Sitting of 7 April 1808

ASSESSED TAXES BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day, for the second reading of the Assessed Taxes bill.
Mr. Biddulphbegged to call the attention of the house to this bill, which was about to pass without that degree of notice which its importance required. This bill went to repeal all the existing Assessed Taxes, and to grant others in lieu thereof, and as the constitutional mode of proceeding had not been taken with respect to it, and no parliamentary ground had been laid for the imposition of new taxes, however unusual it was to take such a course, he should oppose the further progress of the bill, unless some satisfactory ground should be shewn in support of the measure. The forms of the house were the constitutional barriers against innovations, such as this measure; and he should therefore oppose the measure, unless a constitutional ground should be laid for its adoption.
Mr. Huskisson,not understanding what the hon. gent. meant by constitutional ground, begged to state to the house the grounds upon which his right hon. friend had brought forward this measure. The house would be aware that it was due to the public creditor, when an addition was made to the public debt, to make a provision for the interest and charges accruing from such an addition. It would be recollected that a sum of four millions of Exchequer bills had been funded in the course of the present session, the charge for interest and sinking fund upon which amounted to 252,000 l. The sum to be raised by the bill before the house was something more than 100,000 l. as part of the ways and means for defraying the charge alluded to; as the Assessed Taxes were to be collected from the 5th of April it was desirable, however, small as the addition might be, to bring forward the proposition in time, so that the house might be aware of the extent of it. As he was on his legs he took occasion to state, that there was a clause in the bill for reducing the allowance of poundage to the collectors one fourth, by which there would be a saving to the public of fifteen thousand pounds.
Mr. Biddulphwas not satisfied with the explanation of the hon. gent. who had not communicated any thing but what the house knew before. Parliament was a great council of finance to the government,
1328
and ought to be constitutionably consulted upon all subjects of new taxes. It was from a conviction, that so far as related to the 252,000 l. the annual charge upon the funded exchequer bills, no new taxes were necessary, as he could shew, and on that account he should oppose the further progress of the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not sensible of any unconstitutional circumstance connected with this measure. If the hon. gent. believed that he could point out a mode of providing for the payment of the interest of the addition to the public debt, without new taxes, that was a sufficient reason for his taking the course he adopted, or preferring his own suggestion. But the house must expect that the hon.*gent. should state his proposition before it would interfere with the progress of the measure. It was desirable, if the bill was to pass in the present session, that it should be passed with all convenient expedition. When the bill should go into the committee, the hon. gent. would have an opportunity of making any suggestion that occurred to him upon it. But the house would not interrupt the progress of the bill upon the bare assertion of any hon. member, that there was a something preferable to the bill, which, upon another occasion, he would state to the house.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that the house had not been called upon, on this occasion, to vote new taxes. The notice referred merely to regulation. As the right hon. gent. had before voted regulations under the pretence of duty, he now voted duties under the pretence of regulation. He would not say that this was absolutely smuggling the measure, but certainly the, proper course had not been taken. His majesty's speech had congratulated the house that a mode had been discovered by which the public service could be carried on without any additional taxes; and yet the right hon. gent. had proposed a new and heavy tax, without notice of his intention in that particular, without laying any ground for it, and without having brought forward the budget in the usual way. He merely disputed the regularity at present, but, whatever mode might ultimately turn out to be the proper one, he thought there were good reasons for delaying the progress of the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the design of the bill was to regulate the collection of these taxes, to lower the rates in some cases, and raise them in others,

1329
and he saw no objection to the mode that had been adopted. Sufficient time would be given to examine it when it came in the committee.
Dr. Laurenceobserved, that the objection was to the principle, and not to the specific bill. Money was to be raised answer a new charge on the consolidated fund, without any statement in the committee of ways and means that it was for that object. The whole that was wanted for the year ought to be brought under the review of the house at once, in order that it might judge whether any, and what taxes were necessary.
Mr. Rosesaid, that the great principle was, not to allow the ways and means to exceed the supply, and this principle we not violated in the present instance. The consolidation act went a great deal further than this bill, and yet no objection had been made to it.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that the notice which had been given of the design to lay this duty was not at all sufficient, even in point of fairness to those who were to be subject to it. There was certainly no occasion for any particular haste, in providing for the interest of the four millions, considering the flourishing state of the consolidate fund, as stated by the gentlemen on the other side. As to the consolidation act, he recollected that there had been a great outcry among the public that taxation was carried on under cover of consolidation This bill was less extensive in its operation, but both were liable to strong objecjections. No injury would result from delaying this bill.—The Bill was then rear a second time.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL
Mr. Bankesmoved the commitment of the Offices in Reversion bill.
Lord Ossulstonrose, and spoke for some time; but so inaudibly, that it was impossible to collect even the general purport of what he said. He seemed to argue against the amendments of which the chancellor of the exchequer had given notice.
The Speaker having left the chair, and Mr. H. Thornton having taken the chair of the committee.
