Commons Sitting of 24 March 1828

GREECE AND TURKEY.
On the order of the day for going into a committee of Supply.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that he rose for the: purpose of obtaining information from the right hon. Secretary opposite, with respect to the Treaty that had been entered into on the 6th of July, and the right, hon. gentleman might be assured, that a satisfactory answer to the questions which he was about to propose, would not only be grateful to that House, but to the country generally. He wished to know whether the Treaty of the 6th of July was to be maintained by his majesty, under all circumstances? He knew that various declarations had been made on this subject by ministers in that, and the other House of parliament, to the same effect as those which had been delivered from the throne; but since those declarations had been made, new events had occurred, which induced many persons to believe that some change was about to take place, and made it desirable that further explanations on the question should be entered into by ministers. The new circumstances that had induced this supposition were notorious. A manifesto, or, at all events, a document which bore an official character, had been promulgated by Russia, and had produced such a line of conduct in the Ottoman Porte, as to induce the Russian
1302
power to declare war, by which that truce had been broken, which it had been hoped would have rendered the Treaty of Akermann more lasting. The consequence of this conduct had been, that Russia, without, as he trusted, any motive of self-aggrandizement, had been obliged to vindicate her own interests and honour, by advancing on those principalities which formed the line of defence of Turkey, and which it was no doubt necessary for her to occupy, because in all former wars they had been desolated by that country. Such a moment as that appeared to him to render it more necessary than ever that the Treaty of the 6th of July should be carried into effect, as it might be the means of preventing Russia from pushing forward, and establishing herself in a position which would prove most inconvenient to the general interests of Europe.—But, joined with these rumours, there were I sinister reports—reports founded on the jealousy of those who wished to see the honour of England disparaged—reports that sprung from another and new class of politicians, who were jealous for the maintenance of their barbarian friends, and who seemed to dread that the Treaty of the 6th of July was only got up for the partition of Turkey; but, on the contrary, He thought that it would only operate as a security for the continuance of the political existence of Greece. These being the circumstances of the case, it was necessary that they should have a decided declaration of the intentions of government on this point; and he therefore hoped that the right hon. gentleman would state whether it was the intention of ministers to support the Treaty of the 6th of July,: and to fulfil its obligations, without allowing any circumstances to occur to induce them to depart from its provisions?—With respect to the second question, he had, on a former occasion, asked for some information relative to this topic, but had been informed, that no despatches had been received from the gallant, admiral. What he now wished to ask was, whether any order had been renewed to the commanding officer of our naval force in the Mediterranean, to prevent any supply of provisions from being carried to the Turkish army, and for the purpose of interposing to prevent the removal of non-combatants from the Morea into Egypt.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he hoped the hon. member would excuse him if he

1303
divided the comments that had fallen from him, from the direct questions which he had proposed. The first question that the hon. member had asked was, whether the king was disposed to adhere to the provisions of the Treaty of the 6th of July, without allowing any circumstances to interfere in procuring the pacification of Greece? On that subject, he had to inform the hon. gentleman, that there was no change whatever in the king's determination to do every thing that lay in his power to give effect to that Treaty; but when the hon. gentleman asked whether his majesty would allow any circumstances to interfere with the prosecution of the Treaty, it was evident that he was asking him to give an answer to a future and hypothetical case; and that it was impossible for any minister of the Crown to answer on a contingent proposition, such as the one made by the hon. gentleman: it was as much as he could do to repeat that no change had at present taken place in his majesty's desire and intention of fulfilling the provisions of the Treaty.—The hon. gentleman had next referred to certain changes which had taken place in the relations between Turkey and Russia. On this point it was sufficient for him to state, that no official information had reached this country on the subject—no declaration of war by Russia against Turkey had been received—nothing was known to have occurred to change the situation in which Russia stood at the time when the Treaty of the 6th of July was concluded. Whatever apprehensions the hon. gentleman might entertain on the subject, he felt that he should best perform his duty by not discussing it, until positive information was received by his majesty's government.—The second question put by the hon. gentleman was, whether or not orders had been renewed, directing the officer commanding the naval force in the Mediterranean to continue the blockade of those ports of the Morea which were occupied by the Turks? In answer to that he would state, that previous to the battle of Navarino, orders were given to the admiral commanding the combined squadron to institute a blockade of those ports in the Morea that were held by the Turks or Egyptians, and to prevent reinforcements being supplied to them. After the battle of Navarino those instructions were considered as remaining in full force, and they had been acted on by the com-
1304
manders of the allied squadron.—With respect to the removal of persons from the Morea, to be employed as slaves, he had no hesitation in saying, that previous to the signature of the Treaty, an intimation was given to his majesty's government that it was the intention of Turkey to remove from the Morea the female part of the population and the children, for the purpose of settling them in Egypt as slaves; and a distinct notification was given to Ibrahim Pacha, that so violent an exercise of rights, if rights they could be called—that a feeling so repugnant to the established usage of civilized nations— never would be permitted by his majesty, and that this country would certainly resist any attempt to carry such an object into effect.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS—OFFICE OF WORKS.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he rose for the purpose of requiring some information with respect to the object of a motion which was made by the hon. member for Dorsetshire, between twelve and one o'clock on Saturday morning. The hon. member on that occasion moved for a select committee to inquire into the state of the Public Buildings in the Department of the Office of Works, and into the application of part of the land revenue of the Crown, under certain statutes. He certainly expected, that the hon. member would have stated the reason which led him to institute such an inquiry. His surprise was therefore very great, when the hon. member made his motion, without assigning a single reason for it, or pointing out the precise object which he had in view. He hesitated at the moment, as to whether it was his duty to ask for an explanation; but believing that nothing unsatisfactory would result from the committee, he did not deem it necessary to say any thing in opposition to the motion. But a little reflection had convinced him that it was necessary to come to a right understanding of the motives which had induced the hon. member to move for a committee. He certainly was of opinion, that this subject would naturally come under the inquiry of the Finance Committee, Promises had been made of a reduction of expense in this department; but although those promises had not been kept, yet he believed the public were content to wait for the result of an inquiry, to be instituted by the Finance Committee, with reference to this subject. In those hands he

