Commons Sitting of 11 February 1828

CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.
Mr. Sheriff Stablepresented, at the bar, a Petition from the Corporation of London praying for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that in a very large assembly of the Common Council, the majority of whom were members of the established church, he was happy to say the petition had passed with only two or three dissenting voices.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, the petition had been carried by a very considerable majority in the common council, a body consisting of two hundred and sixty persons, two hundred and forty of whom were annually elected. The petition, therefore, spoke the sentiments of that body, and, through them, of the citizens of London. Nothing could more clearly show the "march of the mind," as it was called, than that, in 1790, a similar measure when put forward in the common council, had scarcely a hand held up in favour of it: on the contrary strong resolutions were passed, thanking those members who had voted against the repeal of those obnoxious acts; but now, after the lapse of thirty-seven years, only three or four hands were held up against the petition. He trusted that the illustrious individual at the head of the ministry, and who had been so long at the head of the army, would take a liberal view of this question. He must be well acquainted with the inconvenience which resulted to officers who were compelled, on their arrival in this country, to take the oaths under these acts; and who, if they did not, were liable to be informed against, by any common informer.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonhoped, that the prayer of the petition would be complied with. It was a folly to be passing, from year to year, an Indemnity act. The law as it now stood occasioned great inconvenience to members of the established church. The Dissenters could not, from conscientious scruples, fill certain offices. The consequence was, that they must be
306
filled by members of the established church, to the exclusion of extremely competent individuals. Whatever reasons might have existed for these enactments in the time of Charles 2nd, there were none now. The citizens of London suffered considerable inconvenience from them. It often happened, that persons, in every way competent to fill the offices of sheriffs; and magistrates, shielded themselves under the plea of their being Dissenters, from taking upon them these expensive and important duties. As a member of the church of England, he conscientiously believed that these acts might be repealed without the slightest danger.
Mr. Fergussonconcurred entirely in the liberal sentiments which had fallen from the hon. member. For himself, he was prepared to say, that no religious creed ought to disable men from filling any situation, military or civil. At the same time, it was right to guard against alarming the prejudices of those who thought that the Dissenters could not be relieved unless the Catholics were relieved also. He had shown by the vote he had given, that he was favourable to granting the claims of the Catholics, but at the same time he was glad to see the two questions separated. He thought that the questions ought to be perfectly distinct. He was himself a Dissenter from the church of England, but only because he professed the established religion of Scotland, the land in which he was born. He thought it a monstrous thing, while there were no tests imposed upon persons of the church of England in Scotland, that he, a Scotchman, should be required to undergo any tests in England. If he had an opportunity, when the question came before the House, he would state his reasons why he did not think this brand of ignominy ought to be continued on him, merely because he happened to be born in a different faith from others.
Mr. John Martincomplained, that the Corporation of London, while they thus prayed for relief to a certain portion of their citizens, were themselves guilty of intolerance and oppression. He then alluded to some proceedings towards certain butchers in Whitechapel, who had been refused their freedom, on the authority of a bye-law, because they professed the Jewish religion.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, there certainly did exist such a law. It was an

