Lords Sitting of 17 October 1831

EXPLANATION—BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL.
The Duke of Cumberland,seeing a noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, begged leave to make an inquiry from him in behalf of a noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon), who was not able to attend the House to-day, and the question he wished to put was to this effect—whether the allusion made on Saturday, by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, relating to the author of a recent pamphlet on the Bankruptcy Act, was intended to apply to his noble and learned friend or not? As all sorts of calumnies were current at the present moment, his noble friend felt a little sore at its being supposed that those remarks were directed against him; but he was sure that a brief explanation would be quite sufficient to satisfy his feelings.
The Lord Chancellor: I have much pleasure in pointing out to the illustrious Duke, that, in the few observations I made on Saturday, I could not have alluded to the noble and learned Lord in whose behalf he has now applied, because the description I gave of the supposed author did not at all apply, and although I said the author of the publication was the father of the English Bar, I also said that he was the father of Law Reform, and certainly none of your Lordships, nor even the noble and learned Lord himself, could imagine that I would state any such thing of him. I did not mention the venerable and learned person's name (Mr. Bentham) because his name did not appear in the pamphlet; but there is no doubt of
822
his being the author, and there is intrinsic evidence in the style of the work which convinces me that he has written it. No, my noble and learned friend does not take that mode of making his opinions known; but, being a member of the House he comes down and states them openly and candidly before your Lordships; and certainly I must say, that nothing can be more courteous and considerate than the tone in which his objections are always urged. The venerable author of the pamphlet, not having it in his power to state, his sentiments on the Bankruptcy Court in the House, has been obliged to take another mode of communicating them to the public and to me; but my noble and learned friend always states what he thinks here, and not elsewhere, and, of course, anything which I said on Saturday in allusion to the publication of another could not possibly apply to him.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord was quite satisfactory.

THE SELECT VESTRIES BILL.
The Order of the Day having been read, the House went into Committee oil the Select Vestries Bill.
Viscount Melbournestated, that the Bill which had received the approbation of the other House, and was now under the consideration of their Lordships, had the twofold object of correcting the evils which arose from large and tumultuous assemblages taking place under the name of open vestries, and of putting an end to the system of close vestries, by which the affairs and property of a parish were disposed of by a few persons, who re-elected each other, or added only those whom they pleased to their numbers, without the consent or control of the great bulk of the inhabitants. Complaints against both systems had been received by both Houses of Parliament, and he had, on the one hand, a petition from Mile-end complaining of the ill consequences resulting from the open vestry; while, on the other hand, the petitions against the select system were as numerous as the opponents to it could desire.
Lord Wynfordsaid, if that was the case the Bill must be altered from beginning to end, as there was no provision in it for any thing but a close vestry. In his opinion the Bill would give rise to litigation from one end of the kingdom to the

823
other. He would, therefore, move an amendment to the second clause, to the effect that nothing in the Act should extend to parishes where the inhabitants assembled in open vestry at present.
Amendment negatived without a division.
The clause having been read regulating the mode by which parishes are to adopt or reject the Bill—the Bill providing that it must be done by a majority of two-thirds of rate-payers,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that since the Bill and the amendments proposed on Saturday had been printed, he had given them his best consideration, and the more he looked at the measure, the more important he found it, as it was one which proposed a great alteration in the municipal law of the country, which would be attended with the most beneficial or the worst effect in those parishes where it was introduced, according to the manner in which it was regulated. It came home to the bosom of every family, and, therefore, it deserved the serious consideration of their Lordships. The object of the Bill, as his noble friend had explained, was to limit the confusion which arose from tumultuous meetings when the inhabitants of a parish met in what was called an open vestry, and when, however well sustained the discussion on the affairs of the parish might be, it was impossible that the business of the parish could be conducted with any thing like precision and regularity. It was ridiculous to think of every matter being left to the disposition of a crowd of perhaps 10,000 persons; and certainly it must be admitted, on all sides, that no worse species of law-making could prevail. The only principle which, therefore, could be introduced was that of delegation, a certain number of persons being appointed by the free consent of the rest to act as their representatives. This principle applied as well to the affairs of a parish as to those of a kingdom, and, therefore, it formed the basis of the present Bill. The other great mischief which the Bill sought to put an end to was fully as pernicious the other way as these tumultuous meetings; and, from his own professional experience, he could vouch that the system of self-elected vestries was one of the worst that could be acted upon for the administration of the affairs of a parish. With the view of getting rid of the violence of an open meeting on the one hand, and
824
of the closeness of the select vestry on the other, the present Bill had been projected, and it was intended to be made available in all parishes where the bulk of the inhabitants were in favour of its adoption. The fundamental clause was that which was called the adoptive clause, and by it the benefits of the Bill might be extendable to every parish by the wish of the inhabitants. By the Bill, however, as it came from the Select Committee, the power of adopting the measure was not conferred on the rate-payers of a parish assembled at any given meeting, convened by public notice, but by an absolute majority which should constitute two-thirds of the rate-payers of the whole parish. The amendment, however, of his noble friend, proposed that the measure could only be adopted by a majority of the rate-payers present and voting at some public meeting. In the former case, though the great majority of the inhabitants might be in favour of the Bill, it would be in the power of a few persons to prevent its being adopted. It could not take place unless the majority of the whole rate-payers, whether absent or present, concurred. To show the inconvenience of that course, he had only to suppose that a case should occur where, unless the majority was double the minority, it was utterly impossible that the whole of the ratepayers of the parish could possess themselves of the advantages conferred by the Bill. Suppose a parish consisted of 300 persons, it required 200 to concur in favour of the Bill, and not even a majority of 180 or 190 would be sufficient. That was not all; for, though a meeting might be assembled with ample notices, yet the absence of a certain portion of rate-payers was sufficient to prevent that meeting adopting the Bill. It was of no consequence that the meeting had discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill; it was of no consequence that the majority had made up their minds in favour of it, after exchanging opinions with each other, and being persuaded of the benefit that must accompany it, because there were so many absentee rate-payers who never heard one word of the discussion, and who were too idle to attend. Suppose, therefore, that one-third of the parish, containing 300 persons, stayed away—one-third plus one. But of 300, 101 were absent—why their staying away neutralized the votes of 199 respectable persons in the parish, which, had attended the meeting, and made up

