given for the gradual wearing out of the notes already stamped was, as regarded, the exigencies of the present moment, a mere fallacy. It was a discountenanced, and therefore a discredited medium. Indeed he had that very day been told of a banker, of great respectability in a manufacturing district in Yorkshire, who had only thirteen thousand pounds in circulation in one-pound notes. He issued them, and re-issued them; and, in the course of less than a week, had paid the whole amount three times over; on which he took them all up, and threw them into the fire. Under these circumstances, it was of the extremest importance, that the Bank of England should have the power to replace the paper withdrawn. This would prepare the way for allowing a metallic circulation to be introduced into the country; which all experience had sufficiently shown could never be co-existent with the private notes. Gold hitherto had been freely circulated only in the metropolis; and by allowing the Bank to continue their issues of small notes for a certain period after the private notes had ceased to be stamped, they would also be enabled gradually to get out the coin that might be wanted, but which, as a simultaneous operation, no amount of gold which could be supposed to be in their coffers, would be adequate to supply. He still thought it would have been safer to have left that period indefinite; but he believed the chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition would meet the existing exigences; though he should have much preferred inserting the month of January to that of October.
Mr. Crippssaid, he could not see the weight of the hon. gentleman's argument,
544
that the country bankers notes would be driven out of circulation by the discredit which would attach to them from the prospect of the change about to be adopted. He was disposed to believe, that, in a few instances, bankers had withdrawn their notes with an injudicious precipitancy, but it was to be presumed that a little reflection would convince them that the experiment was one which could not with wisdom or advantage be repeated. The hon. gentleman had, indeed, stated an extraordinary fact, with regard to 13,000 l. having been paid and returned three times in the course of a few days. Such instances were possible, but he was convinced they must be very rare. He wished much that not a word had been said on the subject of one-pound notes; but, as the question had been stirred, and as ministers had proceeded to the length they had done, delay would be dangerous: hesitation could be productive only of mischief. Since ministers had determined that these notes should, with the concurrence of the House, be ultimately withdrawn, he was of opinion that the course they had pursued was the wisest that could have been adopted. An hon. member had said, that the measure would have the effect of reducing the price of agricultural produce, and, undoubtedly, so it would for a time. Agricultural produce could not remain stationary if the price of every other commodity fell; but he did not expect that that fall would be of long duration. The quantity of the country bank-notes, of the value of one and two pounds, was much smaller than was supposed. With regard to the Bank of England notes, which were intended to be issued, the amount that would get into circulation would be trifling, on account of the liability to forgery; for such was the dread of them on this account, that if there was a country bank in the neighbourhood, of known stability, there was not a labourer who would not prefer taking its notes to those of the former. A great deal had been said about speculations, and, no doubt, there had been a great deal of that, both to the ruin of the country and of the banks. But he entertained strong hopes that much ultimate good would result from it, and that the lesson which had been taught would not be easily forgot. There were occurrences, however, in the natural course of business, in which as great loss had been sustained as in those speculations. A friend of his, who

545
was no speculator, and who had a few thousands by him, of which he did not know very well how to dispose, determined on investing the one-half in Exchequer bills, and the other in consols. He had since had occasion for his money, and had lost more in that way, than he could have done in the worst species of circulation. He thought, therefore, that too much stress was laid on speculation, when it was possible to suffer to an equal, if not greater degree by government securities. With respect to the two millions of Exchequer-bills, it was wrong to think that the issue of them could do no good. It undoubtedly did do good to some; those, for instance, who wanted to sell out, though in a general point of view it was a mere idea—a delusion. What, then, would grant relief? One gentleman said this, and another said that; but what danger could there be from an issue of Exchequer-bills, on lodging merchandize as security for the amount? Hon. gentlemen said, that it would furnish a bad precedent. God forbid that it should be rejected merely on that account! Let it be recollected that, at a former time the very anticipation of a relief of this nature alleviated the distress. The opinions and conduct of some politicians brought to his mind the idea of a man who had got wet in his feet, and caught a cold, which fell upon his lungs. Should the benefit of medical treatment be withheld from such a person, because he had brought his misfortune upon himself? Surely not. He was willing to go the full length with those who charged speculators with having, by their own imprudence, drawn embarrassments upon themselves; but were they, on that account, to be debarred the means of rising again from their difficulties?