Mr. Bankesrose, and requested leave to remind the committee of the situation in which they now stood, from the former bill having been rejected by the lords. They were thereby precluded, in point of form, from bringing forward exactly the same measure this session. It was on
1330
this account, that he had brought in a bill' with a limitation in point of time. If this was carried, it would at least secure one object, namely, the prevention of any new grant during the limited period, which might affect the proceedings of the committee. With respect to the great measure of absolutely restricting the crown from granting Offices in Reversion, his object was now to proceed in the most conciliating manner possible, without sacrificing the principle of the measure. In opening his views as to the limitation of time, he thought it in vain to propose a longer period than that which had been proposed in the house of lords. This period (two years) was too short in his opinion; but if he were to introduce a longer period, he rather feared it would cut off all chance of the passing of the bill, and disturb the harmony of the two houses. But it had been suggested to him, that this period of two years would be the most offensive that could be introduced, for it was exactly that which the lords themselves had rejected. This consideration had determined him to relinquish this period, and to propose one which he hoped would be equally useful, without subjecting the bill to so much risk. He intended, therefore, that the blank should be filled up, with a provision that the bill should be in force for one year from the passing of the act, and from the close of that period to the end of six weeks from the commencement of the subsequent session of parliament. This would secure the remaining part of the present session, the whole of the next session, and six weeks of the session following. He hoped the house would be satisfied with this at present, with the understanding, that they gave up no part of the principle; but still looked forward to the further object of having the measure rendered permanent. The term would be sufficient for some of the purposes which the committee had in view, and therefore was applicable to the situation in which the house had been placed. He had heard that some objection had been taken, on the ground that the reasons for the bill had not been stated in the preamble. In the spirit of conciliation which he wished to preserve, he would move that it should be stated in the preamble, that the measure was connected with something at present pending in the house of commons, and that the words, 'suspended for a limited time,' should be substituted for the absolute pro-

1331
hibition. He hoped the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer would see that he was disposed to go every possible length for the sake of harmony. His right hon. friend had before stated, that he had no objection to the measure, though he did not think it of much consequence. The object of the amendments of which he had given notice, must therefore have been to render the measure different from what it was before, so that it might meet with no opposition in point of form. As the alteration which he proposed would answer the intended purpose, he hoped his right hon. friend would not persist in his amendments, which he could not agree to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas unwilling that the house, in pursuit of the measure which it thought necessary to be adopted on this occasion, should send back to the lords a bill so entirely similar to that they had before rejected, that their concurrence could not possibly, with any regard to their forms or consistency, be expected. On this ground, he had, on a former night, when his hon. friend proposed a bill similar, if not altogether the same as that so recently rejected in the upper house, intimated in what respects he considered the mode adopted by his hon. friend improper. He admitted then, as well as now, that the limitation in point of time, proposed by a noble friend of his (lord Hawkesbury) in the other house, had his entire concurrence. He therefore could have no objection to that feature of the bill now before the house, otherwise than as being conveyed in a manner in which it could not be expected to pass the other house. He had at that time intimated his intention of proposing a clause, the object of which was entirely mistaken. Understanding that one great ground of complaint against grants in reversion was, that the want of notoriety attending them was likely often to give occasion to their being given to improper persons, he suggested as a remedy, that every future grant of the kind should be published in the gazette. This proposition for regulating the mode of granting, was supposed to imply a determination that grants in reversion should be made, whereas the object of the committee of finance was to keep every office as free and open as possible to any reform they might think proper to introduce. His proposition was by no means intended to impede this object; but having been so
1332
misunderstood, and misrepresented, he should abandon it. He was glad to find that, so far, at least, he proceeded with the general approbation of the house. With the alteration in the preamble also, he gladly coincided, as it fell in with the wish of presenting a new measure to the other house. The former bills proposed to abolish grants in reversion altogether. The present proposed only to suspend the exercise of that part of the prerogative for a time to be limited. Thus the present bill was different from the others in substance and form. Whether, after all, the measure was likely to be supported in the lords so as to pass that house, it was not for him to say; but he thought it incumbent on the friends of the measure, and on the friends of the cordiality of both houses, to avoid framing it so that there would be obvious ground of objection on the face of it, and, consequently, very little probability that it would pass. On these grounds, he approved of the measure as it was now proposed by his hon. friend, and forbore to press the amendments he had on a former night suggested. He had had some other amendments also in view, all tending to the same effect, of making the measure more acceptable to the lords, by coming in a new shape; but he confessed, that the course pursued by his hon. friend, on mature consideration of all the circumstances and all the reasons connected with the general principle, rendered these amendments unnecessary. His opinion of the bill itself was not changed. He neither saw those great benefits which some supposed likely to result from it, in point of public economy; nor did he see that danger to the prerogative which existed in the apprehensions of some of the lords. So far as it was represented to the public, that any great diminution of its burdens could be effected by the retrenchment of these offices, the promise was delusive, and would be attended with great disappointment; to that representation, therefore, he wished to be no party. On the other hand, with respect to the prerogative of the crown, though some alteration might be made by the bill for the present, by taking away the liberty of making grants in reversion, yet, when the offices so granted should fall in, the power of the crown, in that respect, would be increased rather than diminished. He was of opinion, that grants in reversion were often a cheap mode of rewarding public service,

1333
which would otherwise be to be rewarded by actual and immediate remuneration, at the public expense. Yet, with this opinion, he thought it desirable that the bill should pass both houses of parliament, because public notice had been attracted to it; and many members of that house, as well as a great portion of the public out of doors, looked upon it as essential, in a high degree; and though he did not look upon it in that view, he thought so general a feeling ought to be gratified, when no mischief could result therefrom. In this view, he fell in with the propositions of his hon. friend; and his reason for not declaring himself last night was, that he wanted to be informed of the precise course his hon. friend would take.