825
their minds in consequence of what they heard there. It was even still more absurd than the way he first put it, for the 101 who stayed away might not be against the Bill, but in favour of it; but if they would not take the trouble to attend, they outweighed the force of those who did. The absurdity of all this was self-evident, and surely their Lordships would never pass a Bill where the persons absent neutralized the acts of a meeting which they had it in their power to attend, and by which an idle minority prevailed against an active and substantial majority. The whole clause was full of objections. It proposed that the church wardens should calculate the number of the rate-payers in the parish, and decide whether the majority of them required by the Bill consented or not. Now he had never had the honour to serve the office of churchwarden—and, therefore, did not know how the duties of it were accomplished; but he could not possibly see in what manner this calculation could be made out. It seemed to him to be one of the most difficult tasks that could ever be devolved to mortal churchwardens. How was it possible for that officer to know if a majority of rate-payers consented or not? How was he to know who was abroad—who was at his country-house—who was out of the way? The churchwarden was obliged to declare if the Bill had been adopted by two-thirds of the rate-payers; but it was out of his power and ingenuity to determine the point—first, because several rate-payers might be absent whose opinion could not be taken; and secondly, because a minority not attending the meeting controlled the majority that did. The question had often been raised, whether it was fit that votes should be given by proxy in any case; and now, as they were in Committee, where proxies could not be given, he would say a few words, which must not be construed into anything disrespectful to the House. But in the House the proxy gave a positive declaration either for a measure or against it, but here the proxy was of a negative nature; and the person not present actually voted by his absence against those who were. They had all heard of silence giving consent, but it was the first time that an Act of Parliament provided that silence gave dissent, and he could not understand for what purpose such a provision was introduced, which could not have a better
826
effect than that of crippling and impeding the natural progress of the Bill. The absurdity of it would at once be seen if the House made the case its own; and, though the clerk at the table would perform his duty carefully and correctly, and declare those who were entitled to vote and those who voted by proxy, it would not be very pleasant to find, that every solemn decision of the House was neutralized by a minority who would not attend, and who would not even take the trouble to send their proxies against any measures. His noble friend proposed to get rid of all these inconveniences by a very simple amendment, by which the adoption of the Bill was to be determined by a majority of the rate-payers present, and voting at a meeting convened by general notice to all the parties concerned. But against that it was said, that the parish might not assemble in sufficient numbers, and that the few who did assemble could have the power of acting as they pleased. Now, in his opinion, the probability was, that the bulk of the parishioners would attend the first great meeting at which the adoption of the Bill was to be determined, and there was no reason to think that the opponents of it would be absent, as he ever found that the opposers of any measure (he begged pardon of the noble Lords at the other side of the House) were always the most zealous in their attendance. In the parish of St. Pancras there were 14,000 rate-payers; before the time of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, there were. 10,000; and it was probable that if a Vestry Meeting was called, it would be attended by 1,000 or 2,000 persons. Now, if on any given day the adoption clause were to be then mooted, there would be at least 2,000 rate-payers collected, and if, after a discussion of the merits or demerits of the Bill, the adoption of it was carried by a majority, it was natural to suppose that that majority represented the feelings of the parish at large. But ail that the 2,000 could do would be useless while 8,000 remained at home, and did not choose to vote at all, or take any part in the proceedings. But suppose there were even 6,000 present, that would not do; and unless there were 7,000, which were the two-thirds of 10,000, and unless they were all in favour of the Bill, it could not be adopted in the parish of St. Pancras. It was fit after stating these objections to the Bill, that he should say that

827
he had no immediate interest in it. He looked upon it as a public measure, of great importance to every city and parish in the kingdom; but he felt, after having examined it, as was his duty to do, that he could not support the clause as framed by the Select Committee, unless it was amended by the alterations of his noble friend.
The Earl of Delawareobserved, that the clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had so strongly objected, had met with the general approbation of the Committee.
The Earl of Haddingtonthought, that the suggestion which he was about to offer very briefly to the House would reconcile the differences which existed in the opinions of their Lordships upon the subject. He would let the decision of the point be left to two-thirds of the rate-payers present, if they formed a majority of the whole. It was desirable that the Bill should not be imposed upon a parish but by a majority of all the rate-payers. What he meant was this— suppose there were 399 rate-payers in a parish, and that 300 of them should vote, then what he meant was, that 200 or two-thirds of the voters should settle the question. He hoped that he had made himself clearly understood.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the Bill did not contemplate any public meeting, but there could be no doubt, that the question would substantially be decided by such meetings. He thought that there was a great deal in the suggestion of the noble Earl (Haddington), and that its adoption would be an improvement, to the Bill.
The Earl of Falmouththought, that property, to a certain extent, should be the rule of voting. The majority, under the present Bill, was left at two-thirds of the rate-payers. That numerical majority might, in many parishes in the country, not comprise the one-twentieth of the property in the parish. The noble and learned Lord opposite had drawn an analogy between their Lordships' voting, and parishes voting under the provisions of this Bill. Now, it did not appear to him, that that analogy was at all a correct one, nor did he perceive the least similarity between the legislative proceedings of that House, and the, proceedings of parishes under this Bill.
The Lord Chancellordid not think
828
that, in one respect, there was the slightest difference between them; and, in the instance to which he alluded, he would maintain, that parishes would exercise an act of legislation precisely similar to that which was exercised by their Lordships. When the present Bill was passed, its adoption would be left optional with the various parishes in the kingdom. Now, the voting this Act to be the law in any parish would be an act of legislation in the strictest sense of the word. If such an act was not, a legislative one, he did not know the distinction.
Lord Wynfordwas of opinion, that the Churchwardens should calculate the number of those that actually voted, and that, two-thirds of them, under the regulation proposed by the noble Earl (Haddington), should carry the question. He also thought, that there should be a scale of votes, graduated according to the amount of property assessed, and that, for every 25 l. for which an individual was rated, beyond the original assessment from which he derived his first vote, he should be entitled to an additional vote, limiting the number of votes to which any individual could thus become entitled, to six.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that as he was about to address the Committee on the Bill, he would include the proposition made by a noble Lord on Saturday, by which he proposed the rate-payers of each parish should possess votes according to the sums they were respectively rated at in the parish books. For instance, the person who was assessed at 50 l. a-year had one vote; at 75 l. he had two; and so on for each 25 l. until it amounted to six votes, to more than which no one person was to be entitled. Now, he would at once fairly state, that he could not approve of those new devices in elections, and he considered that the plan of voting according to property was liable to every objection which had been raised against the principles of Representation lately introduced by his colleagues. The principle of voting according to property, and not on population, was altogether new. He would not open the Reform question, but he thought the principle of voting in parishes might be regulated on the same basis as that introduced in the Bill to which he alluded. According to the original basis of Representation, property was not the standard; for instance, Rutlandshire sent as many Members as the