307
old bye-law, not of the corporation, but of the court of Aldermen. The Corporation had set their faces entirely against it, and begged of the court of Aldermen to repeal it.
Mr. Humesaid, there were two classes of persons in the city of London, the one remarkable for just and liberal conduct, the other for conduct directly the reverse. The gaols bore testimony to the illiberality of courts of Aldermen, who had set on foot prosecutions which government, greatly to its credit, had generally discountenanced. He verily believed, that if the law allowed them to revert to the fire and the faggot, the court of Aldermen would take advantage of it.
Ordered to lie on the table.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
Sir G. Cockburn,in moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, said that, it was his intention to ask for a vote of seamen for six months, and not for the whole year. He had felt it his duty to take this course, because a Finance Committee was about to be appointed, and because it was the course which had been adopted, under similar circumstances, in 1817.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that as the course adopted in 1817 had been alluded to, he rose to object to that course being so essentially deviated from in the present instance. He was aware that the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had given notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the finances of the country, but then, in 1817, no supplies were voted for ten days after the message of the Prince Regent had been sent down to the House. A very different course, however, seemed now about to be adopted. When the House was last year promised, that such a committee should be appointed, every measure of finance was postponed, because the House was convinced that Mr. Canning desired earnestly to have the financial affairs of the country thoroughly investigated. The right hon. Secretary opposite must, however, see that the House could not give that confidence to him, which it had reposed in the right hon. gentleman now no more. That right hon. gentleman had acceded to the wishes of the House; but the right hon. Secretary opposite, who had so long been a member of his majesty's government, had never yet acceded to the importunities which had been urged. Be-
308
fore, therefore, confidence was placed in the right hon. gentleman, he wished to know what he meant to propose; to hear his proposition; and especially to hear the names of the persons whom he intended should form this committee. He was quite sure that the right hon. gentleman would himself see that this was neither an extraordinary nor an unreasonable request. He thought the House ought not to vote any seamen until this explanation had been made. To ask for a vote of seamen for six months was going too far. In all probability they would not get any report from that committee, until late in the session; and if so, the whole affair would pass over till next year, and the public would derive no benefit whatever from the appointment of the committee. They ought, first of all, to have a pledge that what was to be done would be done that year.
Mr. Peelsaid, he certainly had no right to complain of the observations of the hon. gentleman. The ground he had taken was a perfectly fair parliamentary ground; but he entreated the hon. member to hear him, and he thought he would see that his objections were not so strong as he appeared to think them. The estimate was founded upon the number of men which it was thought necessary to maintain for the service of the country. It was the province of the sovereign to state that number to the House: and the only vote that the House would be called upon to pass would be, for the wages and victuals of these men, not for the whole year, but for six months; in order that, if the committee of finance found it necessary to make any alteration in this part of the expenditure, they might do so the more easily. Now, in this the precedent of 1817 had been their guide. In 1817, the vote had been asked for a few days later than it was now, because, to defer it, would be to inconvenience the public service. As to the precedent of 1817, it had been followed in every respect, with the exception that the names of the persons were not known. The hon. member had stated, that he could not have confidence in him, because he had long been a member of government, and had never brought forward any motion of this kind. This, however, was inaccurate. It so happened, that he was a member of the government in 1817, and that he also was a member of that finance committee; from which it

309
would seem, that he was by no means adverse to such inquiries. But he would tell the hon. member, that the question of appointing a finance committee had been agitated in lord Liverpool's cabinet, and if that nobleman had continued at the head of the government, such a committee would actually have been appointed. As matters now stood, what had been his conduct? Why, the very day he had taken his seat in the House, he had given notice of this motion.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, that his opposition was, and should be, given to measures, and not to men. If it could be shown to him, that the public service would be impeded by the refusal of the present vote, he would support it; but no such case had yet been made out. He trusted that the government would proceed voluntarily to measures of economy and retrenchment; but if it did not take that course, it would be the duty of the House to enforce it. He repeated that he was not desirous to oppose the present ministry, especially since it contained one right hon. gentleman peculiarly calculated to take an extended view of the national finances; but for twenty years past the public money had been voted away, session after session, with a facility which he must characterize as indecent. For himself, he could see no possible danger to the public service in taking the present vote only for the term of three months.
Mr. D. W. Harveywished to know, whether the present ministers, on coming into their places, had found any plans of economy matured by their predecessors? The late Mr. Canning, in giving notice of the finance committee, had stated, that ministers would apply themselves diligently to the reduction of the public expenditure. Under these circumstances, he was desirous of knowing whether any progress had been made towards the reduction of the public burthens by the predecessors of the present ministry? The frequent recurrence of struggles for ascendancy, of defeats, and of changes, tended greatly to weaken the confidence of the country in the government, and distracted the attention of ministers from a business to which their whole attention should be devoted. He was unwilling to obstruct any necessary supply; yet he thought that ministers ought to explain to the House their intentions.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that as he was not
310
a member of Mr. Canning's cabinet, he could not undertake to state what were the intentions of that cabinet; but this he would say, that whatever they were, they must change and vary with circumstances. A material change had taken place in our naval stations in the Mediterranean, since a notice of the committee was first given. An augmentation of our fleet had been rendered necessary at various times, during the last ten years of peace. At one time, that augmentation was required in the West Indies, to protect our commerce from piratical depredations; at another, the Burmese war obliged us to turn our attention to the East. Again, an augmentation of our fleet in the Tagus was rendered necessary; and lastly, in the Mediterranean. Thus, from time to time, we had been under the necessity of making unexpected increases, which particular emergencies required. Notwithstanding this exertion, the government now asked only for a vote of thirty thousand men; a number which could hardly by possibility be reduced. It was true that the amount was not considerably less than heretofore; but, with the same means, a great deal more was to be effected. To take the vote for three months would be a deception upon the House; because, if the finance committee should object to the employment of thirty thousand men, it would not be possible, within the term of three months, to reduce them. It was right to add, that the estimates had of late been reduced so low, that there were no balances in hand, and that the service would actually be distressed for want of the vote before the House.
Mr. Humesaid, that the charges of the country were going on, year after year, increasing. He would not, therefore, consent to vote a single shilling until the estimates were regularly before the House. He should be glad to hear whether the recent government had devoted any of its attention to the subject of economy. He did not object to the present ministry; nor would he oppose them, while they took a course likely to be beneficial to the country; but he did insist, that it was criminal to grant them any vote, until they declared what the expenditure of the whole year would be likely to require. There could be no difficulty, if ministers meant fairly, in their doing this. The right hon. Secretary opposite told the House, that it was the province of the sovereign