Mr. Whitbreadcould not help making a few observations upon what had fallen from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. He began with doing him the justice to say, that he had acted with perfect consistency throughout the whole course of the proceedings upon the present measure, because he had professed it to be his opinion, from the beginning, that little advantage was likely to be derived from it. He had all along contended, as he had done this evening, that little benefit was to be expected from it in the way of economical reform, and that those who held it up as a desirable measure in this point of view, either completely misunderstood or misrepresented it. He (Mr. W.) did not think that it would be productive of much present good, but he did think that it might be productive of great ultimate good. The burdens which the people had to support were various in their nature, there were burdens of feeling as well as burdens of taxation, and to their feelings it would certainly prove no small alleviation.—The hon. gent. expressed his satisfaction that the rt. hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had abandoned his amendments; from whatever motive he had been induced to do it, whether from a proper deference to the sense of the people, or from the recommendation of the higher classes of the people, or from the advice of some of his colleagues in office. From whatever motive he had done it, he rejoiced at it, because the amendments, had they been introduced into the bill, would have rendered it worse than nugatory. They had no more connection with the limitation of time, than with any other subject to which they might have been applied. The first, which related to giving
1334
notice of the intention of granting an office in the gazette, it would have been easy to evade by giving that notice in the interval of the prorogation of parliament; and the other, that they should not stand in the way of reform, it would be impossible fairly to carry into effect, without either doing injustice to individuals, or granting them a compensation for the injury they might sustain, out of the public money. These amendments, however, the right hon. gent. was ready to drop, and he now seemed anxious only to pass the bill in such a shape as might not give offence to the other house of parliament, standing there as the advocate and guardian of the honour and dignity of the lords; though, considering his situation, he (Mr. W.) thought that it would have been fully as becoming in him to have asserted the rights and privileges of the commons. He certainly deprecated, as much as any person, a misunderstanding between the two branches of the legislature; but, if such a misunderstanding could only be avoided by a surrender of the privileges of that house, he confessed that he would choose rather the former than the latter part of the alternative. The right hon. gent. too, assumed in argument what he certainly did not shew, and what he (Mr. W.) was far from being convinced of, that if the bill passed the house of commons in its present shape, it would have the concurrence of the lords. So far was he from being convinced of this, that from the record which he now held in his hand of what had passed in the other house of parliament upon the former bill, he was inclined to draw a conclusion directly the reverse. From these minutes, he saw that the principle of the bill had been objected to by a majority of their lordships, and that a protest had been drawn up and signed by certain lords expressly against this principle. The right hon. gent. said that an amendment had been moved by a noble friend of his (lord Hawkesbury) with his concurrence. But, after having assented to the bill to its full extent in the house of commons, it would have been but respectful in the right hon. gent. to have consulted the house before giving his assent to such an amendment, or certainly he ought at least to have consulted his colleagues before he gave his support to the bill without limitation of time. But, it was material that the house of commons should be aware, that the same lords who had voted against the principle of the bill

1335
likewise voted against the amendment; and that his majesty's confidential servant was left in a minority in the upper house, ranged with the opposition against the princes of the blood, and those who supported them. Upon what ground now, therefore, he should be glad to hear, would the present bill not meet the Same fate with the other? He knew that in the other house there were a variety of little implements (alluding to the proxies), which might be shifted backward and forward, so as to bring the king's ministers a second time into a minority, and to afford a new triumph to a party more powerful than the administration.—Mr. Whitbread here recapitulated the fortunes of the measure from the first time that it was proposed down to the present day. In the late parliament the house of commons passed a resolution, founded upon a report of the committee of finance, for an address to the king, praying no offices might in future be granted in reversion, and a bill was brought in to affix the legislative sanction to this resolution. A dissolution of that parliament took place before the bill was passed; but, when the present parliament met the bill was renewed, and passed the house of commons with only one dissenting voice. It was afterwards thrown out in the house of lords, in such a way as to slew that his majesty's ministers did not take a very lively interest in the measure. The house of commons were obliged a second time, on finding their intentions frustrated, to address the king, praying him not to grant offices in reversion. This session another bill was brought in, which, after some debate in the lords, had likewise been thrown out. Now, a bill was brought before the house for preventing the grant of offices in reversion for a limited time, which he thought likely to meet the same fate with the two former bills, the consequence of which would be to compel the house to recur to the old measure of an address to the king. The right hon. gent. seemed to think, that the present bill was not likely to give offence to their lordships; upon what ground, it was difficult to conceive: because, if their lordships were hostile to the principle, there was no change in the principle of the present bill, and the clause limiting its duration had been proposed and negatived He, for one, therefore, had no hope that it would pass into a law even in its present form. He did not wish to exaggerate the benefits to be derived from the
1336
bill; but he was extremely desirous that it should be carried into effect, as the first fruits of the inquiries of the committee of finance. He thought that the wisest and most dignified course for that house to take was, to persevere in sending the bill back to the lords, in its old shape; and therefore, when it came out of the committee, it was his intention to move, upon bringing up the report, that the clause of limitation should be left out altogether. If he should hear, however, in the course of debate, any reason to induce a persuasion on his mind that the bill, even in its present shape, would meet the concurrence of the lords, he should desist from his purpose, hoping that when it expired it would be again renewed, and that, perhaps, at a time when it would have fewer prejudices to encounter. At all events, he thought it better to fill up the blank in the way that had been proposed, than to limit its duration to two years; because it gave an assurance that it would expire during the sitting of parliament.
Mr. Davies Giddythrew out some ideas respecting a plan for remunerating public services, by which, without diminishing the sources of national liberality, an immense saving might be effected. A sum, not exceeding 166,000 l. granted in life annuities to public servants, above 45 years of age, would be amply sufficient for that purpose.