829
largest county. In the county, freeholders had the right to vote: in boroughs, the payer of scot and lot; and the idea of a graduated scale of voting at elections was as new and unprecedented as any alteration proposed by the Reform Bill. He thought that it was founded on an erroneous principle, and that it would prove to be most prejudicial in practice. It attacked the principle on which the whole functions of Government stood. That the majority should bind the minority was a wise and just rule. If there be any thing in the foundation of Government which gave stability to human affairs, it was this principle. But the proposition now advanced set forth a different order of things, and it would establish the power of the minority over the majority; and ten persons possessed of six votes each would outnumber fifty-nine who had only one qualification each. Was there ever such a receipt for discontent drawn up as tins? Was there ever a proposition more pregnant with quarrels and confusion? But, in fact, the principle was not fully sustained, for there might be persons among the fifty-nine of greater property than the ten who had outvoted them. A tradesman might have very large and showy premises, and be highly assessed, but still his circumstances might not be flourishing, and he might be actually working at a loss; while another tradesman, who had retired after realizing a considerable fortune, might live near him in a small tenement, which would be rated considerably less than the other, yet, according to the principle now suggested, the poor man would outvote the rich man. The principle had never come under his consideration before, but the objections to it were palpable and decided. In his opinion, it would produce discontent, and prevent what, was much to be desired in human affairs—stability and certainty. He was perfectly convinced, that their Lordships would counteract the object they had in view, if the principle contended for by the noble Lords opposite were introduced into the Bill now before the Committee.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, the noble Viscount was wrong if he imagined this was a new principle which it was desirable to have introduced into the Bill. The principle, in his opinion, ought to be adopted: it would prevent great mischief, which he was confident would arise should the Bill pass into a law as it now stood.
830
He begged to remind the noble Viscount and the Committee, that on an important measure, which had recently passed their Lordships House (he meant the Tithe-composition Act), it was made necessary that not only two-thirds of the persons concerned should concur before it could be adopted, but also two-thirds of the value.
Lord Wynfordsuggested, that there were three-fifths required, both as to number and value.
The Earl of Falmouthwas obliged to the noble and learned Lord. It was highly necessary that there should be a considerable majority of parishioners to make any considerable change in parish proceedings. Persons connected with parish affairs knew well, that there was a great deal of trickery and jobbing; and he thought that, before such a measure as this was received, a large majority, as respected both the property and numbers in the parish, ought to be required.
Viscount, Melbourne,in explanation, said that what he meant with respect, to the adoption of the principle was, that it was comparatively of modern origin.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the principle had been known and recognized for a long time. It was applied to the case of the Bank of England, and to the East-India Company. The right of voting had simply in those instances a reference to property. There ought, in his opinion, to be a graduated scale by which the parishioners should have votes according to their property. If the noble Viscount meant to reject the proposal for a graduated scale, he would divide the Committee on the clause.
The Earl of Shaftesburysuggested, that the best way, he thought, would be, to defer the division until the report was to be received.
Lord wynfordhad no objection whatever to take that course. He thought, that a person who was rated at 10 l. a-year, and who might be a payer one week and a receiver another, ought not to have as much influence in parish matters as a person who was rated at 1,000 l. a-year.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had spoken of parish meetings discussing whether they would adopt the Bill or not. It was impossible for meetings consisting of 2,000 or 3,000 persons to discuss any such matters. As he understood, the Bill had been originated in consequence of certain parishes in the metropolis being

831
dissatisfied with the Select Vestry system which now prevailed.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the dissatisfaction was not confined to parishes in London, but extended to several large towns, such as Bristol and Birmingham.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the complaint, he believed, chiefly rested with the metropolis. He should be glad to know, why their Lordships should be called upon to repeal Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, which had worked well, and, taking the country generally, was much approved of. That Act had given great satisfaction to the country; but, if it were necessary to alter the law at all, why not confine the alteration to the metropolis where the dissatisfaction was felt? He agreed with the noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Wynford), that the vote for parish vestries was very different from that for electing Members of Parliament, as far as the principle of both was concerned. By the law, as it now stood, every man had a right to attend a Vestry and vote; but, owing to the large size of parishes, it was convenient, and indeed necessary, to have another mode introduced to carry on the affairs of the parish—that was to say, a Select Vestry, for the purpose of regulating, distributing, and accounting for, the rates. To regulate that matter, Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act was passed, but it related solely to the country, and let that be applied to the metropolis. What objection was there to that? Why it was said, there must be a meeting of the ratepayers to decide whether the Bill should be adopted or not. The optional clause of the Bill was, in his opinion, most objectionable. It would be cause for excitement and agitation; and he repeated, that it would be far better to extend Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act at once to the metropolis than pass this Bill.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, his suggestion having given rise to this discussion, he begged to add a few words. If he understood rightly the operation of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act, it had no application to any parish regulated by a local Act, unless expressly applied to it. If the law were defective, it would have been infinitely better to introduce a Bill for the metropolis only, in preference to making the alteration general throughout the country. He felt a difficulty in the matter, because, if the Bill were rejected, the metropolis would be left in a state of excite-
832
ment and discontent with regard to the Vestry system. He did not oppose the Bill, but the object of his motion was, to prevent a small number of parishioners from forcing the Bill upon an unwilling parish. His amendment was this—to leave out the words, "of two-thirds of all the rate-payers of this parish have been given in favour of the adoption of the said Act," for the purpose of adding the words, "Provided always, that the majority of two-thirds of the votes given in favour of the adoption of the said Act of Parliament, shall constitute a clear majority of the rate-payers of the parish."
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to adopt the amendment of the noble Earl, but he could not consent to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, or to adopt the suggestion of the noble Duke. He begged to inform the Committee, that the dissatisfaction to the Vestry system was not confined to the metropolis, but was experienced at Bristol, Birmingham, and other large towns. He was anxious to remedy the evils which had given rise to the discontent which now pervaded so many parishes. Abuses to a considerable extent were complained of, and rates, in many parishes, had been increased; but he wished it to be understood, that increase of rates did not imply misconduct on the part of the Select Vestries. Considering the length of time which this Bill had been before Parliament, without imputing obstinacy to those who opposed its provisions (for he wished not to be considered as casting censure upon any one) he really thought ample time had been given to consider its merits, and he would venture to express a hope, that their Lordships would allow it to pass.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, he saw no reason why the operation of this Bill should not be confined to Bristol and Birmingham, and the large towns, where objections to the present law were entertained, without making its provisions general. He begged to ask the noble Viscount, whether complaints had reached him from many parishes? In parishes in which he (Lord Falmouth) possessed property, he would assure their Lordships, hat the system, as it now stood, worked well, and was not complained of, but, on the contrary, persons in general were satisfied with it.
The Earl of Harrowbyconfessed that he had not paid much attention to the