311
to recommend what the number of men wanted for the defence of the country should be. It might be the province of the sovereign to recommend; but it was for the House to decide whether that recommendation should be acquiesced in; and he, for one, was certainly disposed not to acquiesce in it, until the whole of the expense was before the House. The finance committee of 1817 had considered 19,000 men sufficient for the service of the country, and had held out a prospect of still further reduction. It was the duty of members to look at the enormous establishments of the present moment, and to be satisfied that they could not be dispensed with.
The House having resolved itself into the committee, sir G. Cockburn moved, "That 30,000 seamen, including 9,000 marines be granted for the service of the navy, for six months."
Mr. Humeopposed the grant, and declared that the legislature was going on, year after year, in a course of disgracefully wasteful expenditure, exceeding the income of the country, and making up the deficiency by the issue of Exchequer-bills. In 1792, the whole expenditure of the establishments of the country had been a little more than 5,000,000 l. Now it amounted to 24,000,000 l. It was impossible to go on tolerating this enormous and uncalled-for increase. He protested against this course, and would take an opportunity of putting his objection to it on record.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, he could not allow this first vote to pass without making a few remarks. He did not so much object to the particular vote now before the committee, as to the fact, that they had not a full statement before them of the whole of the estimates. Great expectations were held out from the appointment of the finance committee. He hoped they would be realised; but he could not conceal his fears that this committee would be used, as former committees had been; that it would be made the 'scape-goat for the proposition of fresh taxes, which the ministry would not dare to propose on their own responsibility. He owned he had had great hopes that the right hon. gentleman, whose loss he, in common with the country, so sincerely deplored, would have been enabled to meet the financial difficulties of the country. Those difficulties could not now be concealed; yet at present he saw
312
no appearance of reduction. Last year we had a deficiency of 3,000,000 l., and he regretted to observe, that that deficiency was going on. In looking at our expenditure, he did not object to particular items, but to the general character of the whole. He did not think that the country could maintain the principles of free trade, while its expenditure was continued on its present scale. If he understood the principles on which we were endeavouring to carry on free trade, one of the means by which we were to do so was a reduction in the price of all articles of produce and manufacture, so as to meet the competition of other countries in the foreign market. In order to effect this, the price of provisions must be reduced, and the currency altered; the whole of the landed and manufacturing interests must submit to a reduction of their income by one-fourth or even one-third, to put the country in a condition to meet the new state of things. But, while such reductions were made, were those who were paid large salaries by the public to be the only exceptions? Was no reduction to be made in salaries, which were so heavy a burthen on the public? Many of those if compared with the salaries of 1792, and the price of provisions at that period, would be found fit items for reduction. It was impossible that the country could fulfil its engagements with the public creditor, unless reductions were made in our expenditure. The surplus of income above expenditure was 1,132,226 l., while the amount paid on account of the army and navy pensions was 2,800,000 l. The fact was, that there was a real deficiency of between four and five millions. There was indeed, a sinking fund; but how was it made up? Not by a surplus of revenue but by borrowing. Would the country bear to be taxed to that amount, oppressed as it already was with such a load of taxation?
Mr. John Woodcomplained of the want of clearness in the accounts laid before the House. He thought that any two bankers' clerks well acquainted with business, could put them in a shape in which they could be understood. At present, they were nearly unintelligible.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that the amount of the sinking fund was now fixed at 5,000,000 l. which must be provided for, whether there was an excess of income to that amount or not. As the act stood, it was impera-