Mr. Fullerconsidered the measure as a tub thrown to the whale, and left by his majesty's ministers to float its own way. The late ministers managed their tubs better; time bill for abolishing the Slave trade, for instance: their chancellor having remained in to give it the final sanction, after all his colleagues had resigned. Though he thought the bill of no use, he was willing to gratify the public by passing it. He respected the people, and felt for them, and thought that they ought to be gratified as much as possible, even in their follies; particularly in a case like the present, when this could be done without much injury to their interests. For his own part, he was of opinion that the power of granting reversions was of great service to the public, as a mean of rewarding public services; and infinitely preferable to granting pensions, which, when they fell vacant, a minister might either put into his own pocket, or give to a child at school.
Sir John Newportexpressed his surprise to find the present measure considered by

1337
any one as of little importance. He held in his hand a list of offices held in reversion in Ireland, which would completely demonstrate the fallacy of this opinion. He merely mentioned a few of them by way of specimen In the custom-house department, there were no fewer than nine offices held in reversion, to each of which a salary of 300 l. a year was annexed. And here it was material to observe, that it was not the amount of the salaries which formed the most objectionable part of the arrangement; but the serious part of the evil was, that they presented an insurmountable obstacle to reform in that department. The office of storekeeper of the port of Dublin had been originally granted for three lives, and was now held for two lives (tile two Beresfords), to which was annexed a salary of 2135 l. which might be spared to the public, after paying a deputy for performing all the duties of the office. And here also, the loss was not confined to the salary paid; but the existence of the office itself rendered it impossible to reform the present system of storages, from which the public was a material sufferer. Accordingly, he had proposed to grant a compensation to the holder and expectant of the office, provided that they would give up their titles to it, to relieve the public from a loss to which it was at present subjected, of more than six times the amount of the salary. It would, he said, be quite endless to go through the list, and therefore he should merely mention a few more by way of specimen. The office of craner and wharfinger of the port of Dublin, all the duties of which were performed by a deputy for 300 l. was held by two brothers of a noble marquis, with the reversion to lord H S. Conway, with a salary of nearly. 1000 l. a year. The office of comptroller of the port of Cork was held by sir J. Lees, with the reversion to his two sons, with a salary of 800 l. a year, after paying a deputy for discharging the duty. The right hon. baronet asserted, that if the house of lords wished to know upon what grounds the bill was recommended by the house, it would be sufficient to send up the list which he now held in his hand. The office of taster of wines, which had been dropped for two centuries, was renewed in favour of the right hon. J. Beresford, with a salary of 1000 l. a year. If he were to go into the law department, there he could find places, not merely of 8 or 900 l, but of 9, 10 or 12,000 l. a year. He
1338
should merely mention one circumstance connected with this department, to shew to what extent abuses had been carried. About four years ago, when an act of parliament was passed to transfer in future such causes as it had been usual to try in the court of exchequer in Ireland, to the court of king's bench or common pleas, a commission was at the same time appointed to inquire into the amount of fees which had been paid to the officers of the exchequer court, and a compensation was granted to them upon the average amount of these fees for three years, out of the consolidated fund; and this commission had been actually employed for three weeks in considering whether a compensation ought not to be made to the rat-catcher to the board of ordnance! In short, he would take upon himself to prove, that compensation had been given in many instances by a noble lord (Castlereagh), whom he did not now see in his place, and who never failed to make his escape when any part of his conduct in Ireland was likely to be touched upon, merely to procure the assent of the individuals who received it to the union between the two countries. He should now mention one instance out of many which he could adduce. About a year before the union took place, he applied to a noble lord to accept the office of chairman of the Irish house of peers; and upon that noble lord's pleading his ill state of health as an excuse, he prevailed upon him to comply, by assuring him that he would only have the duty to perform for one year, and that he should have the salary for life. All promises and engagements of this nature which the noble lord had entered into, had been most scrupulously observed; but, unfortunately, every promise which he had made to the people seemed to be utterly forgotten.
Mr. Biddulphmade a few observations in reply to some suggestions thrown out by Mr. Davies Giddy, for the establishment of a fund for the purpose of remunerating distinguished public services.
Mr. Tierneywhether he was to, understand that the bill, in its present form, would have the full and cordial support of his majesty's ministers? [No answer was given.]
Lord Porchestercontended, that after the abuses which had been enumerated by the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport), whose accuracy could not be questioned, and which he had given as but a small specimen of those which he knew to exist, it

1339
must be obvious that there was no part of the prerogative which was more abused than the power of granting offices in reversion. The house of commons had been frequently called upon in the course of the present and the late war, to grant rewards to those who, by eminent and splendid services, had recommended themselves to the gratitude of the country, and he trusted that they would have many more calls of a similar kind to answer; but, he appealed to the recollection of any member of the committee, whether he remembered to have heard of such services being rewarded with offices which it had been customary to grant in reversion; though the crown was certainly in possession of the means of amply rewarding, from this fund alone, services the most conspicuous and brilliant. The chancellor of the exchequer had said, that this was the cheapest mode of remunerating public services, and his lordship was very much afraid that promises and expectations were too often the only way in which the meritorious servants of the public were rewarded. With respect to the present bill, he thought that the honour and character of the house were staked upon the measure; and that though it was important in itself, it had acquired an additional importance from this circumstance, independent of its own intrinsic merits. The right hon. gent, had told the committee (and his lordship confessed that he had heard him with not a little astonishment), that it was possible for the house of commons to send up the bill to the house of lords, in such a shape as not to merit even common attention from their lordships. Such was the language held by that right hon. gent. who united in himself the two offices of chancellor of the exchequer, and of a zealous and strenuous advocate for the dignity and honour of the house of lords! His lordship, however, reminded the committee, that the house of commons possessed the means of enforcing attention to their measures; or, at least, if they did not, their ancestors had them. He hoped, therefore, that they would shew the people that they were not wholly wanting in that spirit which had animated their forefathers; and that they would persevere till they had attained their object, with a firm determination to do their duty, discouraged by no difficulties, and undaunted by the frown of princes. He begged pardon for the warmth with which he expressed himself, but it was excited by the expres-
1340
sion which had fallen from the right hon. gent. which he had heard with a mixture of surprize and indignation. He should accede to the bill, in its present shape, hoping that, at a future period, it would be carried into effect without any limitation of time.