833
subject now under consideration; and the information which he possessed was chiefly derived from the conversation he had joined in. But the Bill appeared to him open to many objections. The great measure which had engrossed their Lordships' minds during the last, six mouths would, he hoped, be taken partly as an excuse for his not having paid that attention to the present Bill which the subject warranted. What he would venture to suggest was, that Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act should be made applicable to the parishes in the metropolis, and to the great towns throughout the Kingdom, repealing the local enactments by which parishes in these towns are governed, by one single short enactment. He thought this would lead gradually to a change, and all changes of this nature ought to be progressive. In the interim between the present and the next Parliament, the Bill might be examined and considered. He was anxious to see property duly represented in parishes. In the Reform Bill the principle of property, as well as population, was regarded; and he thought that properly ought to be also attended to in any measure proposed to alter the law respecting the regulation of Select Vestries.
Viscount Melbournewas not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, not having considered what would be the effect of repealing the local Acts alluded to. He was quite sure, however, that the effect of the noble Earl's recommendation would be, to create great dissatisfaction if their Lordships were to attempt to carry it into execution by compulsory means, and he was convinced My. Sturges Bourne's Act would never be voluntarily adopted. He felt all the inconvenience of discussing this question at the end of the Session, and he concurred in what the noble Earl had stated as to the all-engrossing subject which had necessarily occupied their Lordships' minds, to the exclusion of other important topics—so that the attention which they required had not been given to them. He begged to add, that he felt the necessity of passing the Bill, in order to prevent embarrassment, which he apprehended might arise; and, at all events, it would put an end to that dissatisfaction which was felt, as he had already stated, and which he assured their Lordships was felt to a great extent.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, he must repeat his objections to adopting the Bill in
834
other places than in those towns which had been enumerated, or where complaints against the present plan of Select Vestries existed. He begged again to inquire whether the noble Viscount had heard any objections from rural parishes, as well as large towns? If the Bill were to be adopted, why not confine it solely to the towns where complaints had been made?
Viscount Melbournebegged to apologize for not answering the noble Earl's question when he spoke before. He must say that he had not received any complaints from country parishes against the system as it now existed. Having admitted this, however, he should be excused adding that the noble Earl must be aware, that in the country a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent prevailed. And with respect to the noble Earl's suggestion, as to adopting the Bill only for those towns from whence complaints had sprung, he really saw no means of doing that, except by naming the towns in the Bill—a course to which he would not give his assent. It was not compulsory on any parish to adopt the Bill; on the contrary it was expressly provided, that a majority of rate payers must agree to it before it could be adopted.
The Earl of Falmouthconsidered it would be quite easy to apply the Bill to the large towns and cities where the evils complained of were said to prevail. This would be limiting the remedy to the disease. But he must persist in objecting to extending the Bill to rural parishes.
The Amendment of the Earl of Haddington agreed to.
On the qualification clause being read,
The Earl of Delawarrsaid, he rose to propose an amendment by adopting which there would be introduced a graduated scale of voting agreeably to property, varying from one vote to six, which he was prepared to contend was necessary, in order to give a due and proper influence to property. He knew that in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, the system of the Select Vestry worked well, and to the satisfaction of the inhabitants. He thought that property was not sufficiently regarded in the Bill, and that great mischief would ensue were it adopted in its present shape. He should move, that the amendment made in the Select Committee as follows be part of the Bill; "And, be it further enacted, that in the election of all such vestrymen and auditors,

835
every inhabitant who shall, by the last rate which shall have been made for the relief of the poor, have been assessed and charged upon or in respect of any annual rent, profit, or value not amounting to 50 l. shall have and be entitled to give one vote, and no more; and every inhabitant who shall in such last rate have been assessed or charged upon, or in respect of any annual rent or rents, profit or value, amounting to 50 l. or upwards (whether in one, or in more than one sum or charge) shall have, and be entitled to give, one vote for every 25 l. of actual rent, profit, and value, upon or in respect of which he shall have been assessed or charged in such last rate; so, nevertheless, that no inhabitant shall be entitled to give more than six votes; and in cases where two or more of the inhabitants shall be jointly rated, each of them shall be entitled to vote according to the proportion and amount which shall be borne by him of the joint charge."
The Earl of Mulgravefelt called upon to oppose the amendment now submitted for the approbation of the Committee. He was quite sure, from the present state of feeling in the metropolis, if the amendment received the sanction of the Legislature, that it would increase the discontent and dissatisfaction which pervaded so many parishes and so large a population. He, however trusted that the Committee would reject the amendment of the noble Lord, which was neither more nor less than calling upon the majority to be guided by the minority. Every person paying a rate had a right to have a voice in the parish.
The Earl of Falmouththought it was not an equitable mode of proceeding to allow a man who only contributed 2s. 6d. to the parish rates as great an influence as one who paid 100 l.
Viscount Melbournesaid, according to the law of the land, every man paying a rate had a right of a vote, and the Act which had limited that right was a usurpation. He certainly must object to the amendment now submitted.
The Committee divided on the Amendment. Contents 38; Not-contents 54—Majority 16,
Original clause agreed to—the remainder of the clauses also agreed to and House resumed.

List of the Not-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Norfolk

H. R. H. the Duke of Sussex

Richmond

St. Albans

836

Brandon (Hamilton)

Erskine

MARQUISES.

Dunally

Lansdown

Boyle (Cork)

Cleveland

Panmure

Queensberry

Howden

EARLS.

Sefton

Cawdor

Sundridge (Argyll)

Carlisle

De Clifford

Cowper

Suffield

Essex

Belhaven

Grey

Fingall

Charlemont

Melbourne

Albemarle

Stafford

Gosford

Chaworth (Meath)

Ilchester

De Saumarez

Denbigh

Wellesley

VISCOUNTS.

Howard of Effingham

Hood

Auckland

Leinster

Templemore

Goderich

Mendip (Clifton)

LORDS.

Clements (Leitrim)

Brougham

Wharncliffe

Wenlock

Donnay (Downe)

Napler

TELLER.

Dunmore

Earl of Mulgrave

Fife

PAIRED OFF.

Dinorben

Earl Morley

Teynham

Earl Camperdown

Dover

Lord Clifford

Lyttleton

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Gordon (Aberdeen)

H. R. H. the Duke of Cumberland

LORDS.

Forester

Buckingham

Wynford

Wellington

Redesdale

MARQUISES.

Arundel

Bristol

Skelmersdale

Cholmondeley

Montagu

EARLS.

Douglas

Dartmouth

Colville

Delaware

Farnham

Carnarvon

Saltoun

Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Stuart, of Rothesay

Sheffield

Westmorland

Ellenborough

Harrowby

Maryborough

Abingdon

Clanwilliam

Mounteashel

Melross (Haddington)

Dudley

Ravensworth

Manvers

TELLER.

Bradford

Earl of Rosslyn

Bathurst

PAIRED OFF.

VISCOUNTS.

Marquis of Thomond

Lorton

Earl of Hardwicke

Arbuthnot

Lord Penshurst (Viscount Strangford).

Beresford

CONSOLIDATED FUND—APPROPRIATION BILL.
The Earl of Shaftesburyhaving moved that this Bill be read a third time,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, for the purpose of submitting to their

