Sitting of 15 June 1808

CRIMINAL LAW.
On the motion of sir Samuel Romilly, that the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house on the Privately Stealing bill,
Mr. Burtonsaid, that during the last twenty or thirty years it had been his lot to have some experience in the administration of the Criminal Law; he should therefore be wanting in his duty to the public, as well as respect to his learned friend, if he omitted to pay what attention he could to the present bill; and he was desirous to state a few observations upon it before the Speaker left the chair, because they were connected with the principle of the bill. He confessed he was somewhat at a loss whether to look for the principle in the enacting part, or the preamble, because they seemed to be at variance with each other, or at least not co-extensive. The preamble laid down very general abstract positions, which far exceeded the object of the bill, and went to condemn a very large proportion of our criminal laws. Now, in his opinion (without stopping to discuss the truth of the positions), nothing could be more objectionable than to pronounce by statute such a parliamentary condemnation of a great part of our criminal laws, and yet to leave those very laws in full force. To him, consequently, it appeared indispensable to expunge the preamble altogether, and introduce another suited to the limited object of the bill. The principle, as it was to be collected from the enacting part, was to abolish the capital punishment, and to reduce the offence as well as the punishment, down to the standard of simple larceny. Now so far as it took away the punishment of death, he was inclined to approve it; because sentences of death often pronounced in cases where they were scarcely ever fit to be executed, tended much to diminish their effect: but he could by no
878
means accede to the propriety of leaving the offence punishable with no greater severity than simple larceny. His learned friend was reported to have introduced the bill with pretty severe comments on the statute of Elizabeth intended to be repealed; and any proposition of his was sure to come recommended by so much eloquence as to render it a difficult matter to consider it immediately with an unbiassed mind: yet upon reference to the statute, it would be found to contain a statement of facts verified by an experience of two centuries and a half, and equally applicable to the present time. It states that the offenders then called cut-purses were very numerous, confederated into fraternities of an art or mystery to live idly by secret spoil, even to the impoverishment of many, frequenting for that purpose places of public resort, such as places of divine worship, the court, courts of justice, fairs, markets, and places of execution, and being habited in such a garb as to elude suspicion. To this enumeration of places, the bank of England, and the approach to bankers' shops, might now be added: in every other respect the description suited the present time. He was well informed by magistrates of experience that the number at present exceeded hundreds, some thought to the amount of several; that many underwent a regular training to the art; that they plundered to such an amount, and were so far confederated, that large sums were never wanting for the purpose of procuring the ablest assistance upon their trials, or of buying off prosecutors or witnesses; upon the whole, next to nightly housebreakers, no class of offenders were so pernicious. It was also observable that the circumstances described in this statute had always been deemed aggravations of the offence of simple larceny, and therefore deserving of an aggravated degree of punishment. Such were the number of offenders, and the extent of the depredations, that they were perpetrated with an art which denoted education, by gangs which were dangerous, and in a manner to elude all ordinary care and vigilance. That these practices prevailed to an alarming extent, and would not be repressed without severer punishment than transportation for seven years (the highest punishment for simple larceny), he could unfortunately testify from his own experience, in the county palatine of Chester. What had there happened within these few years, he

879
was sure must strike the benevolent mind of his learned friend. During four or five years preceding the spring of 1860, several boys had been there brought to trial; the numbers had been increasing, till seven or eight at one assizes appeared to be confederated in a regular gang, and to hive frequented the neighbouring fairs and markets, executing their designs with all the same art and system that was to be found within the metropolis. The court, having before tried milder punishments, proceeded upon this occasion in two instances to transportation for seven years; but so little terror did this punishment inspire, that at the spring assizes in 1806, among forty prisoners, there was the melancholy exhibition of no fewer than 17 boys between the ages of 12 and 16. They came from the manufacturing part of the county, and their offence was generally that of privately stealing, either from the shop or the person. Several were acquitted, either from accidental defects, or for want of prosecution through the tenderness of their prosecutors: but among those who were convicted, some received sentence of death, and the former punishments having proved ineffectual, it was judged necessary to make a severer example by transporting two for seven years, and recommending two of the capital convicts to the royal mercy on transportation for life. This increased severity happily produced a better effect, insomuch, that during the four last assizes, only four boys had appeared in the calendars, and none of them members of any regular confederacy. From all the foregoing circumstances he drew this inference; that simply to repeal the statute of Elizabeth, as the bill proposed, would operate, not to the prevention, but to the encouragement of this species of theft, and that the power of transporting for life was indispensable. There existed, likewise, one difficulty in prosecutions under the statute of Elizabeth, which arose out of the construction which had been put upon the words, 'privily without his knowledge.' This difficulty might, in his opinion, be removed with advantage, by annexing the severer punishment to any larceny from the person, under circumstances not amounting to robbery: because it was an old and just principle in the law, that the person as well as the house ought to be protected with more than common care. For a similar reason it was, in his opinion, unwise to make any distinction as to the
880
value of the thing stolen; no such distinction being made either in the case of robbery from the person, or in that of burglary; more especially likewise as it often happened, even where a large property was stolen from the person, that the money if found having, in the language of the law, no ear mark, could rarely be proved; whilst the purse, or the pocket-book containing it, though of trifling value, could easily be identified. For these reasons he strongly recommended, that instead of death, should be substituted transportation for life, or any shorter time not less than 7 years, or a long or short imprisonment with or without hard labour, at the discretion of the court, as the case might require. If therefore his learned friend was disposed to allow that the bill should be thus modified in the committee, he was inclined to think that it might prove an amendment of the law.
