Lords Sitting of 9 April 1827

STATE OF THE MINISTRY.
Lord Kingsaid, that seeing half a dozen of his majesty's ministers present, such as they were, he wished to ask them two or three questions. He would not ask them whether or not the Irish were starving; for about that they knew nothing, and he believed cared nothing. He would not ask them about things nearer home—he would not ask them whether England was prosperous—for that was a part of the government which belonged to none of their departments. He would not ask whether Portugal was safe or not; for one half of them would rejoice if the plan
294
were to fail, which the other half had adopted to give security to Portugal. He would begin secundum artem, by asking that question first, which he cared least about: he would first ask whether the present ministerial interregnum was ever to have an end? He would ask them, who were twelve jurymen sworn to give good advice and true, whether they had yet selected a foreman, or consented to receive a master? Whether the ministry were complete or not, was to him a most unimportant matter; for of all the animals in the ministerial menagerie, the prime minister was the most unnecessary. He stated this advisedly, and on the highest authority. In the year 1800, an experiment had been made of what sort of a thing it was possible to make a minister; and by the experiment it had been ascertained, that you might make a jack-boots a prime minister. Now, an experiment was trying, whether the country could not go on without any minister. First, it had been proved, that any person would make a minister; and now it seemed to be ascertained, that no minister at all was wanted. He was surprised that the noble and learned lord who had such a hatred of innovations, did not raise his voice against this dangerous innovation. If this year it was ascertained, that any body might be minister, and the next that we could do without one, was be not afraid that, in a short time, innovation would extend, and his majesty might do without something else? The second question he wished to ask was, whether there was any truth in the alarming reports which were in circulation of the falling-off of the revenue? It had been stated in the newspapers, that the quarter's revenue was 500,000 l. short, and that of this 400,000 l. was a falling-off in the excise. During the time of our prosperity, the increase of the excise, they were told, was a strong proof of the increasing comforts and wealth of the people; and he wished to know, if that excise had fallen off, whether the ministers would acknowledge that that was a proof of our decline? He would further ask, whether the ministers could give them any hope of a restoration of public credit, or would they say, what he believed, that it was not likely to be restored? If he were to ask them why the revenue fell off, and why public credit was not likely to be restored, they would give, no doubt, a variety

295
of reasons, but they would not give the true one; they would not say it was all done by the Corn-laws. The Corn-laws impeded prosperity, prevented the restoration of credit, and injured the revenue. Another question he wished to ask was, whether, under these circumstances, they were determined to maintain that plan of profuse and extravagant expenditure which was laid down when the revenue was fruitful and the country prosperous? Were all the palaces to be finished on the same magnificent scale as was voted when there was more revenue than they knew how to expend? In all well-regulated monarchies—at least it was so in the time of Louis 14th—if his majesty's minister of the Menus Plaisirs were sick or were to die, not a single half hour would elapse before his place would be filled up: if one palace were to be pulled down, and two others built, a superintendent would be immediately appointed, possessing a fine taste and a strong love of profuse expenditure; but when a minister died, or fell sick, on whose exertions the good of the country depended, who was the superintending genius of the country's welfare—his place might remain five or six weeks unoccupied, or the appointment might be postponed, sine die, until the intrigues had worked themselves out, or until the intriguers had failed in their attempt to give us a government good for nothing; then, and not till then, was it likely that the people would have a government good for something. To keep himself perfectly in order, he would conclude by moving, That there be laid before their lordships a return of this quarter's revenue, as compared with the revenue of the foregoing quarter.—Ordered.

SPRING-GUNS BILL.
Lord Suffieldmoved the third reading of this bill,
Lord Ellenborough roseto oppose the motion. He could not, he said, consent to pass an act, which left the law on this subject in its present state of uncertainty, This would be the case as long as the word engine was retained in the bill. That word, in its widest sense, meant any thing which might inflict an injury, and their lordships would be obliged to remove every thing like a spike or a fence from around their houses. In a more restricted sense, if it were understood to mean any thing which only inflicted injury by being set in
296
motion, it should be so expressed, and the law should be made more precise. It was stated, in defence of the bill, that it was a maxim, "qui facit per alium facit per se;" and though this was true, it was not the whole truth; for if persons setting Spring-guns gave proper notice, the law held that it was not they who committed the injury, but the thief who came to invade the property, and was shot in the attempt. He was persuaded that the contests between the gamekeeper and the poacher, to which the bill would give rise, would do much more harm than Spring-guns did. It had been argued, that the accidents resulting from Spring-guns ought to induce parliament to abolish them. If, however, they were to legislate against accident, their labours would be endless, The object of setting Spring-guns was not personal injury to any one, but to deter from the commission of theft; and that object was as completely obtained by hitting an innocent man as a guilty one. He conceived that the bill was contrary to that principle of the English law, which gave a man protection for his property, in proportion to the difficulty with which it could be protected by the ordinary means; and that it was calculated to increase the temptation to crime, by diminishing the obstacles to its commission. If, however, the bill should be rejected, either in that House or elsewhere, he would introduce another, declaratory of the law as it stood. This would, in his opinion, be much better than any change; for he had frequently heard from those, whose knowledge and experience gave them ample opportunities of judging, that where any innovation was made upon the common law, it generally appeared afterwards, that the principle thereby abrogated was a wise one, and that our ancestors knew very well what they were about.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that all the arguments urged by the noble lord had been so frequently answered in former debates, that he would not trespass upon their patience by any further reply to them; satisfied as he was, that they considered the bill a good one, and that they would pass it.
Their lordships divided: Contents 28. Not-Contents 19. Majority 9. The bill was then read a third time.