837
Lordships some observations respecting the financial condition of the country. He was aware that it was usual, on occasions like the present, to advert as well to the external as to the internal policy of the country; to the measures emanating from both; to the effects which those measures had produced, and to the effects which those measures were likely to produce. Although, however, there were some topics connected with our foreign policy to which he might be anxious to advert—although there was one of these which was already ripe for discussion, the papers connected with it being on their table—yet it was not his intention to trouble their Lordships unnecessarily on the present occasion, with any allusion to foreign affairs, because he should have other opportunities for this, and because their Lordships had already been wearied with very long discussions. He should, therefore, confine himself entirely to the state, of the finances of this country, and to a comparison between their present, state and what they had been before. The country now found itself in this singular situation—namely, that with an increased expenditure, and with a large reduction of taxation, it had at the same time no overplus of revenue over expenditure, or at least so trifling an overplus, that it might fairly be called none at all, being, as he should presently show, not more than about 10,000 l. He said that the country was in this situation now; for he put out of the question those occasions on which the Ministers found it necessary to come down to Parliament, and ask for a loan to carry on the service of the country on account of some of those accidental and unforeseen circumstances which occur in so large an establishment as this country possessed. To meet such occurrences, a surplus of income over expenditure had always been considered desirable, which was also advantageous, with a view to the diminution of the public debt. He was aware that there, was great difference of opinion connected with this point; he was aware that many great authorities were of opinion that no such surplus of income over expenditure was necessary; and he agreed with those authorities, when they said that this surplus ought not to be increased by borrowing, and so incurring new liabilities for the purpose of getting rid of old ones. At the same time, however, he could not look at what, had taken
838
place in this country of late years—even during the short time he had the honour of being in his Majesty's councils—without being sensible of the very great advantages which had resulted, and must result, from such a surplus of income over expenditure as would tend to the gradual diminution of the public debt. He was within the truth when he stated to their Lordships, that since the peace, the interest of the public debt had been reduced to an amount equal to what would pay the interest of 100,000,000 l. of stock; and he thought their Lordships must therefore see that some overplus of income at least was highly desirable. But this was not all. Considering the hopes which had been held out at different times by persons at the head of the financial department, that there should be always such an overplus provided—considering the wishes which had been constantly expressed on this subject by all the Committees on financial affairs, and even by the last finance Committee—considering these things, he thought that he was not saying too much when he affirmed, that it, seemed to be a principle of the financial policy of this country, that there should be an annual surplus of income over expenditure, to be applied to the gradual diminution of the public debt. Besides these considerations, their Lordships must be aware, that much of the revenue of the country depended upon the seasons, and that almost all of it depended upon consumption. Their Lordships, too, must be aware that consumption depended upon taste and fashion, and upon those changes in taste and fashion over which no man could have any control. Thus, then, the revenue was subject to very material variations, the precise amount of which could not be foreseen, and which could be provided for only by a surplus of income. It was on this principle that the Government to which he had the honour to belong had proceeded in the last year. In the preceding year they had arranged so as to have had a diminution of the interest on the unfunded debt to the amount of 130,000 l. a-year; and in the course of the years 1828, 1 829, and 1830, they had produced a diminution of expenditure to the amount of not less than 3,575,000 l., the expenditure being in 1827, 51,390,000 l., and in 1830, 47,815,000 l. This difference, was produced by three years' close attention to economy. The Ministers of that day reduced the

839
services estimated for Parliament from 18,245,000 l. to which they amounted in 1827, to 16,500,000 l. speaking in round numbers, which was their amount in 1830; making a difference of more than 1, 500, 000 l. Besides this, they had reduced their expenditure in the last year—that was to say, the year 1829–30—by an amount of 1,100,000 l.; and besides all that, they laid the ground for a further diminution, by reducing the four per cents, lessening the charge for that stock, 788,000 l. a-year. They had, therefore, made a reduction not of 3,500,000 l. only, but in fact, a reduction of more than 4,000,000 l. Having made such a reduction of expenditure, they considered themselves justified in proposing a large reduction of taxation. They did propose such a reduction accordingly, and with the consent of Parliament, they took off taxes to the amount of 3,350,000 l. When they made this proposition to Parliament, they had a revenue which was estimated at—and he believed did not produce less than—50,480,000 l. Their expenditure was only 47,815,000 l. They had also, besides this, as he had already stated, the prospect of a further reduction by reducing the four per cents to the amount of 788,000 l. By deducting this prospective reduction from their expenditure, their expenditure would amount to 47,027,000 l.; and the difference, therefore, between their income and their expenditure was 3,453,000 l. By repealing taxes to an amount greater than 3,000,000 l., they had remaining but a very small surplus of income over expenditure. But then, at the same time, they laid on an additional duty on spirits, and they had every reason to expect, that by the repeal of the beer tax, a very considerable increase of the revenue would result from the increased production from the malt-tax, and he believed that the noble Lords opposite would acknowledge; that they had found that this expectation of their predecessors had been realized. They had hoped, too, that another year would give them still better prospects; for at that time they had not had the good fortune of the French revolution. They had, however, a large fleet in the Mediterranean, which the uncertain state of the affairs of Greece rendered it necessary to keep up; but as soon as the settlement of that country should have been accomplished, they had intended to put down that fleet, and to bring the navy estimates, like the army estimates, within
840
the frame of a peace establishment. They had hoped, and he thought reasonably, that by these means they should have had a surplus of income over expenditure to the amount of nearly 2,000,000 l. sterling. It was in this condition of our financial affairs that the noble Lords opposite had come into office. Those noble Lords, however, had found themselves under the necessity of increasing all the military establishments, all the navy establishments, and, in short, all the establishments which their predecessors had been occupied for many years past in endeavouring to reduce. The estimates for their establishments exceeded the estimates of their predecessors in 1830 by about 930,000 l. At least this was the amount of the apparent excess; but then he must observe that the real excess was 200,000 l. or 300,000 l. more; for the fact was, that the supply for the Ordnance was not charged to its full amount, a part of the expenses for it having been provided for by the sale of old stores, including even arms belonging to the department. Thus the charge for the Ordnance appeared smaller than in fact the necessary expenses of the department amounted to; and the difference, therefore, between the estimates of the noble Lords opposite and those of their predecessors would have been 1,200,000 l. and not 930,000 l., if part of the ways and means for providing for the expenses of the Ordnance department had not been derived from the sale of stores. However, the noble Lords opposite would admit, that the excess, according to their own reckoning and the papers laid before Parliament, stood at 930,000 l. He understood the amount of revenue upon which the noble Lords calculated was 47,250,000 l., which was a little higher than their predecessors had calculated the revenue for the year 1831, after deducting the taxes they had reduced. Then the expenditure of the noble Lords would amount to 47,239,850 l, which subtracted from the revenue of 47,250,000 l. would leave a surplus of only 10,150 l. This, and no more, was the surplus of income over expenditure in a great country like this. He was perfectly well aware that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made out the surplus to be much greater, nearly 500,000 l.; but then the noble Lord had been able to make out his amount of surplus in no other way than by resorting to a mode of calculating which was quite new in the financial system of this country. The revenue, that