Mr. Calcraftcongratulated the right hon. gentlemen opposite on the new light which had broken in upon them. They now, it appeared, felt the force of the arguments which he and others had been in vain urging since the commencement of the session, in which they endeavoured to show the extreme impolicy of ministers, in crying down one species of currency, before they had another to substitute for it. And now, seeing that their measures could not be otherwise carried into effect, they had been driven to the expedient of supplying the place of the country notes with the small notes of the Bank of England. The mischievous nature of the
546
course they were pursuing had settled the opinion of the country with respect to their utter ignorance and incapacity. From the correspondence which he himself carried on, and from the information of others who had still more extensive means of ascertaining the real state of public opinion, he was warranted in saying, that the sense of the country, as to their gross ignorance about these matters, was universal. If they, instead of crying down the existing circulation, had supported such of the country banks as had stood the test of the late trying times—and few of them, in comparison with the whole number, had failed, and many of those who had stopped payments had again commenced business, having paid 20 s. in the pound—had supported them, they would soon have had an ample and secure circulation. They talked about getting gold as a substitute for the country small notes; but gold they could not get; and now, after having discredited the notes of the country banks, they were forced to bring into their place these notes of the Bank of England, which were well known to be the cause of so much crime. What was now to be the conduct of those who had supported the ministers on the ground of the metallic currency? It was to be hoped, that they would state the reason why they continued their support, or show, by their votes, that they abandoned ministers. If ministers could procure notes as difficult to be forged as those of the country banks, he should think that the supply of their paper would be a considerable improvement of the system; but, as his objection went to the whole bill, he would take the sense of the House upon it in every stage. It was lamentable to see the injurious effects that had resulted from the ignorance and incapacity of ministers. He had seen a letter from York, from a gentleman, who stated, that the people in that quarter had been reduced to the condition of the barbarous ages; and that, from the want of a circulating medium, they were forced to give their workmen provisions, clothes, and other articles, in barter for their work; whereas, if ministers had supported the country-bank circulation of small notes, no difficulty would have existed. He was perfectly astonished at their ignorance, and advised them to retrace their steps, and extend the term of stamping the country bank notes, instead of forcing into

547
circulation those of the Bank of England, which were so objectionable, on account of the facility of forging them. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would be prepared to propose some such improvement on Monday.
Mr. Tierneybegged leave to assure the House, that though he had hitherto carefully abstained from taking a part in these discussions, it was not because he was insensible of their value, or indifferent to their results. On the contrary, he had uniformly felt the greatest anxiety to hear all that had been said on the occasion. He could assure the House, that during the course of a long parliamentary experience, he had never listened with more patience to the agitation of any great question than he had done to this; and never did he recollect one in which party feeling had so entirely given way to the calm and deliberate consideration of the imperative interests of the country. He gave at the outset his cordial assent to the principle upon which the contemplated measures of ministers were founded; namely, a speedy return to a metallic circulation. He knew it to be a sound principle: he thought the government were serious, and knew what they were about respecting it: indeed, he admired them for the apparent stoutness with which they had brought forward the measure. But, what was the case now? The ministers had no sooner announced their plan, accompanied by a firm declaration of its inviolability, than they came forward with a new proposition, which, mitigate as they would, was a material abandonment of the principle with which they had set out. Throughout the whole of these proceedings, indeed, he had witnessed the strangest indecision, and wandering from one point to another in their course—at one time exhibiting more firmness than the occasion required, and at another time the most compromising distrust. The chancellor of the Exchequer and the first lord of the Treasury had set out with what he would not call their well-considered letter to the Bank, partly because he did not think it had been well considered at all, and partly because (though he knew that meaning was not intended) it indulged in expressions which were liable, as they had been, to be misconstrued into indiscriminate reflections upon the country bankers. This letter was followed by the expose of the two branches of the system which the government had deter-
548