1305
thought the inquiry to which he alluded should have been placed, and he was prepared to contend against any change in the tribunal before which the investigation ought to take place. It would be invidious to anatomize the materials of which the hon. member's select committee was constituted. But he would say, that four of its members, either by the offices they held at present, or by their recent connexion with office, were open to a peremptory challenge, and two of them would stand in a peculiarly strange situation—that of sitting in judgment on their own conduct. The hon. member for Dorsetshire had said, that the committee was not constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the money expenditure, but only into the style of architecture adopted in the repair and erection of palaces, and to consider whether any trees had been improperly cut down by Mr. Nash. He certainly congratulated the hon. member, and the Master of the Mint, on the escape which they had made from the erroneous labours of the Finance Committee, by undertaking what he might call the trifling labours of the Select Committee, for which the hon. member had moved. He, however, feared that the Master of the Mint and the chief commissioner of Woods and Forests, backed by the majority of this committee, would extend the inquiry, and force the committee, against the better judgment of the hon. member and of other gentlemen who were placed on it, to go into the question of expenditure. They might take a glance at that subject, to stifle a more rigorous inquiry before the Finance Committee itself. A favourable report might be given as to the expenditure; and, in consequence of that slight inquiry, the subject might be overlooked by the Finance Committee. Now, he wished to guard against this. He was desirous that the subject should be left in the hands of the Finance Committee, and that it should not hereafter be urged, as a reason for not submitting it to the investigation of the Finance Committee, that an imperfect inquiry had already taken place before an unfit committee. Such a proceeding should not be an obstacle to a fair and full investigation of the expenditure. He stated this fairly, openly, and honestly, because he was anxious to guard himself against that which was not unlikely to occur. Perhaps the hon. member would have the kindness to state what limits were to be laid down for the labours of
1306
this Select Committee; and it would be satisfactory also, if ministers would declare what their views of this case were.—Hereafter, he hoped, notwithstanding what might be done by the Select Committee, that the Finance Committee would inquire into the whole question of the Woods and Forests Department, and also into the expenditure of the Crown for the building of palaces.
Mr. Bankessaid, that his reason for not entering into an explanation on the former occasion was, because he was not aware that any was required. As to his having made his motion at so late an hour he could not avoid it: if he had postponed his motion to Monday, it was very doubtful whether he could have brought it forward. After listening with great attention to what had fallen from the hon. baronet, he could not see what the object was for which the hon. baronet wished him to give an answer. The hon. baronet seemed to complain of his having taken a particular subject out of the hands of the Finance Committee. Was the Finance Committee to embrace every subject of inquiry before the House? Was it not competent to every member to take up any particular subject, if he thought it could in any other way be more fairly considered, than it could be before the Finance Committee? Did the hon. baronet know what a mass of business was at present before the Finance Committee. He was not aware that the subject to which his motion referred would come before that committee. He did not think that they would have time to entertain it before the next session. The hon. baronet had objected to the manner in which the committee was constituted, and there seemed to be a sort of oblique insinuation, as if he had moved for the committee, for the purpose of screening some individuals whose conduct was likely to be overhauled in the Finance Committee. Now, what purpose had he to answer—what advantage was he likely to receive in moving for this committee? What benefit would it be to him to screen persons who were guilty? The hon. baronet asked what was the object of the committee? There were two principal views connected with the formation of the committee—one related to the public expenditure, and the other to national taste. Both were fit objects for the consideration of parliament. If they saw a large ex-

1307
penditure going on for the purpose of ornamenting the country, surely it was worthy of the House to see that it was applied to proper purposes. It was not, he contended, a trifling or a useless labour, to preserve the character of the country for taste, by bringing those subjects under the consideration of the House. Surely, the subject of their public buildings ought to be brought under the attention of parliament. Before now, buildings demanding a large expenditure had been undertaken wholly unknown to that House, and had never been brought under its notice until a large expense had been incurred. They had known 30,000 l. or 40,000 l. to be spent, in the first instance, without the cognizance of the House; and then they were obliged to go on and accomplish the work. The House had been kept too much in the dark on this point. Let them look to the Custom-house. No less a work than that had gone on, and the House was not informed of it until the foundations were laid; and they all knew how they were laid. If the Select Committee entertained the question, there was nothing to prevent the Finance Committee from applying themselves to it, as part of the national income. It would be for the Select Committee to consider how far certain works had been proper and necessary, and how far it would be right to put a stop to any of the plans now in progress.
Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that as allusion had been made to him, it became necessary for him to state that he had nothing to do with the formation of this committee; but he would, as head of the Woods and Forests Department, do every thing in his power to give effect to the inquiry. He had no desire to screen himself from any investigation. He had only to ask the committee fairly to do its duty. He should not have been placed in his present office if there had been any thing in his conduct that would not bear the strictest scrutiny. If it were allowable for a man to speak of himself, he would say that twenty-one years ago, he had obtained, not through great connexions, nor by ministerial influence, an income under an act of parliament, fully equal to that which he now possessed. He might also be permitted to observe, that on the present occasion he had not sought for office.
Sir J. Yorkesaid, it appeared to him very extraordinary, that, after they had been told that the Finance Committee could
1308
not terminate their labours this session, his hon. friend should have subtracted six members from that committee. As to the public buildings, they were certainly a sort of hobby of his hon. friend, and no doubt he presided over the public taste very judiciously, but then his hon. friend had a manner which was directly against economy; for he was in the habit of saying, "I don't like the building you have erected here; take it down, and put up another." He was therefore sorry that there had been no explanation of the reasons for abducting six members from the Finance Committee.
Mr. Bankessaid, that the committee for which he had moved would only sit on two or three days in the week, when the Finance Committee were not sitting.
Mr. R. Colbornesaid, that when they saw the encroachments which were daily making upon the park, it was high time that there should be no doubt as to the intention of government. He had seen numbers of trees railed round, and it appeared to him to be intended to cut them down. He thought these were fair objects for the investigation of a committee. The Treasury board had very little leisure to bestow upon such subjects, and he had never known a chancellor of the Exchequer who did not pray to be released from such an addition to his labours. It was, therefore, become absolutely necessary to have a committee of some kind, under whose authority the matter might be fairly investigated, and who might be able to apply some timely check to the present extravagant proceedings. They saw every where extensive and costly buildings erected, as it was supposed, upon regular estimates, but when they were completed it frequently turned out that there had been no estimate at all. Much good might arise from an inquiry. At all events, he deprecated any attempt to take these things out of the hands of a committee, in order to place them under the control of the office of Woods and Forests.
The Hon. G. A. Ellissaid, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question or two to the first commissioner of Woods and Forests. First, he wished to know whether it was intended to cut down the north row of trees in the Mall in St. James's park? It would be in the recollection of the House, that in answer to a question put last session, it was affirmed, that government would keep to the inten-