Mr. Herbert(of Kerry) likewise objected to the preamble of the bill. Human laws, he said, were made for preventing, not for avenging crimes, and hence it often happened that punishments seemed to be disproportioned to the crimes. There were two different kinds of criminal legislation, according to archdeacon Paley: the one was that which assigned capital punishments only to the highest species of crimes; the other, that which, had been adopted in this country, assigned capital punishments to a variety of crimes, but inflicted it upon only a few persons of each class by way of example. He had no hesitation in confessing that he agreed in opinion with the excellent author to whom he had alluded, but he should not be so averse to the bill itself were it not for the declaration in the preamble. He hoped, however, that at all events it would be postponed till another session.
Sir Arthur Piggottagreed that the criminal law of the land ought not rashly to be altered. But he contended that the law had not answered the great purpose of preventing crimes, and that its failure ought to be ascribed to its severity, which in many instances prevented persons from prosecuting those guilty of smaller offences. How far it might be proper to modify the severity of the punishment, was another question not now before the house, and which would furnish matter of discussion in the committee.
The Solicitor Generalthought that there was at least so much good in the bill as to sanction the going into a committee

881
upon it, for the purpose of seeing whether it was possible to find a remedy for an evil of very great magnitude, or not. He did not mean, however, to pledge himself finally to give it his support, because he was not sure whether it would be possible for the committee to remove his objections to it.
Mr. C. W. Wynneconfessed that the house ought not rashly to alter the criminal law of the country. The law, however, which it was now proposed to change, had never been executed in the recollection of any person now living. The consequence of this was, that its effect was lessened, because the probability of escape was great. He was of opinion, that it might be expedient to leave a discretionary power to the judges, of transporting for life persons guilty of the offences to which the bill applied; indeed, he thought, that transportation for life was generally preferable to transportation for a limited time; because when the culprits returned, being wholly without character or protection, they were in most cases compelled to revert to their former habits.
Mr. Ponsonbyagreed with those who were of opinion, that the house ought to go into a committee on the bill; because there was nothing in the bill which ought not to be the great object of all criminal law, namely, suiting the punishment to the crime.
Mr. Leycestercontended, that the law could never provide satisfactorily for the great variety of cases, in which it would be to be decided by circumstances, whether the offence should or should not be punished with severity. It was only by the discretion of the judge that cases of this kind could be properly regulated, and therefore he disapproved of the principle of the bill.
Sir Ralph Milbankethought that the less discretion was left in the administration of criminal justice, the better; and agreed with a learned author, who had said, that it was better to have law without equity, than equity without law. He should certainly vote for going into a committee on the bill.