mined to act upon; first, the increase of the number of banking partners, and the wider basis, to which all good men looked forward, on which the gold currency of the kingdom was to be re-established. Who could have believed that this wholesome plan was destined hardly to be developed, when it was to be materially altered? From the 5th of February no new stamping of country small notes was to be allowed, and their gradual abolition was decreed within three years. He thought, at the time, that this was intended rather to be too slowly, than too abruptly accomplished: he thought then, as he did now, that the government could have so arranged their resources, as to make the necessary supply of gold for the withdrawn notes as rapidly and conveniently as the nature of business could have required it. But now the Bank of England was, by a new manœuvre in the movement of the machine, to have nine months longer for issuing small notes, than was to be allowed to any other banking establishment; and an hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Hudson Gurney) had regretted, that twelve months instead of nine were not afforded for this operation. Now, he was at a loss to understand why the nine months would not answer as well as twelve, for every purpose of manufacturing their notes; for he thought that within a much shorter time, the Bank had it sufficiently in their power, or they never would, to provide a supply fit for any purpose. The whole position of the chancellor of the Exchequer in his former statement, was, that these small bank-notes, and a metallic circulation, could not go on together. That was a very clear and irrefragable position. It was not, at all events, one of the new-fangled ones of which they had heard so much; for it was at least a hundred years old, and to be found in many good books which had long ago promulgated the doctrine, that a good and a bad circulation could not co-exist, for that inevitably the bad would soon send the good about its business. Yes, and it would do more—it would prevent the good from coming in to recruit, even for a moment, where it was wanting. It was quite impossible to expect a gold currency, as long as this small-note process was continued. In the absence of the one-pound note, it might be relied upon that a metallic currency would flow in to supply the gap; but, if these small notes of the Bank of England were to be let in,

549
what became of the right hon. gentleman's system? For gold never could circulate along with these notes. He did not then mean to enter upon a particular discussion of the general principle, but it appeared that the right hon. gentleman expected, that when gold came into circulation at the end of these three years, the Bank of England notes would give way. He had not seen the famous paper alluded to, as having been presented by Mr. Burke to Mr. Pitt; but he perfectly remembered Mr. Burke's declaration, that as long as the country kept a one-pound note in circulation, they could not expect to see a guinea. Now, he begged not to be understood as one of those who was panic-struck at the prospect of affairs. On the contrary, he had a great reliance on the strength and energy of her resources. He saw no cause of permanent alarm as arising from recent events; neither was he impressed with a belief that this want of confidence would endure. The resources of the people were, he was persuaded firm; their spirit and energy were still alive: distrust was certainly afloat, and what made it but this want of confidence, which the government seemed by their measures rather to prolong than to mitigate? What was the origin of the alarm and the difficulties which had seized upon men's minds? In looking to that point, it was impossible for him to exculpate the government, or to refrain from censuring their policy. The besetting vice of this country—that by which ministers were constantly doing their best to diffuse, by every exertion and energy they could command—was the rage to keep up prices. Every country gentleman trembled at a reduction of his rents—every merchant exclaimed against lowering the price of his goods—and all classes vied with each other in keeping up prices as high as they had been years back. In fact, they were all mad enough to wish to keep up war prices in a time of peace. He held the attempt to be utterly impracticable. It could not go on, he repeated; it was madness to think of it; and he would lay down this as an irresistible proposition—that a metallic currency and present prices could not exist at one and the same time. It was quite impracticable, and the idea of a radical error; and upon that point he would frankly and fairly speak out. He would listen to no man's nostrum that had for its object the continuance of
550
the war prices, and at the same time, a metallic currency. He knew that this was unpalatable doctrine, but it was the truth; and this was not a time to abstain from stating the truth on so important a subject, though the truth might be disagreeable. Then, rushing from one extreme to another, what did ministers do? In 1822, they made an issue of Exchequer-bills, and the Bank, in concurrence with them, entered into measures which had the effect of giving a great stimulus to public-money-matters, and of lowering the rate of interest. What the Bank had done was, he had always heard, done on the suggestion of the government. The measures that were adopted on the occasion to which he alluded, were of a very unusual kind. The Bank thought it right to step out of its proper line of business, and to lend money on stock, and afterwards to make advances upon mortgages at four per cent. These proceedings had necessarily the effect of keeping up the prices both of stock and mortgages; while, contrary to all usage, it swept down the rate of interest throughout the country. It was not alone the advance of this 1,200,000 l. on mortgage at four per cent that created this effect; its principle operated immediately, from one end of the country to the other, and commanded the payment of mortgages held elsewhere and under different engagements. No man would pay more than four per cent; and he was safe in saying so, for he could go to the Bank, and get the money there, to extricate himself from the previous dearer incumbrance. The money thus called in, was turned into channels of speculation of all kinds; but who had led the way for them? Why, the Bank and the government. Who had encouraged and fostered extravagant expenditures? The same parties. And yet, with this experience before their eyes, people were found to ask, who and what had caused all this wild and extravagant speculation? The Bank at length found itself getting into an awkward predicament, and began to waver between the influence of its two gods—the god gold, and the god government. Then, out went Exchequer-bills for sale into the market, and again went on the rage for speculation. And why should it not i Oh, but it was said, it was overtrading which had done all the mischief. Overtrading did they call it? What was the meaning of the word? It was, when a

551
man did not succeed, he was nicknamed an overtrader: it reminded him of the distich about treason—
"Treason does never prosper—what's the reason?