841
noble Lord admitted would be 47,250,000 l. The expenditure, however, the noble Lord calculated in this way:—the noble Lord took what had been expended and what might be expended, but not what Parliament had voted. The noble Lord said, "We have spent already up to October, being three quarters of the year, 35,221,643 l.; for the remainder of the year, I will allow 11,534,578 l.; so that our whole expenditure will amount to 46,756,221 l." But this way of calculating could not be considered satisfactory. The votes which had been agreed to by Parliament amounted to 47,239,850 l.; the revenue was calculated at 47,250,000 l.; and the surplus, therefore, of income over expenditure was, as he had made it out, 10,150 l., and not 493,000 l. as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his mode of calculating, represented it to be. He was quite sure, that their Lordships would at once see through the fallacy of this statement. It. might be true that it would not be necessary to provide, during this year, for a greater outlay than had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but although a nation, like an individual, might not be called upon to discharge within the year all the liabilities contracted by it during that year, yet he must say, that both the nation and the individual ought, in calculating their expenditure and receipts, to set the expenditure and the receipts of each year against one another; and if the question was one of defraying yearly expenditure by means of yearly receipts, to provide for the liabilities contracted in one year out of the receipts of the same year. He must contend, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced into the financial system of the country quite a new principle—a principle which in any times but the present would not have been listened to for a moment, even if any Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought it forward—which he did not think would have been likely in any other times than these. Having this prospect before them, the present Ministers had thought proper also to propose a large reduction of taxation. They had repealed the duties on coals which produced to the revenue 950,000 l. a-year, they had made an alteration in the cotton duties, by which, as he understood, the revenue would lose 300,000 l. a-year more; and, besides these, they had made a prospective repeal of the candle duties, by which the revenue would
842
sustain a further loss of 500,000 l. a-year. Two of these alterations took place in the month of March last, and the other was to commence in February. With every allowance for increase of consumption, he thought that the loss of income which would result from these alterations in the present year, could not be calculated at less than 900,000 l.; and this, therefore, would have been so much surplus revenue at this moment if the taxes had been retained. But let their Lordships look at the next year. Then there would be, by the coal-tax, the cotton duties, and the candle-tax, more than 1,700,000 l. taken from a revenue which already exceeded the expenditure by no more than 10,000 l. He was one of those who said, a long time ago, that he thought the repeal of the coal-tax a very proper measure, if it were proper to repeal any tax; but the noble Earl should recollect that he had told him that the mode to supply the consumer with cheap coals was, not to begin by repealing the tax, but by putting an end to the abuses in the coal-trade. These abuses were still in existence. What were the consequences produced by the coalition between the coal producer and the persons engaged in bringing the article to market? Why, that while 950,000 l. was lost to the revenue of the country, only 2s. a chaldron were saved by the consumer; the remaining 4s. going to the producer and conveyor of the coals, who, in addition to their other large profits, had now got the greater part of the King's duty. Their Lordships would now see that this was not the exact way in which the finances of the country ought to be regulated. And when their Lordships came to look at the consequences of the repeal of this tax, and how little benefit it produced to the consumer, they would feel the truth of his observations; certainly it was more desirable to have a surplus of the revenue over the expenditure to meet contingencies, than that the revenue should be diminished to the profit of a few wealthy individuals. If other circumstances rendered such a provision a matter of comparative indifference, still it was certainly more desirable to have the money lying in the Exchequer rather than in the pockets of the producer or the person by whom the coals were transported to London or elsewhere. Their Lordships would observe, that he had not said that he was averse to the repeal of this tax; what he had stated was, that it was expe-

843
dient, in repealing it, to give the consumer, not the producer, the full benefit of the measure, and that the repeal should only take place when Government was quite sure that the produce of the tax was not essential to the King's revenue. He made these observations because, looking to the preceding year, he was convinced that the revenue was tending to a state of great confusion; and the noble Earl, in case any accident should occur—in case of anything unforeseen arising in the money-market—something, for instance, with respect to the funding of Exchequer-bills— the noble Earl, he repeated, would find himself in a position of the greatest possible embarrassment.
Earl Greysaid, that as he had not been exactly aware of the nature and extent of the observations which he understood the noble Duke was to submit to the House; he must beg to apologize to their Lordships for not being so well prepared as he ought to be to answer the statements which the noble Duke had made, partly because he did not know how far the noble Duke intended to go, and partly because he was not very familiar with the details brought before the House. He would, however, explain to their Lordships in a few words his reasons for dissenting from the view of the financial state of the country taken by the noble Duke. With the first principle advanced by the noble Duke he entirely agreed. He was of opinion that it was both convenient and desirable that there should be a surplus revenue to meet any contingent expenditure; but when it was laid down that there was a necessity for a Sinking Fund—for any thing raised by taxation to be applied to the reduction of the immense mass of debt—he was decidedly against all such plans of taxation; as he entertained the conviction, that to leave the money in the pockets of his Majesty's industrious subjects, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial, was a much better means of meeting the burthens that pressed upon the empire, and much more likely to lighten them, than any expedient like the old one of a Sinking Fund. It might be prudent to apply to such a purpose what could be spared, after providing for foreseen and unforeseen expenses; but he did not think it proper to levy fresh taxes, or to continue old ones that pressed upon the industry of the country, for the purpose of diminishing the debt; it was wiser to leave these resources with indi-
844
viduals to assist the various interests of which the aggregate prosperity of the nation was composed. The noble Duke had entered into an exposition of the condition of the public finances when he vacated office, and he (Earl Grey) was willing to give the noble Duke every credit for reductions, which he believed to be his due. Including the four per cents, the noble Duke laid claim to reductions amounting to above 4,000,000 l. He had not the figures before him, but while he was ready to give every credit to the noble Duke, he did not know that he could exactly subscribe to his statement; he rather thought the amount would be found to be something less. The noble Duke stated, that the army and navy had been increased since the present Ministers came into office. True, they had been, and no man more regretted the necessity of that augmentation than he. The army had received an addition of 7,000 men, and a large naval force had been maintained—precautions called for by the state of Europe. But he believed the noble Duke had not objected to these measures; nay, so far from objecting, the noble Duke had, he believed, blamed his Majesty's Government that they had not armed to a greater extent, to put themselves in a condition for supporting the interests of the country. The naval and military establishments had undoubtedly been increased, owing to the circumstances of Europe when the Ministers came into office; the occasion that demanded additional precautions originated in no fault of theirs: it was their duty to place the country in the position the exigency required; and if he differed from the noble Duke as to the amount of force necessary, he had advised that increase which he believed to be sufficient, and additions might be made to it if found to be necessary to support the honour of the Crown and the interests of the country. The noble Duke had stated that there was last year a considerable surplus of revenue over expenditure; and had entered into calculations to show that for the current year the surplus would amount to no more than 10,000 l. Now he (Earl Grey), after making allowance for the loss sustained by the repeal of the coal-tax, and every other loss peculiar to the year, found that the surplus would amount to at least 493,000 l. Be it observed, that he was speaking after three-fourths of the year had elapsed—of three quarters there was

845
absolute certainly; and the probable receipts and expenditure of the concluding quarter were ascertained almost, to a certainty. The noble Duke objected to the mode adopted by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of calculating the expenditure; but when so large a part of the year was elapsed, that was certainly preferable to relying on the estimate made at the beginning. He would explain his view of the income and expenditure: he took the produce of the customs at 17,840,000 l. before the taxes were repealed. The deficiency arising out of that repeal was 644,000 l. for the three quarters elapsed; to that must be added 210,000 l. for coal-duties, and 161,000 l. for the reduction on account of the taxes repealed in the quarter yet to come, leaving an amount of 16,825,000 l. The Excise produced 18,640,000 l. last year, but in consequence of the abolition of some duties and other contingencies, the estimated amount for this year, according to the proportion of the three quarters already elapsed was about 16,790,000 l. He would next state the amount of taxes which had actually been remitted, premising that the duties upon beer, cider, and leather, had been taken off by the Government, of which the noble Duke had been the head.