1309
tion it originally held of not removing those trees. He owned he entertained great doubts upon this subject, from perceiving the railing which had been placed round the trees, and which was a most extensive encroachment. He had, indeed, understood that Mr. Nash, the architect, intended to raise a bank, covered with shrubs, in order to hide the dead wall which was an unseemly object. But, if that were all that was in view, the railing ought to have been on the north side, and the benefit of the shade of the trees given to the public. It was rumoured, too, that Mr. Nash had said that parliament did not sit all the year round, and it would be seen what would be done when parliament was not sitting. The other question he had to ask was, whether there was to be an opening into St. James's park, opposite Waterloo-place? A foot-way entrance here was so evident an improvement, that he should not have put the question if it had not been rumoured that Mr. Nash did not wish there to be any such opening.
Mr. Arbuthnotdenied any responsibility on the score of the execution of the plans for the improvements in the park; for though they were sent to his office, they were proceeded on after he left it. Both from the government and Mr. Nash he had received the most positive assurances, that it was not intended to cut down the trees in the Mall. He did not think it quite fair to talk of encroachments upon the parks. When he had waited upon the king to take his commands upon the plan of improvements, his majesty expressly desired that a carriage road should be opened from Pimlico to Storey's Gate, that the whole of that part of the park where the cattle grazed should be opened to the public. Upon the subject of the foot-way through the buildings at Waterloo-place, it was not in his power to give any answer. He believed there was no such path in the original plans.
Mr. Herriessaid, that when a question was put to him last year, he had stated distinctly that it was not the intention to cut down any of the trees, except one which projected so as to interfere with the wall. At that time, the plan shewing the new alterations was before the House; and there was no intention on the part of the Treasury to make any alteration in it. He had even taken the trouble to see the architect; for the purpose of
1310
ascertaining if he understood there was any latitude allowed him in carrying the designs into execution, and he had been distinctly informed, that there was no such latitude, nor no intention to alter what was originally proposed. While on his legs, he would allude to the abduction, as it had been called, of some members from the Finance Committee. But he did not think that abduction at all inconsistent or absurd. For, as this part of the public expenditure was to be brought under the consideration of the Finance Committee, that committee would be the better prepared to deal properly with it, if a few of their members were employed in arranging the subject for the consideration of all of them. He did not think any detriment could ensue from the committee being preceded in their labours by the labours of a few gentlemen selected from among themselves. With respect to the word "suspicious," he did not know in what sense the hon. baronet meant to apply it. If the hon. baronet meant to say that because he was connected with government he would take steps to cloak or conceal any part of the system—if the hon. baronet supposed him capable of going into any committee to which he should be appointed by that House, to be instrumental in crushing or misleading the inquiries of such committee, the hon. baronet imputed to him conduct of which he was totally incapable. He would report, as freely as any hon. gentleman not connected with government, and as honestly as the hon. baronet himself would, if he were a member of the commission.
Sir J. Grahamdisclaimed any intention to impute improper motives to the two right hon. gentlemen.

WAYS AND MEANS.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in agreeing to the vote which he was about to propose, the committee would not pledge itself to any opinion whatsoever. The House was only called upon to vote the appropriation of money which would be paid on the 5th of April and the 6th of July next. What was to be done with the money would be matter of after-consideration, but this preliminary step was necessary. With this observation he merely proposed calling on the House to vote for the appropriation of the sum of 2,164,000 l., which would be paid by the

1311
trustees of naval and military pensions on the 5th of April and the 5th of July.
Mr. Calcrafttook occasion to allude again to the slow proceedings of the Finance Committee, and expressed a wish that there was some statement laid before the House of the actual income and expenditure of the country. An hon. baronet the other evening had stated, that he did not expect much from the Finance Committee, because, although our income was above fifty millions, more than thirty millions were absorbed by the debt, so that they had not more than nineteen or twenty millions to deal with. Now, he confessed this alarmed him very much as to the results to be expected from the examination. He looked, not to the nominal amount paid into the Treasury, but at the sum drawn from the pockets of the people. That sum was nearly fifty-eight millions, but more than eight millions were spent in the collection; so that the nett amount to be applied to the public expenditure was only fifty millions. If, therefore, the difference between the nett income and the gross income was added to the sum the committee had to work upon, there would be, instead of nineteen or twenty millions, a sum of twenty-seven millions, out of which the Finance Committee was to labour in the work of reduction. He recollected hearing, some years ago, that a proposition was made to lord Liverpool, of uniting the Boards of Customs and Excise, and it was said that by this union 1,500,000 l. a year would be saved. Lord Liverpool was inclined to attend to it, but lord Castlereagh put it aside, for a reason which he did not think it proper to mention then. At those two boards there were thirty-four commissioners and assistant commissioners, and he did think this an immense body of persons to transact the business of the boards, and that a very great reduction might be made.
Sir J. Yorkewished to ask the chancellor of the Exchequer, who he knew was not like Mr. Pitt, an heaven-born minister—indeed, his right hon. friend had come into office without knowing much more than that two and two made four, or at all events knowing very little about Treasury affairs—he wished to ask his right hon. friend, whether in his opinion Mr. Finlayson, that modern Cocker, had not taken very exaggerated views on the subject of these life annuities?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,
1312
that really after the compliment his gallant friend had paid him, he did not see how his gallant friend could expect him to give any opinion on the mass of figures which Mr. Finlayson had laid before the Finance Committee. To the best of his judgment, however, the system had produced a loss to the country; that was the opinion also of the Finance Committee. With respect to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman, he could assure him, that the Finance Committee had never, in the reductions they contemplated, lost sight of the charges of collecting the revenue; and that the most effectual means would be taken to lay before the public a clear and plain statement of the national accounts.
Sir J. Newportdid not know how it was possible for the Finance Committee to do more than they were doing. They sat three times a week, from twelve to four, and the sub-committee sat on the alternate days. He hoped the committee would not suffer itself to be hurried forward by the anxiety, however commendable, of individuals; and that it would abstain from making any report, until it could make one which would be satisfactory to the public.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that too sanguine expectations of reduction should not be held out, when it was considered that 30,000,000 l. were to be paid as interest of the debt, and the charge for the army, navy, &c. amounted to 19 or 20,000,000 l. He admitted that the charge of 8,000,000 l. for the collection of the Revenue was one that merited the strict attention of the committee. The committee, he was sure, would gladly receive any suggestion from his hon. friend; and he should be glad if they had the benefit of his assistance.
Mr. Calcraftobserved, that the Finance Committee, would not be the worse for being reminded of particular duties as it proceeded. With reference to the measure, however, which had already emanated from it—the bill for repealing the power of granting life annuities—he did not quite agree in the course which had been pursued, and wished that Mr. Finlayson's letter should be laid before the House. As it seemed to him, the table of rates, subject to which these annuities had been granted, ought to be changed, rather than the practice of granting them discontinued.
Mr. Baringbore testimony to the constant exertions of the Finance Committee, and particularly to those of the hon.