Why, when it prospers, 'tis no longer treason."
So when success followed the speculator, then he became the sagacious and adventurous British merchant. But, as he had before said, the government had, from first to last, fostered this spirit, and not foreseen its consequences. Had they last October kept their eyes upon their own system, they ought to have foreseen its re-action. Then, indeed, some trifling assistance might have been afforded, and with beneficial effect. If it were said, that parliament was not sitting at the time, his answer would be—then why not convene them? for a little relief in time would have done what could not now be effected by the largest measure of relief. Some measure of relief at that time would have restored confidence; but unfortunately that period had been suffered to go by. The distress began to be felt, and Exchequer-bills were sold, and the Bank became the purchasers, and afterwards the sellers. The panic showed itself more and more every day. At last parliament met, and then government proposed the measures to which he had adverted. He knew that ministers were beset by men who were clamorous on the subject of the evils they were likely to suffer, and the purchase of Exchequer-bills by the Bank was gladly received as a means by which many of them could be relieved. This measure, however, would not answer the end proposed; nor did he think those proposed by government would have the desired effect. At the same time, he was not one of those who despaired of the country. The distress did not altogether arise from want of capital so much as want of confidence; and he was satisfied that if some measure was adopted, by which that confidence could be restored, the country had the means by which, when it was restored, its affairs would return to their former prosperous course. He thought that if an issue of Exchequer-bills were now made, as in 1793, it would do a great deal of good. But the purchase of Exchequer-bills by the Bank would not have that general effect; for, if a large purchase were made, how did they know that they would by this measure relieve the right man? The man who went into the market on Monday last and purchased
552
Exchequer-bills at 20 s. discount, would, no doubt, be greatly benefitted by having them raised to par, or at a premium; but the person who had traded, or overtraded, as it was called, would obtain no benefit by it; and perhaps, after all, the man who might be relieved was the last person who was entitled to relief. It was true that the holder of Exchequer-bills must be supposed so far to be a man of property; but, whether he was the man of property to whom relief ought to be extended, they had no means of knowing. Thus, the relief given by the purchase of Exchequer-bills would be altogether uncertain in its effects. A part of the proposed plan went upon the assumption, that the country bankers would not reissue their small notes any more. He did not believe a word of it. He did not think that any man among them was fool enough to throw 30,000 l. into the fire, as they were told of by his hon. friend.
Mr. H. Gurneysaid, he had mentioned only 13,000 l. which were so used by one banker in Yorkshire.