Beer duty

£2,350,0000

Cyder duty

260,000

Leather duty

50,000

Cotton duty

500,000

Candles duty

57,000

Coals duty

920,000

£4,077,000

The Duke of Wellington: The reduction in the Beer duty was 3,200,000 l. not 2,350,000 l.
Earl Grey: The statement he had made referred to the actual loss of the revenue by the repeal of the duty last year; the total amount of the taxes repealed was, therefore, 4,077,000 l. The estimated produce of the Customs and Excise for the present year was 33,615,000 l., which showed an apparent deficiency of 2,865,000 l. as compared with last year; but when it was considered that taxes had been repealed to the amount of 1,112,000 l. more than that sum, it was clear there had been an additional consumption making up part of the loss, and this was a proof of the wisdom of throwing off, as far as was possible, the fiscal restrictions on the con-
846
sumption of exciseable articles, It afforded good ground to hope that a judicious reduction of taxation would eventually benefit, rather than injure the revenue. He would next advert to what the noble Duke had said with respect to the repeal of the coal-tax. The noble Duke had admitted that it was not an improper tax to be repealed—it weighed very heavily upon the community, particularly on the lower orders; and, as some of their Lordships knew, with peculiar severity upon the people of the southern counties. The noble Duke said, they ought to take care that the people felt the benefit of the repeal, and that the amount of the duty did not go into the pockets of the producers. To that sentiment he cordially subscribed. The noble Duke further remarked, that it was necessary to regulate the coal trade in London. To that he also subscribed; and a Bill for the express purpose had passed that and the other House of Parliament, and was now part of the law of the land. He supposed this would satisfy the noble Duke, and he trusted it would have a beneficial effect, and accomplish the end at which it aimed. The noble Duke had argued a little unfairly from circumstances peculiar to the present year. He said, that the reduction of the duty only benefitted the consumer to the amount of 2s. a chaldron, while the remaining 4s. went to the producers. He thought this an unfair view, when he called to mind the circumstances which had hitherto prevented the public from deriving the full advantage of the change. When the repeal took place, it had gone abroad that the community could not have the full benefit of the measure in consequence of the coalition of many of the pit-owners. The circulation of that opinion produced a strike for higher wages among the colliers. By their combination and cessation of work, the trade was stopped for he believed two months, and so great was the consequent distress for coals, even in the mining districts, that to "carry coals to Newcastle" could no longer be proverbially applied to illustrate the absurdity of sending an article where it was not wanted. He had seen letters from persons who supplied the Newcastle steam-boats, declaring that the vessels must lay in coals elsewhere, as they could not undertake to furnish them. He had known instances of the old heaps of small coal, that the noble Duke in visiting the north might have seen lying at the

847
mouth of pits; he had known instances of these being sold at the price of good coals. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the good effects of the repeal of the tax had yet been felt. Combination was now happily at an end; and he anticipated, when the trade was proceeding in its usual way, that it would be found that Government had granted a very efficient measure of relief. [Some noble Lord observed, that it was already found to be so.] It appeared that it had already proved beneficial; but, at all events, if anything arose to prevent the public from deriving all the benefit that ought to result from the measure, Parliament was open to devise further means to accomplish the end in view. In order to show the fallacy of those calculations of the noble Duke, which had led him to state the probable surplus of the current year at only 10,000 l., he would then enumerate the various items of receipt and expenditure. The revenue for the year they estimated in round numbers as follows:—

Customs

£16,750,000

Excise

16,800,000

Stamp duties

6,850,000

Taxes

5,000,000

Post-office

1,500,000

Miscellaneous

350,000

£47,250,000

That was the sum stated by the noble Duke, as stated by his noble friend in another place. The total expenditure of the year, including the charge for the National Debt, would amount, in round numbers, to 46,756,000 l., leaving, after all deductions, a surplus of revenue over expenditure of 493,000 l., instead of 10,000 l., as stated by the noble Duke. He could not see on what principle this statement could be denied, when the expenditure of three quarters was before them. He believed he might have taken credit for a much larger sum; but from the certain surplus he had shown to exist, the House, he felt assured, would be satisfied that the financial interests of the country had not been neglected, and would forbear to entertain the apprehension that they were not in a condition to meet any emergency that was likely to arise. He confidently hoped and expected that in another year further reductions would be practicable. This had been a year of great difficulty and depression. The unsettled
848
state of Europe had produced a general want of confidence: in the month of August the exchanges were against us, and there was a drain of bullion from the country. The difficulty resulting from the pressure had been rendered as little severe as possible; the contraction of the circulation had operated as lightly as was possible. The country owed much to the management of the Bank of England—a body which exhibited great diligence and ability in the conduct of its own affairs and the affairs of the public, and now he trusted that matters had taken another and more auspicious turn. The exchanges were now in our favour, the bullion was coming back, and if they might put faith in appearances, they might, with the continuance of peace, entertain the hope of growing prosperity, and he was happy to state, there was now better grounds for indulging the expectation of peace than there had been for some time past. Their Lordships all knew the question which had kept them in continual alarm respecting a war on the continent—the dispute between Holland and Belgium. He was happy to be enabled to inform the House, that after thirteen months of very difficult negotiation, conducted by the Conference of London, composed of the representatives of the five great Powers—a negotiation characterized by the singular circumstance that no serious difference of opinion was entertained by any one of the five great Powers engaged in them, had at length proposed terms of settlement equitable to both parties. These terms, he trusted, would be accepted by those interested in them, and remove all the difficulties which had hitherto retarded a settlement, and threatened to endanger the peace of Europe. He had stated that the settlement between Holland and Belgium, proposed by the five Powers of the Conference, was founded on equitable principles, and would briefly state what those principles were. From the moment when the re-union of Holland and Belgium became impossible (and the noble Duke opposite had admitted that it was impossible), he (Lord Grey) felt that the only just principle on which a settlement could take place, was this:—that the safety of Holland should be secured by a good defensive project, and that then all the advantages that could fairly be given to Belgium should be secured to it, in order to give her that character of independence which it was desirable she should