Sir Samuel Romillydid hope that this bill would pass in the present session. He thought the preamble of the bill ought to be retained. It contained the reasons on which he brought in the bill, and on which he hoped it would pass. But if gentlemen thought differently from him, he would give up the preamble, and be
882
content to substitute the common preamble, 'Whereas it is expedient.' The present extreme rigour of the law shocked the humanity of prosecutors, of juries, of judges, and led them to compromise the law and the offence, rather than go to the extent of inflicting capital punishment where it was severe beyond all proportion to the crime. This frequent impunity encouraged offenders to repeat their crimes, and if, after a multitude of escapes, they at length suffered, they attributed the misfortune to accident or want of dexterity, rather than to justice and the vigour and vigilance of the law. He cited Mr. Justice Blackstone to prove, that this lenity of judges and juries, from the necessity of doing something to counteract the extreme rigour of the law, encouraged offenders to go on. The legislature, in suffering the excessive penalties that required this evasion to remain, was an accomplice in the encouragement given to criminality. It was lamentable that when any person proposed to render the law more mild, the jealousy of so many persons was excited; and that, when it was proposed to add to its severity, no complaint was made. A bill had recently passed adding nine new capital felonies to the former catalogue. To this bill nobody objected, though, he would maintain, that an increase of severity was as great an innovation as a repeal of severity to the same extent. He also adverted to the Indictment Bill lately passed, as an innovation of much greater magnitude than the present bill. He adverted to the committee appointed twenty years ago, of which Mr. Fox was a member, to inquire what criminal punishments ought to be repealed. They reported six statutes. The bill of repeal passed this house, but was lost in the lords by the prorogation of parliament, though the first authorities in that house agreed to repeal five of the six acts reported. He allowed that a remedy was found in explaining the value of money under the statute of Elizabeth, according to the relative value of goods at that time and at present. But this remedy was not of a satisfactory kind. It was merely discretionary, and the exercise of that discretion was not always regulated by the best reasons. He knew a case, and it was well known, in which a judge of very respectable character directed the jury to find a stolen key of the full capital value, because it appeared to be stolen with a view to commit a theft. From all these reasons, he hoped the house

883
would not only go into the committee, but ultimately pass the bill.—The house then went into the committee.
The Solicitor-Generalstated his reasons for proposing certain new clauses. He should suggest certain alterations, both in the description of the offence, and in the punishment to be inflicted. It was a crame of considerable magnitude, and was, no doubt, daily increasing. He could state, however, what appeared to him to be one real cause of criminals having been so often acquitted of the charge of privately stealing. If, upon a trial, it turned out that an individual lost his purse or watch, and had, in the moment, perceived the act committed, that circumstance freed the criminal from the capital part of the punishment. If, on the contrary, the individual robbed perceived the commission of the fact, it being generally committed by gangs of persons, who transferred the property from one to another, still that individual could not fix upon the very person whose hand took the property, and consequently the whole of the criminals were acquitted of the capital part of the charge. This, he thought, accounted much more naturally for the frequent instances of impunity which had occurred. The offence was that of feloniously taking property from the person of another. Grand larceny occurred where property was either taken from the person, or feloniously from a house, and it would therefore be aggravating the offence. He should propose to omit, in the description of the offence, stating whether it was privately or not, in order to contra-distinguish it from robbery, which was the taking of property with violence; although he thought it was an offence bordering upon it; as he believed, there were persons much disposed to use force upon such occasions should they meet with any resistance. He therefore thought, it was a felony that ought to be punished with more severity than mere simple larceny, and he should propose, that a punishment somewhat more adequate than that stated in the bill should be substituted; leaving it at the same time in some degree to the discretion of the Judge, according to the circumstances of the case. His object was to get a punishment somewhat above that of mere larceny, and at the same time below that of a capital offence. He should propose that the highest punishment should be transportation for life, and that the lowest punishment should be
884
transportation for a period not less than 7 years. At the same time, it might be proper for the Judge to have it in his power to make a substitution for transportation, namely, imprisonment in the house of correction, for a period not exceeding three years. The learned gent. then concluded with proposing amendments to the effect he had stated.
Mr. Windhamopposed the principle of making transportation the minimum of punishment for such offences as had been described. There might very justly exist doubts as to the degree of criminality existing on the part of the offender, and certainly there should, be no unnecessary restriction laid on, with respect to the equalization of the punishment to the crime itself. He recited an instance of the extreme severity of the law, in sentencing a poor young woman to transportation, for having, in a sort of jest, stolen one of her companion's bonnets, and who, after a considerable time passed in captivity, made her escape with some other daring exiles, to the port of Timur, in China, in an open boat, after a passage of several thousand miles, through a most stormy sea, and unparalleled suffering.