Mr. Wilberforcecomplimented his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) for having, in the conduct of the present measure, shewn himself to be animated with the truest spirit of patriotism. Those who wished to prevent a breach between the two branches of the legislature, and who were anxious at the same time to carry into effect an important measure of public reform, would, he was firmly convinced, agree with him in opinion, that for the alterations which had been introduced into the bill, his hon. friend was entitled to the thanks of that house, and of the country. He asked those who seemed to object to any modification of the bill which might tend to remove the objections which were felt to the former bill in the house of lords, to bear in mind that there were two branches of the legislature, and that it was impossible to carry any measure into effect without the concurrence of both. This being the case, if they really had it at heart to do some effectual and substantial good for the country, they must be desirous to pursue the object which they had in view in the way which was least objectionable, and which was least likely to shock the prejudices of the other house. How, then, did the matter stand? A bill, prohibiting the grant of offices in reversion, had been repeatedly sent up to the other house, and repeatedly rejected; and all that now remained for them to do, with a view to a more fortunate practical result, was to frame the present measure in such a way as to obviate those objections which had produced the failure of the two former bills. He was far from thinking the present a measure of small importance; because it was impossible to say to what length the vicious principle which it went to eradicate might grow. Pensions might come to be granted in reversion as well as places. There was another view in which it struck him as important. The granting of reversions was peculiarly liable to abuse, and on that account singularly calculated to excite public odium. When a place was bestowed only for one life, there was a barrier in public opinion against its being improperly conferred, because the character

1341
of the person to whom it was given was known; but it was otherwise with places in reversion, which might devolve upon persons totally disqualified from holding them, either by their characters or talents. Under a popular goverment, such as that under which we lived, it was more material than under any other to guard against the possibility of such abuses; and it was the duty of that house, not to leave any blots to which the finger of public scorn might be pointed, because they produced an effect upon the minds of the people beyond their real worth. In difficult times, too, like the present, every thing ought to be done to lighten the vessel of the state, that it might ride more securely in the midst of the storm. The present measure he contended to be one branch of a species of reform which it was completely in the power of parliament to accomplish. If there were no other reasons for acquiescing in the bill in its present modified shape, he was of opinion, that this consideration ought to have weight with the house, viz. the impolicy of holding out one branch of the legislature to public odium. It ought also to be recollected, that in a constitution such as that under which we had the happiness to live, and which was composed of different orders, it was the duty of the house of commons to meet the other house halfway: and such a line of conduct, he insisted, would be much more creditable, than pursuing the barren and unproductive honour of merely preserving its own consistency.
Mr. Tierneythought it an erroneous ground of argument to suppose, that the alterations now made would conciliate the lords. There was no good reason to think that would be the case. He gave full credit to the motives which had induced the hon. gent. to make the alterations now before the house; but he could not help thinking these alterations an abandonment of the principle the house had so frequently asserted, without any one thinking of limiting it in point of duration. If he could be sure the bill, as amended, would pass, he would not press his sentiments. But he looked in vain for any thing like such an assurance. He had a respect for the lords, but he was bound more to respect the feelings of the people; and the lords were as much bound to do so as he. Both houses had the same means of judging of the feelings and sentiments of the people. He had asked his majesty's mi-
1342
nisters, who might be supposed capable of judging, whether the measure would have the support of all his majesty's ministers? But he could get no satisfactory answer, as the bill, though above a year under discussion, had never been a subject of cabinet consideration. A greater number of lords had, on a former occasion, strongly opposed the limitation in time, than opposed the principle of the bill. How, then, could it be expected, that what they so lately rejected with increased asperity, would now be acceptable to them. Some of their lordships had declared they would not sanction such a measure for a day. The house of commons had the rights of the people to maintain, and it was their duty to adhere to those rights. It was certainly an evil, if any branch of the legislature was brought into disrepute. But, what if this unworthy conduct was pursued with respect to the very highest branch, by a dark junto hid behind the throne. Such practices had been known in the worst times of our history; but the junto had never till now, come forth and arrayed itself against his majesty's ministers. He had been told this language had been used to his majesty's ministers: "They know who made thorn ministers, and the same power might unmake them." Indeed, the conduct of his majesty's ministers towards their sovereign had been highly criminal. It was not his charge to defend the executive power. But, he was sorry to say, his majesty's name was now in circumstances in which no good man would wish to see it placed. The right hon. gentlemen opposite had, indeed, commenced their administration on the same principle. The constitutional principle was, that the king should have the credit of every thing good and gracious, and the ministers all the blame of what might be of a different character. But the right hon. gentlemen opposite acted very differently, and introduced and allowed the use of the sovereign's name, coupled with conduct the most ungracious. He adverted to the address presented by the sheriffs of the city of London, which was complimented by his majesty as an example worthy of general imitation. But, next day, the same sheriffs presented petitions to both houses in favour of this bill, which was thought so dangerous and disloyal as wholly to undermine the prerogative. How was this inconsistency to be accounted for? Probably a whisper had been given to one of the leading aldermen. This

1343