849
possess as a nation. It was upon those principles the Conference proceeded, and, at length, agreed upon a settlement, which it now remained for the adverse parties to accept, and which he trusted, they would speedily accept. Looking to the security which the amicable arrangement of a question so long pending gave, as regarded all our relations abroad, it was not, unreasonable to hope that a considerable reduction might be made next year in the public expenses, which had been increased during the present year, inconsequence of the unsettled state of foreign polities. Upon this ground he entertained some hope that further financial relief would take place in the course of next year; but to indulge with any degree of confidence in such an expectation, their Lordships must be aware that there was another thing, even more material than the favourable state of our relations abroad—the existence of peace and content at, home. This was a moment of great excitement throughout the country. Even those noble Lords, who were most reluctant to admit the interest felt by the great body of the people in favour of the measure of Reform, would not now deny the existence of a deep and intense feeling. But deep and intense as the feeling of the country was in favour of that measure, it was a great consolation to him to know that, except in a few instances, which were deeply to be lamented, the disappointed feelings of the people had not broken out into acts of violence or popular commotion. If acts of violence had been perpetrated, and tumults had occurred, it would have been the duty of Government to suppress them, and to punish the offenders. It was the duty of every man, to endeavour to preserve the peace and order of society, without which there could be no real prosperity— no true enjoyment; and if there was one class of persons more interested than another in the preservation of peace raid order at this time, it was that numerous class who avowed themselves to be the friends and supporters of the great measure of Parliamentary Reform. Nothing could be so adverse to the cause of Reform, or tend more to strengthen the hands of its opponents, and weaken those of its supporters, than the commission of acts of violence and disorder. As he had touched upon this subject, he felt himself called upon to allude to another subject, closely connected with it, in order to obviate a
850
very great degree of misrepresentation, which he regretted to state had taken place. It had been stated, that at a meeting which he very unexpectedly had with the delegates from some of the parishes in the metropolis, a few evenings ago, after leaving the House, he said many things which he did not hesitate now to say were not correct representations of what did fall from him, or of what passed at that meeting. The deputation, as he understood, waited on him chiefly for the purpose of enforcing on him the necessity of not advising his Majesty to prorogue the Parliament for more than seven days. That proposition he at once informed them was totally inadmissible; he added, that his Majesty's Ministers had not come to any final determination on the subject, but that it was a question which he claimed for himself and his colleagues the right to consider and determine upon in the way he thought best. He further added, that lie never could consent to hold the office he did in his Majesty's Government under any dictation as to what course he might deem it his duty to recommend his Majesty to adopt in such a case, but that he should advise his Majesty to the best of his judgment; and, if that freedom from dictation and control were denied to him, that it was impossible he could continue to retain his situation at, the head of the Government. He had said nothing of any particular period—nothing as to its being intended to prorogue until the end of January; but he had distinctly stated, that the duration of the prorogation must be left entirely to the discretion of the King's Ministers. He did state, however, that he felt he had a right to claim credit, and he did then claim credit for himself and his colleagues, when he declared that whether they advised Parliament to be prorogued for the usual length of time, or for a much shorter period, the chief object they would have in view would be to promote the interests of the public, and of that great measure to which the present Ministry was pledged. He would not then repeat the other statements which he had been represented as having made at this meeting; with one exception, on which he thought it important that no misunderstanding should take place. He did state that some alterations in the late Bill would be necessary before it was re-introduced, and that it would be for his Majesty's Ministers, during the recess, carefully to

851
consider what those alterations should be; but he distinctly added that he would never be a party to, or recommend any measure of Reform, which was not founded on similar principles, and as effective as regarded its declared object, as that which was lately before Parliament. This was the whole of what passed between him and the delegates from the parishes, except that when they represented to him that if satisfaction was not given to the public, as to the length of time on which Parliament was to be prorogued, it would tend to increase the agitation and excitement which prevailed; he felt himself called upon to inform those who communicated with him that it was their duty to use all the means in their power to repress agitation and excitement, and to keep the people in obedience to the laws of the country, that the Ministers might not be placed in the painful situation of being compelled to use those powers which, as a Government, it was their duty to use for the preservation of the public peace. With respect to the prorogation, he would only say, that whatever might, be the length of the period to which his Majesty's Ministers thought it their duty to recommend his Majesty to prorogue Parliament, it would be regulated by a sincere desire to do that which they considered most conducive to the advancement of the great measure of Parliamentary Reform, It must be considered, however, that there were limits to human strength. From the month of October last, with a short intermission, more fatiguing, perhaps, than even the sitting of Parliament, his Majesty's Ministers had been engaged in anxious and laborious occupation. His noble friend on the Woolsack, for instance, had gone through a degree of labour, in that House and out of it, which nothing but his extraordinary strength of mind and body could have enabled him to go through. In the other House, two noble friends of his, on whom the business of conducting the Reform Bill peculiarly devolved, besides the duties of their offices, had been in constant attendance in the House of Commons, early and late, during the last three months. His noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly, had been compelled to devote his time incessantly to the discharge of his public duties. Many Members of Parliament, too, had private business which required attention, and it could not
852
be expected that they should give up their private concerns altogether, or do without, some relaxation. At the same time he fully admitted that every other consideration should yield to a sense of public duty. Whatever that required, he and his colleagues would advise; but they had a right to claim credit to this extent, that whether they were to think it expedient to recommend the prorogation of Parliament for the usual time or not, they did proceed with a sincere desire to effect the great object they had in view—the measure of Reform; and he felt after all that had passed, that he did not call on his fellow-countrymen for too much, when he asked them to wait patiently before they pronounced a censure on what might not appear to them quite conformable with the promotion of this great measure, though it might ultimately tend to it. He felt that he had said a great deal on this subject, more, perhaps, than was necessary. He asked pardon for the defective manner in which, he feared, he had laid the financial part of this statement before their Lordships; but then they were aware that he was not accustomed to those statements. He hoped, however, that he had sufficiently shown the result—founded on a knowledge of the receipts and expenditure of the three last quarters, that there was a surplus revenue of 493,000 l. If he had wished, he might have stated the result more advantageously to himself, and made the excess appear greater. Thanking their Lordships for their indulgence, he should now conclude, hoping that if anything occurred, in the course of debate calling for it, he should be allowed again to address them.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas happy to find the noble Earl thought himself justified in denying some part of his statement, and that the noble Earl calculated upon a larger surplus than he had given credit for. He was also glad to hear the negotiations relating to Belgium and Holland were likely to be brought to a successful termination. As to the excitement to which the noble Earl had alluded, this was not the time to go into the question. He agreed however with the noble Earl, that it was greatly to be lamented, but he had his own opinions as to the causes of it. He trusted, however, noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen of the other House would be careful how they promoted it by speeches either in or out of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, in consquence of attempts that were most pertinaciously made to induce a belief that there existed a difference of opinion between his noble friend (Earl Grey) and himself upon the subject of Reform; he would take that opportunity to repeat, that he heartily and fully concurred in all the remarks made by his noble friend. He had expressed the same sentiments before, but this had not induced certain persons to desist from misrepresentation; he spoke in the presence of his colleagues, and he would declare, there had never been the slightest difference of opinion between his noble friend and himself respecting the most minute details of the Bill—he would not say the principle, for as to that, it must be evident they all agreed; but he would say, even the smallest particular of it. He had only to add on the subject of the recess, that he had no apprehensions from the impatience of two or three individuals, well disposed and respectable persons, no doubt, and most zealous for the success of the Reform Bill, but who in recommending a prorogation for a week, certainly did riot display a "zeal according to knowledge." He must declare his opinion, that for the Session to recommence after so brief an interval, and to expect his noble friends in another place to renew their advocacy of the measure was physically impossible—human strength could not endure it. Alter having given three mouths, day and night, to deliberation and discussion, it was positively necessary, that some considerable relaxation should be had. None felt more than he did the impossibility of continuing such exertions. It was about twelve months since he began hard work in London, and during that whole time he had enjoyed no respite with the exception of two days at Christmas and Easter. Durum; that period he had been occupied from six o'clock in the morning till midnight; and if any man was so unreasonable as to say, he ought not to be allowed a little repose, with that man he would not stop to argue. He would throw himself on the good sense and kind feeling of his countrymen, and he was confident they would not bring in a verdict of Guilty. Whatever advice should be offered as to the time of prorogation, the people of England might rest assured, that it would be given on a solemn principle of public duty, and with a view to the carrying of that measure to which
854
none could feel more devoted than he and his colleagues. The public would see when that measure was again brought before Parliament, the candour with which they had acted, and that the period that would intervene was no longer than was required, he would not say in justice, but in mercy.
Bill read a third time and passed.