Mr. Hornerconsidered reform necessary for the purpose of bringing the law, as it now stood, to the original principles of its institution. He quoted a passage from Judge Blackstone before alluded to, stating that sir H. Spelman had, above a century before, lamented, that although all things had, since the original foundation of our law, on this head, in the time of the Saxon monarchy, extraordinarily increased in price, yet the life of man was daily growing cheaper, by permitting it to be forfeited for the peculation of the same sum for which it had been forfeited in the reign of the Saxons. It should therefore be the business of the present times to reduce the law to its ancient state; and if the same punishments were continued, to equalize them to the crime, or in other words, to the value of the goods thus stolen. He felt it his duty to oppose the clause as too novel; in fact, it was much more so than the bill itself; though the proposition came from an hon. member who was the more averse to the bill from the consideration of its tendency to innovation. Besides, the clause had come into the house under the most inauspicious circumstances, whilst the bill was in a committee, and without any notice. These circumstances could not escape the attention of the house, nor

885
fail to excite some degree of jealousy on the subject.
Mr. Burtoncontended that transportation for limited periods failed often of producing that salutary effect on the morals of the convicts which it was expected this mode of punishment would have had. If the punishment were only resorted to in such instances as would justify its continuance for life, it would be cutting off all hope of return to the old scene of their criminality, and probably correct those vicious propensities they had formerly indulged in. He concurred most heartily in remitting, in several instances, the punishment of death, for other less punishments. Though he was decidedly in favour of the system of giving a latitude to the discretionary power of the Judge, in proportioning the severity of the punishment to the nature of the crime.
Mr. Abercrombyconsidered it a defect in the law of England, not to extend transportation to the natural period of the criminal's existence. He reprobated the idea of increasing the discretionary power of the judge. The law, he thought, should be clear, discriminatory, and decisive, and the less was left to the arbitrary will of the judge, the better. It had been said, that as there were many shades of difference, it would be better the judge should have a proportionate option: admitting even this position, still it would not follow, that transportation for life would not be a national as well as an individual advantage. Whatever might be the nature of the confinement, or punishment, as it was termed, of transportation, it was certain, a temporary banishment was productive of no good effects to the morals of the convicts. Was it, then, proper to send so many young persons and children out to that colony for a short space, who, in the course of nature, might be expected to return pregnant with all the accumulated contagion of those more experienced offenders, who had grown old in habitual vice and infamy? From his present view of the importance of this subject, he assured the house he would early in the next session move, that a Committee be appointed to take into consideration what advantages had followed the introduction of the present system.
Mr. Wharton,the chairman, thought the most regular way of introducing the present clause to the consideration of the house, would be by first reporting progress, and then moving in the house, that
886
an instruction be given to the committee to introduce the present clause, after which it might at leisure be discussed in the committee.
Sir Samuel Romillyobserved, that he had not justly incurred the censure so liberally bestowed on him, of indulging in wild theories. The imputation he thought unjust, and undeserved: his intentions were to restore, not to shake, the foundation of the common law. The clause he censured as altogether objectionable. The duration of the punishment for seven years was sufficient to answer all the purposes expected. He wished, if possible, the clause should be received, in order that it might be fully discussed, when the house was in possession of both the act itself and the clause in point.
Sir Charles Bunburythought very few of those transported for seven years ever were able to come back at the expiration of their sentence: this, so far from being a national benefit, was a national reflection on our justice.—The bill was then recommitted, and the clause added to it; and the house having resumed, the report was received, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Wednesday.

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.