1313
chairman whose attention to its business was unremitting.
Mr. Humesaid, that the money named in the vote was money to be received from the Bank in the way of loan; and he entirely objected to applying borrowed money to the support of the Sinking-fund. The statement of the right hon. Home Secretary a few nights ago had shown that at most there was only a surplus of 50,000 l. applicable to the redemption of the debt. He believed that there was no surplus at all, but a deficiency rather, to three times that amount; but at all events that sum was the most which could be available. He thought, therefore, that instead of applying borrowed money to sustain this Sinking-fund, it would be better to wait and see whether the Finance Committee did not pronounce the whole Sinking-fund a delusion. He was disposed to move, as an amendment, that the money in question should not be carried to the account of the consolidated fund, but used to take up part of our unfunded debt; which perhaps we might not always be able to take up upon such favourable terms as we could at present.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the suspension of the appropriation of this money would not alter the arrangement relative to the Sinking-fund; but it would deprive the government of supplies which were wanted for the purposes of immediate necessity.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the hon. member had greatly under-stated the amount of surplus over expenditure, when he stated it to be only 50,000 l. The amount of surplus was to be estimated not only by the amount of income, but also by that of our expenditure. Now, admitting that there was to be no increase in our income, from the estimates it would appear that there was a reduction of 1,200,000 l. in our expenditure. This, therefore, gave us together with the 2,000,000 l. from the Bank, if it should be appropriated to the Sinking-fund, 3,000,000 l. more than the 50,000 l. which the hon. member had stated to be the only sum which we could appropriate to the Sinking-fund. The committee must clearly perceive that this 2,000,000 l. should go to the credit of the income of the country, however it might be appropriated. The prospect of a probable increase in the revenue would augment still further the available resources of the country,
Sir J. Wrottesleyprotested against the continuance of a Sinking-fund on the principle of that now sanctioned by parliament. What could be more absurd in private life, than for a gentleman to spend the whole of his income, go into debt, borrow a sum of money to pay it, and then exclaim, "See what a job I have made of it, I have paid off a couple of thousand pounds with one hand, which I have borrowed with the other!" The question for the House to consider was, whether they would continue the absurd act which obliged them to maintain a fund for the redemption of their debt, when all their income was absorbed by their expenditure.
The resolution was agreed to.

LIFE ANNUITIES REPEAL BILL.
On the motion for the further consideration of the report of this bill,
Mr. Calcraftsuggested, that it would be more expedient to suspend this bill, than to repeal it.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the objection was to the tables and not to the principle of the bill itself. Any loss which might have, been sustained would not be remedied by the repeal of the act now. The only thing that could be done would be to prevent the granting of other annuities until new tables were prepared. In this view of it he concurred in the suggestion of the hon. member, that they should not at once repeal the act, but rather suspend it, in order to afford time for considering what; other tables could be got ready, which might put an end to the apparent loss; for he was not convinced that the loss was a real one. He admitted that they had good authority for saying that there was a loss; and on that ground the committee had recommended an immediate; consideration of the subject, and that other tables should be adopted. He concurred in the suggestion for suspending the act, but whether it were suspended or repealed, it would amount to the same thing; for the repeal would be on the understanding that it was to continue only till new tables could be prepared. It appeared: from Mr. Finlayson's letter that a loss had been sustained by the public, amounting to about 8,000 l. a-week on the annuities sold under this act; and that loss had been attributed to want of due attention to the interests of the public, in not having some such measure as the present

1315
proposed some years ago, when the matter was brought under the consideration of the Treasury. A noble lord (Bexley) had been the first person blamed for this omission. Now, he would acquit that noble lord from blame altogether. The letter was received by him (Mr. Herries) on the 30th of April, 1827, five years after that noble lord had quitted the Treasury. As to lord Goderich, he was equally free from blame. He was glad the production of the Letter had been moved for, as it would be seen by it that the respectable individual by whom it was written had announced, that he would prove his statement by tables which he was preparing, but which were not ready. So that the proof was, in fact, not yet before the Treasury. But those to whom the letter was addressed were aware of the nature of the loss, and that it did not depend on the continuance of the act, but arose from annuities already granted, and which could not be taken away, being on lives which turned out to be longer than the usual average. Any alteration in, or even the repeal of, the act, could make no difference to the public with respect to those annuities, and for this reason—that when the funds rose above 80, the purchaser of the annuity could not get any advantage from the difference above that price. The price was above 80 at the time the letter was written, so that the Treasury could wait, without any loss to the public, until the tables were ready; and there was even a compensating power in the high price against any loss that might have been sustained before. He hoped the House would adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, and allow the act to be suspended, and not repealed.
Lord Althorpesaid, it was clear that a considerable loss had been sustained by the public from the annuities granted under the act. Blame might not be attributable to government for what took place before they received the communication alluded to, but he understood that annuities had since then been granted on the same disadvantageous terms to the public. If that were so, blame must rest somewhere. The communication of Mr. Finlayson was a sort of debtor and creditor account. He showed the amount paid by the purchaser, the amount of stock cancelled, and the amount which
1316
that stock would have produced from that time; and, comparing it with the value received by the purchaser in his annuity, he showed that, in one year, there had been a loss of 10,700 l.; and, as a great proportion of the annuitants were living the loss still continued. The right hon. gentleman had said, that nothing could be done by government, in consequence of the communication made to them; but it should be recollected, that all the insurance offices had altered their calculations of insurance about that time; but it was singular that government should not have made a similar alteration, having the information before them as to the loss which the country was sustaining, by the rate at which the annuities were granted. Surely, they might have ceased to grant any fresh annuities, until the promised tables were ready. He agreed in what had been said about suspending the act for the present; for no man could doubt that the transfer was a loss to the public; but his great surprise was, that this step had not been taken before. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the letter of Mr. Finlayson was received only on the 30th of April, 1827, but that letter alluded to a former letter, written in 1819, of which nothing was said, and which was not before the House. It was said, that lord Bexley had told the writer to make his calculations and tables; but if a loss was then pointed out, why had not some steps been taken with a view to amend the act?
Mr. Herries, in explanation, observed, that the letter of 1819 did not speak of the great loss to which the last letter adverted, but merely announced that the tables were unfavourable to the public. The subject was one of such extreme difficulty, that it ought not to excite surprise that no step was taken on it immediately.
Lord Howicksaid, that when the letter should be before the House, it would, he had no doubt, be seen, that blame attached in some quarter for not having acted upon it earlier, as great loss had accrued to the public from the mistaken calculations on which the annuities had been granted. He agreed that it would be proper to suspend the act for the present.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, the noble lord seemed to think that the public would gain on the contracts already made by the