mode of proceeding was not honourable. But, upon what occasion had the right hon. gentlemen opposite expressed one fair or manly sentiment in the whole course of the proceedings on this question? He knew well, that the only principle that actuated the right hon. gentlemen was how they could retain. their offices. The principle of the measure was, that no offices should be granted in reversion, and the economic representation contained in his majesty's Speech could allude to nothing but this measure. He preferred a resolution of the house to be carried to the foot of the throne to a deformed bill, which might ultimately be unsuccessful. No dark junto could impede such a resolution. His majesty would, no doubt, give his faithful commons the assurance that would satisfy them on that head. This would be a security for a year, and might be constantly renewed, and the bill might be continually pressed in the mean time, with the chance of those advantages that mature reflection and the operation of external circumstances might give. But when this temporary bill should expire, supposing it in the first instance to pass, what security was there that a more violent opposition than ever might not be made to the renewal? Unless the bill was made a government measure, there was no chance that it would pass, and it might be cast back at the close of the session, without any other effect from the concession made by the commons, than the loss of that public esteem and approbation acquired by the perseverance with which the whole Measure had been so repeatedly pressed on the upper house. The people were attached to this measure, because it was the corner-stone of a system of reformation, founded upon plain and practicable principles, such as were acted upon by the late administration, in their abstaining to dispose of the reversion of a Tellership which had fallen in, a short time before their resignation. The proceedings now adopted would leave nothing on the journals to mark the stand which it was the duty of the house to make. Why was not a conference demanded, according to the ancient constitutional practice? If the lords were called upon to assign reasons, why might not an amicable arrangement be entered into by both parties? But, there was a third party which was unfortunately too powerful. If the bill did not pass, he hoped a resolution would be carried to the foot of the throne, and renewed
1344
as often as it expired, till the measure could be carried. He again adverted to the importance of the bill to the people, and the duty of the bill to the people and the duty of the house to maintain it. He was most anxious for the rights of the people, but he was equally so for the honour of the sovereign, which was materially implicated and compromised by the conduct his majesty's ministers had pursued.
After a short conversation between Mr. H. Martin, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Whitbread, an amendment was inserted in the preamble of the bill, stating that the measure was adopted with a view to promote, or encourage, an important inquiry which was now making by the house of commons; another amendment substituted the term 'suspending' instead of 'prohibiting' the granting of places in reversion.—The proviso for granting to the judges, &c. reservations similar to those of the crown, Mr. Bankes proposed to extend to bishops and archbishops, which, after a short conversation, in which Mr. H. Martin and Mr. W. Smith participated, was agreed to.—Various verbal amendments were made in the bill, and the house having been resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
Mr. Whitbreadgave notice, that as the hon. gentlemen opposite persisted in their silence on the subject, he should persevere in his original intention, and move tomorrow such alterations in the bill, as would restore it precisely to the state in which the last bill quitted the house for the house of lords.
The Speakerapprised the hon. gent. that such a proposition would be contrary to the course of parliamentary proceeding.
Mr. Whitbreadthen intimated, that he should propose to make the bill literally different from the last, though substantially the same.
The Speakerstill declaring, that it was irregular to make such a proposition,
Mr. Whitbreadstated, that he should probably move to extend the limitation to a term of 99 years. He expressed his desire, that the hon. gent. would postpone the bringing up of the report until Monday, to give time for a due consideration of the most effectual steps for the attainment of his object.
Mr. Bankesreplied, that as the subject was one of great public interest, and one which had excited considerable public attention, he was anxious that the bill should proceed with as little delay as possible.

1345
The hon. gent. might submit any amendments that he thought proper on the third reading.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that he would prepare himself with some suitable amendments for to-morrow, as he was determined not to allow the bill to pass through another stage without submitting to the house his opinion on the subject.

JESUITS BARK BILL.
On the Petition of Mr. de Testat against the Jesuits Bark bill, Mr. Campbell appeared as counsel for the petitioner, and stated the circumstances under which Mr. de Testat would be a great sufferer if this bill was carried into effect; and several witnesses were examined in support of the petition. Mr. Campbell then requested till to-morrow, or such other day as their lordships should please to appoint, to sum up. The lord chancellor called upon him to sum up now.—Lord Grenville suggested, that in fairness and justice to the petitioner, time should be given till to-morrow, to enable the learned counsel the better to consider the evidence.—Lord Hawkesbury saw no reason for delay; the ease was not of a complicated nature, and did not in his opinion, require any further postponement. —A conversation of some length ensued, in which lord Holland moved, that the counsel should sum up to-morrow. Lord Auckland moved as an amendment, that the counsel should be called upon to state what delay he asked, and the reasons for asking it. This amendment was opposed by lord Hawkesbury, and supported by lords Grenville and Erskine. The amendment was negatived.&—The house then divided on the main question for hearing the counsel to-morrow: Contents, 15: Non-contents, 32. Majority, 17.—Mr. Camp-

1321
bell then proceeded briefly to sum up and comment upon the evidence.—On the question for the third reading of the bill,
Earl Bathurststated the object of the bill, which, he said, had been miscalled a bill of privation, as it went to allow the exportation of bark upon certain conditions. Information had been received, that the French government, wishing to obtain a supply of this article, had given directions that this article should be. admitted into the French ports, although coming from this country, provided it formed the sole cargo of the vessel. It was thought a little too much, that the enemy should not only obtain this article of which he stood in need, but should also obtain it upon his own terms; and therefore this measure was resorted to, in order that the enemy might be prevented from obtaining a supply of this article, unless he took with it British colonial produce, or British manufactures. He could not conceive, therefore, that this bill was liable to any of those objections which had been urged against it. A noble and learned lord had, on a former night, urged an objection to it on the ground of religion; but surely there could be nothing inconsistent with the dispensations of Providence in assisting and promoting human industry.