Mr. Sheridanrose, and spoke as follows:—"Mr. Speaker; however I may regret that the proposition which I had the honour of giving notice that it was my intention to bring forward this evening, has been postponed until this late hour, and that the attention of the house must be considerably exhausted by the discussion which has just terminated, yet, sir, I still think it right to submit to their consideration, the important subject which was the object of that notice. I cannot conceal that a kind of negociation has been carrying on between my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Canning) and myself, in the course of which, my right hon. friend expressed his wish that I would put off my motion for this evening, because I the distinguished persons who have lately come over to England to represent to the British government the state and disposition of their native country, are at this very moment partaking of the hospitalities of his mansion. Sir, I allow that this was a strong reason on the part of my right hon. friend for desiring a postponement of this business; for I believe, with all my right hon. friend's public spirit and enthusiasm, that he has no very great inclination to lose a good dinner. But as my right hon. friend has detached a very able gene-

887
ral (sir Arthur Wellesley) to represent him at his house, I feel less reluctant at thus intruding on his patience, and shall therefore proceed, only expressing my hope, that that gallant officer may soon be detached on a more serious service; that he may soon be sent into Spain to represent in that country the enthusiasm of England in her cause. In the first place, sir, I wish to correct an idea which has gone abroad, that I entertained the folly, the presumption, the ill-judgment, and the bad taste of wishing to teach his majesty's ministers how to conduct themselves in the existing circumstances. All I desire, sir, is to win the attention of the house to the present situation of Spain. Having communicated the tenor of my motion on a former evening to my right hon. friend opposite, and my intention not having been disapproved by my right hon. friend, I own I was surprised to find that his right hon. and learned colleague imagined that my motion would tend to embarrass his majesty's government. After the communication to which I have alluded, I expected that he would give me credit for having no such object in view. On the other hand, I experienced something like rebuke from my hon. friend near me (Mr. Whitbread), who seemed to think that I was going to bring forward a motion which was to save administration from all responsibility on the subject. Now really, sir, this was a most unfortunate outset on my part. I meant to do neither the one thing nor the other. And here I must say, that although no man living more highly respects the political probity and ability of my hon. friend, as well as the estimable qualities of his private character, yet when he gets up to rebuke me for doing that which appears to me to be my duty, I am free to confess, while I applaud his judgment—his understanding—the deliberation with which he decides on questions of importance—that if there be any one point in his character on which I should not be disposed to dwell with the greatest satisfaction, it would be his deference to the opinions of others, or his doubt with respect to his own. I am placed, sir, in this dilemma; that while my hon. friend accuses me of a disposition to cover administration, the right hon. and learned chancellor of the exchequer suspects me of an intention to do it all the mischief in my power. Sir, I may be wrong; I am far from wishing ministers to embark in any cash and romantic enterprise in favour of
888
Spain; but, sir, if the enthusiasm and animation, which now exists in a part of Spain, should spread over the whole of that country, I am convinced that since the first burst of the French revolution, there never existed so happy an opportunity for Great Britain to strike a bold stroke for the rescue of the world. But, sir, it is said, 'if you do not distrust the administration, why discuss this subject in parliament!' Sir, I will tell you why. I am disposed to trust administration. But I wish to demand two things: I wish first to declare, that, in my opinion, we must not deal in dribblets; we must do much or nothing. Why do I make this declaration? Because no cabinet which has hitherto existed in this country—not even excepting that with which I had the honour of being connected —has pursued simply and plainly one clear and distinct object. Instead of striking at the core of the evil, the administrations of this country have hitherto contented themselves with nibbling at the rind. In this censure, I must not include an hon. friend near me, nor Mr. Burke. They would have proceeded directly and completely to the object which they had in view, or they would not have advanced to it a step. But with these exceptions, the ministers of England have pursued a petty policy; they have gone about filching sugar islands, and neglecting all that was dignified and all that was consonant to the truly understood interests of their country. I wish therefore, sir, to let Spain know, that the conduct which we have pursued we will not persevere in, but that we are resolved fairly and fully to stand up for the salvation of Europe. The next demand I have to make, sir, is, that if a co-operation with Spain be expedient, it should be an effectual co-operation. I repeat, that I am far from prompting his majesty's government to engage in any rash romantic enterprise; but, if upon ascertaining the state of the popular mind in Spain, they find it is warmed by a patriotic and enthusiastic ardour, then, sir, all I ask is, that that feeling should be met here with corresponding energy and enthusiasm. Bonaparte has hitherto run a most victorious race. Hitherto he has had to contend against princes without dignity, and ministers without wisdom. He has fought against countries in which the people have been indifferent as to his success; he has yet to learn what it is to-fight against a country in which the people are animated with one spirit to resist

889
him. So far, sir, from bringing forward a motion prematurely to embarrass his majesty's government, I solemnly declare, that, if the opportunity to which I have alluded of a vigorous interference on the part of England should arise, the present administration shall have from me as cordial and as sincere a support as if the man whom I most loved were restored to life and power. Is this a vain discussion? Let those who think so look at the present state of Europe. Will not the animation of the Spanish mind be excited by the knowledge that their cause is espoused, not by ministers alone, but by the parliament and the people of England? If there be a disposition in Spain to resent the insults and injuries, too enormous to be described by language, which they have endured from the tyrant of the earth, will not that disposition be roused to the most sublime exertion, by the assurance that their efforts will be cordially aided by a great and powerful nation? Sir, I think this a most important crisis. Never was any thing so brave, so generous, so noble, as the conduct of the Asturians. They have magnanimously avowed their hostility to France, they have declared war against Bonaparte; they have no retreat; they are resolved to conquer, or to perish in the grave of the honour and the independence of their country. It is that the British government may advance to their assistance with a firmer step, and with a bolder mien, that I have been anxious to afford this opportunity to the British parliament, of expressing the feelings which they entertain on the occasion. I move, sir, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this house, copies of such Proclamations as have been received by his majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and which have been issued since the arrival of the French army at Madrid; whether by the Spanish Government, the French Commander in Chief, or by persons since claiming to act on behalf of the Spanish nation."