1317
suspension of the act. The only beneficial effect from the suspension of the act would be, that no additional annuities could be granted, until new tables were made, but all the contracts already made must be continued. He was Secretary to the Treasury in 1809, when this measure was introduced. At that time, complaints were made, that individuals wishing to make a provision for themselves or families had no certain fund on which such annuities could be secured, without those many risks to which they would be exposed by purchasing from private individuals. It was unnecessary for him to point out the description of persons to whom such annuities were extremely desirable, or to describe the many practices, with respect to grants of annuities, by which property, the saving of a long life of industry, was sacrificed, and families brought to ruin. Considerations, founded on a knowledge of the existence of such practices, induced the government of that; day to adopt the plan of granting annuities for life, or for a terra of years. Mr. Perceval, then chancellor of the Exchequer, thought the plan extremely desirable; and some of the most intelligent men of that day were directed to make out tables, on which the value of the annuities was to be calculated. It was considered, that, in a country where the public stock or debt might be considered as a sort of interminable annuity, it would be extremely, useful, under the circumstances he had mentioned, that a part of it should be appropriated as annuities, terminable with lives, or at a given number of years. There was this difference between annuities so granted, and those purchased from annuity offices—that while in the latter a profit was expected to be derived by those who granted the annuity, the government sought no profit from the grant, and made it solely from the consideration of its advantages to that class of the community to which he had alluded. The calculations were made from the best data that could be then furnished; but it was found that the majority of the lives on which the annuities had been so granted, were longer than the ordinary average of life, and some loss was derived to the public in consequence; but he was astonished that it should be gravely stated, that the public had sustained a loss of 400,000 l. on annuities, the whole amount of which did not ex-
1318
ceed 640,000 l.; thus making the loss amount to two thirds of the whole. Some extraordinary delusion must have existed on this subject, to give rise to such statements. He admitted that the lives on which the annuities had been granted, were found to be rather longer than the ordinary average of human life, and that some loss had been thus sustained. The means by which such loss might be prevented in future, would be to have better tables; but he trusted that the House would not consent to the abolition of all annuities in future. That course would have a most injurious effect, by closing the door on the means thus afforded of securing to the class of persons to which he alluded the means of making that, provision for themselves on which they could calculate with certainty. He agreed that it would be better to suspend the operation of the act for a time; but he thought it would be highly prejudicial to a large class of the community if the plan was given up altogether.
Mr. Baringadmitted the great benefit which the public had derived from the system of granting government annuities; but expressed his surprise, that, after the communication which had been made to government on the subject of their disadvantageous bargain, no steps had been taken to correct the error. The public seemed to have been well informed of the advantage which the government terms gave them; for on looking at the list of annuities, it would appear, that two thirds of them were on women's lives. Now it appeared by the report of one of their committees last year, that the lives of women were, on the average, longer than those of men. It appeared to him, however, that Mr. Finlayson, in his estimate, had not taken into his calculation the interest of the money paid by the purchasers of the annuities.
Mr. Humesaid, that Mr. Finlayson had been directed to make a calculation on fifteen thousand lives. His work was a work of figures, and he did not deserve blame for exaggeration, for he expressed no opinion one way or the other. As to the letter sent to the Treasury, he could state that great remissness must have existed somewhere on this subject; for in the same year in which Mr. Finlayson's first letter was written, a similar representation had been transmitted to government. He had no doubt that on inquiry

1319
great blame would be to be attached in some quarter for negligence on this point.
Mr. P. Thompsonrose only to correct an error into which the Secretary for the Colonies had fallen. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was impossible that the calculation could be correct, because a loss of 8,000 l. per week was declared to have taken place, or upwards of 400,000 l. per annum; being two-thirds of the whole annuities. Now, the right hon. gentleman had made a mistake between capital and interest; for Mr. Finlayson stated the loss to the public to be 8,000 l. per week, or 400,000 l. per annum, capital, not interest.
The report was agreed to.

EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that, after the course which the House had thought proper to adopt with respect to this bill, he was rather at a loss to determine what course to pursue. As, however, the Penryn Disfranchisement bill was to come under discussion that evening, and as any ulterior proposition which he might have in view with reference to East Retford would, in a great measure, depend upon the fate of that bill, he would move, "that the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill be read, for the purpose of postponing it to Monday" [cries of no, no !].
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, it appeared to him, that, after the course which had been pursued with reference to this measure by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the hon. member had better give up his bill altogether. Although the hon. member for Hertfordshire had brought forward the proposition, it could not be considered in any other light than as the proposition of the right hon. gentleman opposite. Of this he was sure, that if it had not been so considered, the House would have come to a very different determination upon it. Now, he must say, that the whole statement of the right hon. gentleman, when the subject was last discussed, rested on an unjust view of the question.
Mr. N. Culvertsaid, that whatever might be the merit or demerit of the proposition, he took the responsibility of it upon himself.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the proposition for which he had voted had been made and seconded by two hon. members, who were
1320
not in the habit of supporting what emanated from the Treasury benches. The hon. member for Hertford did not know what line he (Mr. Peel) meant to take, when he communicated to him his intended instruction to the committee.
Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, that if reform did not take place where such positive delinquency was proved, the House would get into the deepest disgrace with the country.
The motion was agreed to.

PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the Order of the Day for further considering the Report of the Committee,
Mr. Manninghoped that, after the House had determined to extend the privilege of East Retford to the adjoining hundred, at least the same course would be followed in the case of Penryn.
Mr. D. Gilbertsaid, he had abstained from taking any part in the debates which had passed upon the subject, as he was connected with most of the gentlemen and with the interests of the district concerned. At present, however, he was desirous of doing away with a primâ facie feeling which prevailed in the House, with respect to the representation of the county of Cornwall. He knew that large assemblies acted upon first impressions, and that it was extremely difficult to remove them. He should, however, attempt the task, convinced that, were the House not undeceived in this respect, it would be impossible for it to come to a right decision. He would deny that the interests of Cornwall were better represented, in consequence of its numerous boroughs, than any other county. He was not inclined, if a borough were disfranchised, to give the representation to such a county as York; for the representation of four members for the same district was extremely inconvenient. He disapproved of the proposed plan with respect to the two boroughs; but if it was to be pursued, he was convinced, that in strict justice and consistency, its application ought to be inverted; that the measure intended for the one ought to be applied to the other, and vice versa. He would ask what was the representation of Cornwall? Why was its extent so much complained of, and why should the House wish to diminish it? It had been said the other night, that the borough of East Retford ought not to be disfranchised, because.