Lord Erskine,notwithstanding the arguments of the noble earl, still maintained the opinion which he before urged, that this measure was contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity; and so strongly did he feel upon this subject, that he intended, in case the house agreed to the bill, to embody the reasons which operated in his mind against it in the form of a protest, that they might remain upon the journals of the house, and go down to posterity. It could not be said to be analogous to the case of a siege, because there the object was, in forcing the besieged to endure privations, to compel them to surrender, by which they might put an end to those privations; but by this measure, sickness and disease were to be bereft of a medicine, which was an effectual remedy, and this without any object to be attained, but that of distressing the innocent inhabitants of the continent. Such a mode of warfare was inconsistent with the dictates of the christian religion; and he rejoiced, that on this occasion, the reverend prelates who usually attended that house, did not attend to vote in favour of this measure. As to the information stated by the noble
1322
earl to have been received, that house knew nothing of it, and therefore it could not form a ground for supporting this measure.
Lord Boringdoncontended, that the principle upon which supplies were cut off from a besieged town equally applied to this measure, and to the measures of which it formed a part: and he thought it highly probable, that they would have a similar effect with the cutting off supplies from a besieged town, within a period not longer even than some of the sieges during the last war, by forcing the enemy to repeal his decrees against the commerce of this country. The principle of prohibiting the exportation of bark, was not here in question; as, under the operation of this measure, France might have bark if she chose, that is to say, if she chose to take along with it articles of British manufacture or commerce.
The Earl of Albemarle whollyreprobated this measure, which he considered as utterly indefensible, it being contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of humanity, highly impolitic, and at the same time inefficacious, even in the view of those who proposed it. What effect could it have on the armies of France? It was merely to operate on the sick and disabled; it was earring on war with hospitals, and not so much with the sick and disabled soldiers, as the innocent peasant. It had been said in a former debate by a noble lord, that if we had the hands of Europe against us, we had with us the hearts of many of its inhabitants; but if this measure was to be carried into effect, we should have both the hands and hearts of all Europe against us. It would be besides of no. avail: there was already a sufficient quantity of bark on the continent. The noble earl quoted the prices of jesuits' bark in Feb. at Paris, to prove that it was not higher at that period, than the price in this country. This bill therefore could not have the effect attributed to it by a noble lord, of operating with any compulsory effect upon the enemy, he having already a sufficient supply of this article; it could only have the effect of displaying a principle of warfare wholly inconsistent with those feelings of justice and honour, which had hitherto formed distinguishing features in the British character.
The Earl of Westmorelandcontended, that noble lords on the other side, when in administration, had by their blockade excluded bark, as well as other things (bark not being excepted), from the continent,

1323
and that therefore that measure must stand upon the same principle as the present. When the noble lords talked of the distress inflicted upon the enemy, it should be recollected that the enemy had by his decrees endeavoured to ruin the commerce and manufactures of this country, and thereby to inflict the greatest misery upon thousands of persons employed in them. Was it, then, to he regarded as an act of inhumanity to prevent him from obtaining an article of which he stood in need, unless he took with it a portion of those manufactures which he endeavoured to ruin? Was it not rather an act of policy, consistent with and required by the interests of the country? He concluded with observing, that the arguments of the noble lords on the opposite side, tended, as they had done during the whole sessions, to favour the views of the enemy.
Lord Hollandcombated the general principle of the measure, which was not calculated so much to affect the armies of our enemies, as to distress the women, children, and peasantry, in Spain and Portugal, in which countries it was well known with what care and humanity the landholders made it their business to provide their tenantry with this necessary article. The French armies, it must be known to every one, would not want, so long as a supply was to be had; it must, therefore, be by the helpless and oppressed inhabitants that this privation would be chiefly felt.
Lord Mulgravevindicated the present bill as one of those measures which were called for by the aggressions of our enemy. If he would resort to an unusual and unauthorised mode of warfare, nothing remained for us but to follow his example, and, by retaliation, to compel him to return into the common and established track.
The Earl of Lauderdalecould not forbear noticing the highly unparliamentary conduct of the noble lord who bore his majesty's privy seal, in charging noble lords on that side of the house, with having made it their business, for the last month, to do nothing else but repeat the language of the enemies of the country. Such language was highly indecorous at any time; but it was still more so, at a moment when the manufacturers and merchants of the country were seen at their lordships bar, professing, and adducing evidence in support of similar arguments to those which he and other noble lords had maintained, His lordship could
1324
not believe that any British peer, or, indeed, that any British subject, could be found, at the present moment, vile enough even in idea to countenance the enemies of the country. If however such a sentiment could he imputed to any one, it must be to those who could support an administration capable of introducing measures like the present.