313
tive to make good that sum as a sinking-fund, even should there be a deficiency of revenue. In the present year it was made up by a balance of income of 1,132,226 l., and the remainder by an issue of Exchequer-bills. This was not the fault of ministers, but of parliament; which said, that there should be a Sinking-fund to that amount, without reference to any excess of income. Parliament decreed, that there should be an extinction of the debt, to the amount of 5,000,000 l. annually; and yet in fourteen days it departed from that principle, by voting a permanent charge of 2,800,000 l. towards paying the army and navy pensions. He had no doubt, however, that the present year would be the last of that arrangement.
Mr. Secretary Huskissonsaid, the hon. gentleman was correct in what he said respecting the Sinking-fund being payable out of the consolidated fund, whether there was or was not an excess of income. As to the army and navy pensions, the last instalment would be paid in July next, and it would be for the finance committee to consider that as well as the other branches of our expenditure. He thought there was nothing extraordinary in the vote now asked for; as it was usual to give ministers credit for a vote of this kind on their own responsibility. The increase of our naval force this year was not a subject for the consideration of a finance committee; and therefore no delay of the present vote could be necessary on that account. The question of the policy of that increase might be entered into at present, or at any future period; but the finance committee could not enter into the subject of the number of men which might be necessary. That was a part of its duty which, he was convinced, the House would not delegate to it. The amount of force necessary would be proposed by government, and the House would deal with it as it thought fit; but the finance committee would have nothing to do with it, though it might inquire as to the amount of expense by which such force could be maintained. As to the vote before the committee, he would only add, that whenever the subject of the treaty which had been referred to should come before the House, he should be ready to defend its policy, and to contend that it was not an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent state, but that it was called for by circumstances which could be met in no other way.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the motion 48, Against it 15. Majority 33.

List of the Minority.

Dawson, Alex.

Robinson, G. R.

Gordon, R.

Stuart, John

Guest, J. T.

Waithman, ald.

Harvey, D. W.

Wilbraham, George

Hume, J.

Wood, Alderman

Maberly, colonel

Wood, John.

Martin, John

TELLER.

Monck, J. B.

Maberly, John.

On the next resolution, "That 1,579,000 l. be granted for paying and victualling the said men,"
Mr. Humecomplained of this attempt to vote money without notice having been given. In the notices of the day it was stated that a supply of seamen would be moved, but nothing was said about their wages or victuals. There was a considerable amount of unappropriated balances in the Exchequer, which the government might make use of without calling on that House for further sums, until the promised financial explanation had been given.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he was lost in astonishment at what had fallen from the hon. member. If he had not so often heard his voice in committees of supply, he should have supposed that it was some extremely young member who had entertained a notion, that, because there was a balance in the Exchequer, it was at the disposal of government. Did the hon. member know so little of the history of the constitution—did he so little understand the character of a committee of supply—as to suppose that, were there millions in the Exchequer, the government could touch a single shilling without a grant from parliament? The hon. member did not know the A, B, C of the progress of supply if he did not know the truth of this. If the hon. member had found out the secret of providing wages and victuals without money, he had indeed made a most brilliant discovery.
Mr. Humesaid, that if he had not yet learnt his A, B, C, he would endeavour to study his letters. He maintained, however, that the right hon. gentleman was wrong in the position which he took. The committee had only received notice that a vote of seamen would be moved for, and now they were called upon to grant money for their support, which was decidedly contrary to the practice of parliament.
Mr. Huskissonundertook to say, that

315
ever since the House had voted the wages and victuals of seamen, it had done so in precisely the same terms as those which the hon. member now asserted to be so irregular; with this exception, that the words "wear and tear" were formerly introduced, but had recently been omitted to please the hon. member himself. He defied the hon. member to prove that since the Revolution the House had ever omitted to vote wages and victuals, when the papers stated only that a certain number of seamen were to be voted.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the vote had been framed in the same manner as at present for the last nineteen years.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it was hard upon his hon. friend to tell him that he did not know his A, B, C. He was sure his hon. friend did know his letters—he meant so far as regarded taxation; for he knew nothing of his hon. friend's grammatical learning.
Mr. Humesaid, he was not to be put down by such observations as had been addressed to him that night. If personalities were resorted to, he could retaliate. He still thought the motion improper.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the hon. member had certainly misunderstood what had fallen from his right hon. friend, if he supposed that he meant any thing personally offensive to him. He had merely stated, that the hon. member seemed to be unacquainted with the A, B, C, of the process of a committee of supply. There was nothing in that observation which ought to give the hon. member uneasiness.
After a desultory conversation, the resolution was agreed to.