1321
the county of Nottingham was unequally represented in that House, and that, consequently, the number of members returned for places in the county ought not to be diminished. Now, he would claim the same consideration for the county of Cornwall. Although this latter county might abound in representative towns, few of the members returned were Cornish men, or connected with Cornish interests. The boroughs of Cornwall conceived that they could get better representatives from Scotland, Ireland, and other distant parts, than they could find among the natives. He would read over a list, by which it appeared that out of the forty members sent into that House by Cornwall, only six were Cornish gentlemen. He must, indeed, confess, that the county, and those in it, were immensely benefitted by the power of imparting to Scotch, Irish, and other gentlemen, the privilege of sitting in that House as the representatives of boroughs with which they had no connection, tie, or interest. It had been said, that this brought a great influx of wealth into the county, and poured an unreasonable number of Cornishmen into all government offices and employments; but these were considerations foreign to the immediate question relating to Penryn. The advantages of throwing the representation of this borough into the neighbouring hundreds were great; and they were irresistible, if the principle of the motion before the House were to be pursued. The hundreds in the neighbourhood of Penryn comprised a hundred thousand acres, and from fifteen hundred to two thousand freeholders; with three large towns, of which one alone, Penzance, contained twenty thousand inhabitants. If it were thought best that the franchise either of Penryn or East Retford were to be given to the hundred, there was nothing in the local circumstances of the former to render such a measure inexpedient; whilst, in the case of East Retford, not only was the adjacent district less populous; not only were there no large towns in the neighbourhood; but, if he was rightly informed, there was a predominant interest in the adjoining district, which rendered an extension of the franchise to the hundred not a reform or an improvement in the representation, but a mere transfer of the borough into the hands of an individual. He should certainly give his vote against carrying the
1322
franchise of East Retford to the neighbouring hundred.
Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, that when he saw a president of the Royal Society rise to read them a memoir or paper, for the purpose of showing that Cornwall was not over-represented, and that Nottingham was, he thought it would puzzle that learned person not a little to accomplish such an object, and the result had justified his anticipation. He thought the measure supported by the right hon. Secretary, of transferring the franchise to a great commercial community, was called for by the: increase of wealth, the progress of civilization, and the march of intellect. When such a number of these great towns had grown up to be so many Londons, it was time they should be represented. Manchester should not be allowed to remain longer without a member in that House. He hoped the right hon. Secretary would persevere in the course which he had indicated it to be his intention to pursue. He rejoiced to see a minister of the Crown not afraid to look a moderate reform in the face.
Mr. C. Pallmersaid, that, having been one of those who last year voted with a right hon. gentleman whose voice, unhappily, the House would never hear again, that the elective franchise of this borough should be thrown into the adjoining hundreds, he could not with any consistency now give a contrary vote. Instead of seeing any thing to induce him to alter, he had had his opinion confirmed by the remarkable fact, that, with respect to East Retford, where the guilt had been more universal, and the population of the adjoining hundreds less numerous, the House; had, but a few evenings ago, resolved upon the same measure of justice. Surely it was not fair to visit the smaller degree of guilt with the greater degree of severity ! With respect to the argument of the different counties in which the places were situated, he never could admit that guilt was more punishable because it was in one county than it should be in another. He professed himself as anxious as the noble lord could be to punish corruption; but he would never agree to reach it through injustice. The corruptors were worse than the corrupted; and though he refused to go with the noble lord, in punishing the many for the guilt of the few, in: the present instance, he assured him, that if he would make his attack upon the cor-

1323
ruptors, and introduce a measure to require that every member should solemnly declare that he had in no degree exercised corruption, the noble lord should have his humble but zealous support. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, as an amendment, "that it be an instruction to the Committee on the said bill, that they have power to make provision for preventing Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Members to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Penryn, by extending the right of voting to all forty-shillings Freeholders in the Hundreds of Penwith and Kerrier."
Sir C. Burrellseconded the amendment, because he was of opinion that the corruption had not been so general as to justify a transfer of the franchise.
Mr. G. Bankesconcurred with the hon. member for Surrey, that it did seem a little hard that Penryn should suffer for the delinquency of another borough; and it further appeared hard, that, according to the proposition which had come from the other side of the House, both boroughs were to be punished more severely than they would otherwise have been, owing to the delinquency of each. With respect to Penryn, he understood the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say, that he declined adopting a different measure of punishment, entirely in consequence of the corruption of another borough, and yet he could not reconcile it with this declaration, nor with his own notions of any principle of justice, that a change should have taken place in the determination avowed by gentleman of that House. With regard to the delinquency of Penryn, the present was not a time to speak of it, but it was a proper opportunity to consider of the measure of punishment; and he was sorry that this measure of punishment should be altered, in consequence of circumstances wholly foreign to the borough and its offence. He thought that a better derision might be come to as to their punishment, by considering separately and severally the two cases; and he, therefore, regretted to hear a proposition which did not appear to him accordant to the principles of justice; namely, that punishment was to be awarded, not in proportion to the demerit of the offending party, but to the guilt of another wholly distinct; not only was Penryn to be more severely punished in consequence of the delinquency of East
1324
Retford, but East Retford was to suffer more severely from the guilt of Penryn. It was now, for the first time, recommended that, in extending the franchise to the hundreds, all those who had hitherto enjoyed the privilege of voters should be excluded. He considered the plan for throwing the franchise of a delinquent borough upon the hundreds was not so much with a view to protect the agricultural interest, as to preserve a due proportion between delinquency and punishment, by preserving the privileges of those voters who had not forfeited their franchise by corruption. This he took to be the design of the extension, and not any partial or jealous distinction between the agricultural and commercial interests. He was sorry that on this occasion that principle should be deviated from. The rights of election were by many thought of equal importance to the rights of property. He admitted that there was a distinction; yet the principle upon which they were founded was the same. They were given and preserved by the same laws, and he did not know how they could be separated in the consideration of this question. He confessed that in some cases, individual interests must be sacrificed for public advantage, but that ought to be done only on urgent necessity, nor ought that necessity to be unnecessarily provoked; which he thought would be the case if the resolution already formed by hon. members were abandoned, because it was found convenient to punish the borough for delinquency in another quarter. It appeared to him, on the statement made by the hon. member for Penryn, that this was not a case standing on its own merits. And if so, he could not consent to inflict a heavier punishment than the actual criminality would justify. He should therefore support the amendment.
Mr. Batleysaid, he would not vote for the absolute disfranchisement of Penryn. He could not consent to punish the innocent with the guilty, and should, therefore, support the amendment.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that his hon. friend (Mr. G. Bankes) had completely mistaken what had fallen from him on a former evening, when he expressed his wish to postpone the declaration of his sentiments as to the transfer of the franchise of Penryn, until after the question respecting East Retford was disposed of. He then stated, that the transfer of the