Lord Redesdalesupported the bill, as consistent with sound policy, and the law of nature.
Lord Grenvilletook a comprehensive view of the subject. He particularly cautioned the house to look well at the consideration they were to receive as the price of the honour, justice, and humanity of the country. The assertion of the noble lord (Mulgrave) that we were entitled to resort to whatever species of warfare might be adopted against us, he confessed surprized him not a little. Were we, if at war with a nation of Indians, because they might scalp our men who fell into their hands, to retaliate on them by scalping their people in return? If at war with the Persians, and they poured poisoned weapons into our tents, were we too to poison the weapons with which we fought? If they poisoned our streams of water, were we to retaliate by poisoning their fountains? If they employed assassination against us, were we to turn our swords from fair and honourable warfare, to match them in deeds of treachery and disgrace? Such, he thanked God, had never been our system of waging war; nor, till the present measures were introduced, had we ever sacrificed a particle of our national character. It had been remarked, that one of the greatest ornaments of the city of Lyons was an hospital for the sick and infirm; when that city was attacked by Robespierre, he ordered his cannon to be directed principally against this structure, as being an object the destruction of which gave peculiar delight to his sanguinary and inhuman disposition. In adopting the present measure, we endeavoured to assimilate ourselves to that monster of inhumanity; for what else was the present bill, but a cannon directed against the hospitals on the continent? The bill, however, had this additional disadvantage, that it was completely futile and inadequate. So that all we should gain by the measure would be, to evince the inclination, without possessing the power, to do evil.
The Lord Chancellor,in answer to the noble lord who spoke last, referred to an

1325
act of the administration of which that noble lord was a member, by which the importation of provisions into France was prohibited, and asked, if it was possible for any person to have acquiesced in that measure, and yet to argue as the noble lord had done against that now under consideration?
Lord Hawkesburydefended the bill with great force and animation. He contended, that in no respect was it inconsistent with justice and humanity, or sound policy, but conformable to the practice of this country at all times. The present measure was but a link in the series of measures which had been imperiously called for, by the urgent necessity of retaliation, and of the agency of every means that could bring the enemy to a sense of his own blind violence and injustice; in short, it was one which promised to operate the salvation of the country—an effect which experience already began to prove had taken place to no small extent. As to the charges of inhumanity and cruelty which were affixed to the measure by the noble lords opposite, he could not but be surprised to hear them from the lips of the noble baron (Grenville), who was himself the author of a measure in 1794, which evidently tended to starve the population of France without any distinction.
Lord Rosslyncould not help making this observation; that the price at which bark had been procured for the British army in 1805, was only one shilling lower than that at which it was known to be now selling at Paris. What, then; could be expected from the pressure which it was likely to produce on the enemy?
The question was now eagerly called for, and the house divided on the third reading of the bill. Contents, 54; Proxies, 56—110: Non-contents, 22; Proxies, 22—44: Majority, 66.
Lord Grenvillepresented a clause by way of rider, with a view to indemnify individuals, who should be injured by the bill. Lord Hawkesbury opposed the clause, as laying down a bad precedent. It was rejected without a division.—The bill was then passed.
[PROTEST AGAINST THE JESUITS BARK BILL.] "Dissentient; 1. Because the jesuits' bark, the exportation of which is prohibited by this bill, has been found by long experience to be a specific for many dangerous diseases which war has a tendency to spread at d to exasperate; and because to employ as an engine of war the
1326
privation of the only remedy for some of the greatest sufferings which war is capable of inflicting, is manifestly repugnant to the principles of the christian religion, contrary to humanity, and not justified by any practice of civilized nations.—2. Because the means to which recourse has been hitherto had in war, have no analogy to the barbarous enactment of this bill; inasmuch as it is not even contended that the privation to be created by it has any tendency whatever to self-defence, or to compel the enemy to the restoration of peace; the only legitimate object by which the infliction of the calamities of war can in any case be justified.—3. Because the only possible answer to these objections is, that the bill will not produce the privation which is held forth as its ostensible object, inasmuch as the jesuits bark may be exported under licences front the crown; but such an answer would only prove the bill to be wholly useless to its purposes, whilst it would still leave in its full operation the odious precedent of having resorted, in cold blood, for the mere speculative sale of our manufactures, even to the possible infliction of miseries not to be vindicated but by the view of self-preservation, or, in the extremities of war, directed to that justifiable object.—4. Because, as no scarcity of the jesuits' bark appears to exist in France, and as, in the contrary case, no possible exertion on the part of this country could effectually prevent its importation into the numerous ports under the dominion or controul of the French government, the bill appears to us to be grossly vicious in principle, whilst it is absolutely nugatory in practice, and therefore in every point of view, disgraceful and absurd.—5. Because if it were even just, expedient, or practicable, to force the importation of our manufactures upon our enemies, by withholding the jesuits' bark but upon condition of their permitting such importation, that principle should have been distinctly expressed in the bill, and the conditions specifically declared in it, instead of vesting in the crown an arbitrary discretion to dispense with the prohibition by licences, a power destructive of the equality of British commerce, and dangerous to the freedom of the British constitution. (Signed,) Erskine, Cholmondeley, Upper Ossory, Bedford, Ponsonby, (earl of Besborough), Albemarle, Ponsonby, (of Immokilly), EsSex, Carrington, Grenville, Rosslyn, Lauderdale, Clifton, (earl of Darnley.)"