Mr. Tierneydid not mean to say that his hon. friend had ever been guilty of any thing so imprudent. He was too well acquainted with the system, and knew much better than to adopt that course; but, if such large sums were not destroyed, they might be locked up for a time, until opportunity offered for their re-appearance. In the district in which this burning of the notes took place, he knew there was great distress felt. The bankers alluded to were, perhaps, in a state of great irritation; but that distress would, he had no doubt, be in time removed, and it might happen that the man who had so foolishly thrown his notes into the fire, would be glad to rake up the cinders, and to find some of those notes among them. Again, he would repeat that, in his opinion, all that was wanted in the country was, the restoration of confidence. That would call forth the hoards which were now left unemployed. There was abundance of the precious metals, he also believed, which would be forthcoming, if this confidence were restored. But, the fact was, the country bankers were offended. There was, here and there, a strong expression of blame to them, in the late correspondence of government with the Bank. Perhaps, those expressions were not meant to give offence in the quarter in which it was taken; but it did unfortunately happen that they were taken

553
offensively. Was the present new course likely to conciliate the country bankers? On the contrary, was there any thing which could be more likely to crush those very bankers than the distinction that was now to be made of allowing the Bank of England to add to their issues of small notes, while the permission was denied to the private banks? Was it not saying, in direct terms, not that the Bank of England notes were so much more certain than theirs, but that theirs were not certain at all? Whatever was the intention, there was no doubt that the country bankers would so feel it. For his own part, he wished well to the country banks; for he thought their existence would be attended with great benefit to the country, as long as their issues were on a solid basis. He would wish to see them generally on the basis of those in Lancashire and London. The evil which arose from them was, not that they had the power of lending money to a great extent, but that they should have the power of making notes for the purpose of lending. If they really had money to lend, they would be a benefit, as long as they could say, "here is the money to lend, provided you give us the security;" but it would, in the end, be no benefit to say, "we will lend our notes," if those notes did not, at the same time, represent real property. He would wish to see the country banks flourish on a wholesome basis. If the country knew of a good security on which to rely, there would no longer be hoards of gold. There would be large paper issues; but they would be, as they ought to be, bottomed on a metallic security. If he were asked what measure would be productive of much good in the present state of the country, he would say an immediate issue of Exchequer-bills for the relief of the commercial distress. That would help many parties through their difficulties, and bring back a sound state of things. But, if government were to do any thing, let them do the right thing. He would not say what sum it might be proper to issue. If the whole sum of 5,000,000 l., which had been spoken of, were to be issued on proper security (which no doubt, the commissioners would take care to obtain, as they had done before), it would, he was sure, have a most beneficial effect on the country. The money would soon be re-paid—things would speedily come about—the hoards now
554
locked up would get into circulation—the bankers would again hold up their heads—and the country would return to a wholesome state of things. He meant a large circulation of paper, founded on a solid, substantial metallic currency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not rise at that late hour to enter into a discussion of all the topics brought under review in the speech of the right hon. gentleman, nor did he rise to state the grounds on which he should be prepared to show that the opposition he had offered to the measure recommended by the gentleman opposite, was not inconsistent with the measure he himself recommended, nor that it would, in any degree, tend to counteract its effects. But he was anxious to say a few words on what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman respecting the issues of the Bank. He was perfectly willing to take his share of all the blame, if blame there were, as to the conduct which the government had held towards the Bank. He admitted, that the proposal for taking the dead weight proceeded from the government. It was adopted by the Bank, at the suggestion of the government; and if there was any blame belonging to that measure, that blame belonged to the government. But, the government had nothing to do with the Bank keeping those annuities. It might sell them; and that it had not chosen to do so, was entirely its own proceeding. With respect to the issues of the Bank, to enable the government to pay off the four per cent in October, 1824, that measure was proposed by the government, and for it the government alone was responsible. As to the other measures mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, he was bound to say, for it was the truth, that the government was in no degree responsible or to blame. As to the Bank lending money on stock, and thus increasing its issues, he would only say, that so far from its having been adopted at the suggestion of the government, government never knew of the measure being adopted until after it had ceased, and could not, therefore, be charged with participating in it. As to lending money on mortgage also, the government was not responsible for that step. He would say for himself, that he never heard such a measure was in agitation, until the Bank had told him it was done. For that also the government could not be responsible; whatever in-

555
crease of issues it might have occasioned. Whether that measure was right of wrong he did not say; but he did say the government had nothing to do with it; but if it had not been done, the issues of Bank notes would not have been so great. With respect to the dealings in Exchequer-bills, he would observe, that the only part of that measure for which government were responsible, was that which arose from dealings between the Bank and them, in which they had advanced money upon them. It was not usual for the Bank to issue money on such bills to the public; but as to the selling of Exchequer-bills last summer, it was the act of the Bank themselves, and done on their own responsibility. In adverting to this, he would observe, that the government had not that control over the Bank which seemed to be generally imagined. It seemed to be the opinion of some hon. gentlemen, that government could control the proceedings of the Bank at pleasure. Government possessed no such power; nor did they wish to possess it. He had mentioned these circumstances with the intention that hon. members, in viewing the proceedings of the Bank and the government, would give to each the blame or credit which belonged to them, and not attribute to one what solely belonged to the other.
Mr. Ellicesaid, he would not divide the House, because from the declaration of the chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not think he was opposed to the principle of the measure recommended.
The bill was then read a second time.