1325
franchise involved considerations of policy, and that he was desirous not to give an opinion with respect to any particular place, until the House had decided whether they had one or two to deal with. At that moment, however, he had made up his mind that the House was at liberty to deal with Penryn absolutely. The ground on which he had come to this I conclusion was this—that on three several occasions there had been proof of corruption in Penryn. In 1807, the proceedings which took place in that borough were brought under the consideration of the House. Distinct allegations of corrupt practices were referred to a committee, appointed under the Grenville act: they examined witnesses on oath, and the report which they made to the House was conclusive as to the existence, to a certain extent, of corrupt practices. This, then, was a distinct warning to the borough, and those interested in the preservation of the franchise ought to have exerted themselves I to have prevented similar abuses in future, In 1819, again, complaints were repeated, I and the question was again referred to a committee, where it was proved that corrupt practices still continued in the borough, and the House expressed their opinion on the subject by passing a bill, disfranchising the borough. Here were two distinct warnings, and one went to the extent of a practical confiscation, which was a material point affecting the case. These warnings, however, were not sufficient, and at the last election a third complaint was made to the House; and in the course of the session the House, after hearing evidence at the bar—particularly that of Mr. Stanbury—and upon mature deliberation, acting judicially, came; to a resolution, declaring that there prevailed in Penryn that notorious corruption: which placed the franchise of the borough: at the disposal of the House; and that resolution they seconded by a solemn act; namely, the passing of the bill. It was evident that there must be some termination to proceedings of this kind. The House having declared that the borough ought to be disfranchised, could not be made a court of appeal against their own decision. He was not prepared to advise the House to revoke the solemn decision to which they had come by a majority of 114 to 33. He did not think such a course would add to the character of the House. If any person were to state that
1326
he could bring forward new evidence to overturn that which had been previously given, that might present new considerations to his mind; but he had heard nothing of the kind stated. At the present moment he trusted the House would deal with the case before them with the most rigid justice. Should the House agree to the original proposal for transferring the franchise to the large town, or great commercial place, the voters not disfranchised, it was obvious, would feel themselves very differently circumstanced, and placed in a very different relation from that in which they formerly stood. In fact they would only bear the numerical proportion of a hundred and fifty to two thousand, such being the disproportion between the number of the disfranchised voters and the number of new electors, or newly enfranchised persons, with whom they were intended to be amalgamated by the bill. He was still unaltered in his opinion, that substantial justice would not be done by extending, in this case, the franchise to the hundred. In the former case of a transfer so often alluded to in the course of the debate, the House had voted, that the forfeited franchise of the borough of Grampound should be transferred to Leeds; their lordships, however, subsequently determined, in the other House, that the franchise should be transferred to the county of York. As to the disfranchised parties, in either case it was almost, if not altogether, a matter of indifference to them who derived the benefit of this transfer of the franchise. The franchise was undoubtedly an enjoyment of a private right. In the case of the borough of Grampound both branches of the legislature, however, felt they could not do justice to the interests of the public, unless the electors were disfranchised. Whatever might be his opinion on other delinquent boroughs, he begged to state, that he never doubted that the House had a clear right to deal with the electors of Penryn from the notoriety of its corruption. The only doubt he had entertained was as to what was to be done with the forfeited franchise in this case, or to whom it was to be transferred. It was for the latter reason that when, during last session, this question was before the House, he, forming then no part of the ministry, had forborne to express his sentiments on this part of the duty of the legislature. As to the propriety of transferring the franchise of Penryn to the hundred—

1327
and here he wished to be understood as saying nothing which could be inferred to allude to the case of the borough of East Retford—he had formed his opinion, and made his mind up, from the thousand circumstances—some even minute ones—which were so often found in life to be the substantive grounds on which persons were often compelled to make up their minds on matters of even considerable importance. In the review of those circumstances he could not exclude from his mind the consideration, that the borough of Penryn was a Cornish borough, and that Cornwall had forty-two representatives in that House: and here he would observe, in answer to an appeal which had been made to the House, by the hon. President of the Royal Society, in favour of the representation of Cornwall—let those persons whose interests were likely to be affected provide in future that their interests should be represented in parliament by competent persons. For himself, he should vote for the transfer of the franchise of Penryn to a large commercial community, because he considered it a fair line of conduct to pursue, as the House had now two delinquent boroughs to deal with, and with propriety, therefore, could adopt the principle of alternation in this particular instance.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that opposed as he had generally been, on the question of reform in parliament, to many who had taken a part in the debate, he still thought that, in the present instance, a case had been made out for disfranchising this particular borough. He felt it his duty to defend his right hon. friend from the charge which had been made against him, by the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who described his right hon. friend as having waited to make up his mind upon the question, until the case of the delinquency of East Retford arose, so as to furnish himself with an argument to aggravate the offence of the former delinquency. Such an inference was unauthorized in fact, and unjust to his right hon. friend. The cases of these delinquent boroughs resembled very strikingly the cases of two persons found guilty of offences, which rendered them liable to the severest penalty the law could inflict. If, pursuant to that sentence, they were doomed to die, it was of little consequence to themselves how that sentence was executed, provided it were speedy, and un-
1328
marked by cruelty. But it was of great importance to the public how the sentence of the law was executed; for it might be, and often was, of consequence that such a mode should be adopted as might render the punishment an example to others. If, then, the House should determine in its wisdom, that one of these offending boroughs should be delivered over to be dissected after execution, and order the other to be hung in chains, no one could feel that the House had, in this case, exercised towards the parties an act of injustice.
The House divided: For the original motion 213; Against it 34: Majority 179. The House then went into the committee. The preamble of the bill, transferring the right of electing two members from the borough of Penryn to the town Manchester, was read and agreed to.
Colonel Daviesobjected to the clause by which the deposit for defraying the expenses of the hustings, &c. was to be returned to the successful, but not to the unsuccessful candidates.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the object of the clause was to prevent vexatious contests. If such a provision were not introduced, a person possessed neither of property, nor a chance of success, might, by setting himself up as a candidate, throw the town into an uproar.
Mr. Wynndisapproved of the clause in question. Either none of the candidates should be called upon to pay any share of the expenses incident to the election, or they should all defray them in an equal proportion.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought the fairest provision under the circumstances would be, that no party should be considered qualified as a candidate, unless he was prepared to defray his proportion of the necessary expenses of the election; which he certainly was of opinion ought to be exacted from all the parties, successful as well as unsuccessful.
The clause was agreed to. On the clause limiting the number of days the poll was to be kept open,
Mr. Rosswished to know why Manchester was only to be allowed three days to poll, when other places were allowed fifteen.
Lord J. Russellreplied, that Manchester was a very populous town, and his object was, by limiting the period, to prevent those riots which frequently took place at elections.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, there was scarcely one clause in the bill which could be reconciled with the provisions of the general law regulating elections. In fact, the provisions of some of the clauses were so inconvenient, that it would be impossible to reduce them to practice. He therefore suggested, that it would be advisable to go no further with the bill at present.
Lord J. Russellobserved, that he and those who acted with him were anxious to preserve order at the elections, and it was possible that they might have gone further than was necessary in the pursuit of that object. He could not, however, adopt the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, as it would be productive of delay.
Mr. Sugdenthought it would be advantageous to postpone that and the remaining clauses, until the other two bills were brought before the House.
Dr. Phillimoreadmitted that the suggestion would have been a good one if they could be sure that the other bills would pass; but as they could not be sure of that, it would be wrong to make the present bill depend on a remote contingency.
Mr. G. Lambthought the machinery of the bill was altogether too cumbersome. He did not see why, if it should be decided to give the franchise to Manchester, they should not subject the elections in that town to the same general laws which affected other elections.
Lord J. Russellconsented to withdraw the clause, as the sense of the committee appeared to be decidedly against it.
The bill, with the amendments, was then reported to the House.

CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS REPEAL BILL.
On the order of the day being read,
Lord John Russellsaid.—In rising to move that the House do now go into a committee on this important bill, I feel it necessary to say a few words. When it was last under discussion, upon the proposition of a right hon. gentleman opposite, seconded by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, for inserting a Declaration in it, to be taken by all Dissenters on their entry into office, I agreed to the principles on which they rested it, not because I thought it either necessary or important, but because I believed it to be likely to render the bill more satisfactory to all parties, and to prevent
1330
that collision of hostile feelings which, on points of religion, is of all things most to be avoided. With respect to the proposed Declaration, and to the clauses accompanying it, it was impossible for me then to agree to them, having heard them on that occasion for the first time, and being impressed with the feeling that it would be imprudent for me, on a question where the interests of so many were at stake, to allow myself to be concluded at once by any form of words. At the same time it appeared to me, that the proposition of the right hon. Secretary did not comprehend any thing in its terms unsuited to the object which I had in view. The points to which I felt myself bound to look were, that the Dissenters should not be restrained from the expression of their religious opinions; that they should not be molested for retaining them; and that they should not be prevented from teaching and inculcating them to others. In these respects, after deeply considering the Declaration proposed by the right hon. Secretary, I feel bound to say, that I do not find that it imposes any restraints on the religious liberty of individuals. It merely restrains them from exercising any influence which they may obtain, by virtue of any office to which they be appointed, to weaken the Established Church, or to subvert its legal rights and privileges. I therefore am of opinion, that it would be extremely unadvisable in me to propound or maintain any objection to the Declaration which has been proposed. On the contrary, I feel that it would be extremely wrong in me not to admit it into the bill as a very essential means of pacifying the country on this most important subject. In making this opinion known, I cannot but think it due to the right hon. Secretary to declare, that as far as I have observed his conduct on this bill, he has been most anxious to bring the question to such a point as may prevent the conscientious scruples of any Dissenter from being affected, and as may satisfy the Church that it need apprehend no injury from the admission of Dissenters into civil offices. Viewing the Declaration in this light, I shall offer no objection to the clauses of the right hon. Secretary; and I trust that when they are inserted into the bill in their amended form, they will render it acceptable, not only to this but to the other House of Parliament.
The House then went into the committee. On the second clause being read,
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, the only objection which I have heard urged against the course which I recommended the House, on a former evening, to follow, arises out of this clause; and I am informed that it appears to some persons, to give the king a power to dispense with this Declaration. My opinion is, that it gives no such power: at any rate, I know that I did not intend that it should. The question, as far as it refers to this point, is not without its difficulties. By the law as it now stands, any one who enters into the king's service, or receives the king's wages, or acts as his menial servant, is compelled to take the Sacramental Test. He is relieved, however, from that compulsion by the Annual Indemnity act. If that act were not to be passed, he would be under an obligation to take the Sacramental Test, however menial the office might be in which he served his majesty. If I am entitled by the Test and Corporation Acts to call upon every person who enters his majesty's service to take the Sacramental Test, I am entitled, by the proposed act to make every person who would now be compelled to take that test make the proposed Declaration. Now, in many cases, the performance of such a ceremony would not only be superfluous, but absurd. For instance, what could be more useless and absurd than to make a man, who is going to enter upon office on a foreign station, make a declaration that he will not, by virtue of that office, attempt to subvert the privileges of the Church of England? It would be difficult to specify in words all the cases in which it would be imperative that the party should make the Declaration, and equally difficult to specify the cases where an exception to that rule ought to be allowed. The object of this clause was to enable his majesty at his discretion to specify those offices in which it would be necessary to exact the proposed Declaration. The object of it was, not to dispense with the Declaration entirely, but to allow his majesty to name what officers should and what officers should not be called upon to make it. This is all that I have to say on this subject at present. I will, however, repeat, that I am satisfied with the security which this Declaration offers. I am not prepared to make any alteration in it to please the wishes of any party. All that has passed since I proposed it, confirms me in the sanguine hope that the present session will
1332
not close without our having every question satisfactorily arranged, with respect to Dissenters from the Church of England.
Lord Nugentsaid, that the proposed Declaration was one of the mildest and least offensive that could have been devised: and that the right hon. Secretary merited the thanks of the country, for the manner in which he had acceded to the proposition of his noble friend. There was one point, however, which he wished to suggest. He thought that the office of privy councillor was one which subjected the holder of it to taking sacramental test.
Mr. Peel.—He is covered by the annual bill of indemnity.
Lord Nugent.—Exactly so: a privy councillor would be compelled, unless he were covered by the act of indemnity. If that were the case, then he would be called on to make the proposed Declaration. Assuming, then, that a privy councillor was both to take the sacramental test under the old bill, and therefore liable to make the Declaration under the present bill, there might be cases, and those not extreme ones, in which a man, not nicely scrupulous, but only properly conscientious, might find the Declaration to be at variance with the oath which he had taken as a privy councillor. The oath which a privy councillor took, bound him to advise the king according to the best of his discretion, and to observe, keep, and do all that a good and true councillor ought to do to his sovereign lord. Now, cases touching the disposal of church property might arise, in which the Declaration, which bound him not to employ the influence of his office to weaken the church establishment might be in direct opposition with the oath of a privy councillor, which bound him to advise for the king's honour and the good of the public. It might be supposed in such cases by conscientious men, that the Declaration was to supersede and ride over the oath which they had taken. He did not know whether the right hon. gentleman would make any exception in this clause on behalf of privy councillors; but it did appear to him that, as the clause now stood, it might excite some uneasiness in the minds of persons of tender consciences.
The clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.