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied nearly as follows:—Mr. Speaker, I am disposed to give every credit to my right hon. friend for his motives in agitating this subject, and I can assure him, that he is very much mistaken if he imagines that it was intended to check or rebuke him, by any thing that was said on a recent evening from this side of the house. At that time al-
890
though I was in possession of my right hon. friend's communication, my right hon. friend near me was not so. Sir, I could very easily shew my right hon. friend that it is impossible to produce the papers for which he has moved; some, because they have not reached his majesty's government in an authenticated form; others, because they are not accurately described in the motion; and all, because if we were in possession of the information which they contain, it would be highly improvident in us at the present moment, to communicate that information to the world. While I state this, however, sir, I hope my right hon. friend will not misunderstand me so much as to suppose that I impute to him any blame for this proceeding, or that I undervalue the pledge which he has given us of his support in any plan of active operations which it may be deemed advisable to adopt with respect to Spain; the more especially when it is considered that in that pledge may be implied the support of those persons with whom my right hon. friend is accustomed to act in parliament, and of whose body he is so eminent and distinguished a member. Sir, I should have been far from charging my right hon. friend with blame, even had he gone so far as to chalk out to his majesty's ministers the line of conduct that in his opinion it would be expedient for them to pursue. From this he has abstained. Indisposed as I should have been to censure my right hon. friend, had he proceeded to that extent, I cannot but feel that his speech, moderate as it has been, calls for such a general disclosure of the sentiments of his majesty's ministers as may be made without hazard, without a dishonourable compromise, and without exciting expectations which may never be realised. It is therefore, sir, I declare to the house and to the country, that his majesty's ministers see with as deep and lively an interest as my right hon. friend, the noble struggle which a part of the Spanish nation is now making to resist the unexampled atrocity of France, and to preserve the independence of their country; and that there exists the strongest disposition on the part of the British government to afford every practicable aid in a contest so magnanimous. In endeavouring to afford this aid, sir, it will never occur to us to consider that a state of war exists betwen Spain and Great Britain. We shall proceed upon the principle, that any nation of Europe that starts up with a determination to oppose a

891
power which, whether professing insidious peace or declaring open war, is the common enemy of all nations, whatever may be the existing political relations of that nation with Great Britain, becomes instantly our essential ally. In that event his majesty's ministers will have three objects in view. The first, to direct the united efforts of the two countries against the common foe; the second, to direct those efforts in a way which shall be most beneficial to the new ally; the third, to direct them in a manner conducive to peculiarly British interests. But, sir, of those objects, the last will be out of the question as compared with the other two. These are the sentiments with which his majesty's government are inspired. To the measures which these sentiments may dictate, they confidently look for the support of parliament and of the country. It cannot, sir, be expected that I should say whether we think the crisis arrived, or whether we anticipate its speedy approach, when the sentiments which I have described must be called into action. It is sufficient that I have stated what we feel, and what we intend. For the reasons, sir, which I hare before mentioned, I am compelled to dissent from my right hon. friend's motion.
Mr. Ponsonbyperfectly agreed with the right hon. gent. in the objections he had made to the motion of his right hon. friend, and early foresaw those objections. He thought there was much of the information sought for that they could not grant; and of the little they had, perhaps none that it would be prudent to communicate. In such circumstances, neither he, nor any man as ignorant upon the subject as he acknowledged himself to be, could attempt to advise his majesty's ministers what course to pursue, when their course was ultimately to be regulated by that information of which they were exclusively possessed. He therefore could not divine the object of the motion of his right hon. friend. He denied, for himself, that it would operate upon him as a pledge of his future opinions upon the conduct of his majesty's ministers in this important crisis; as, until he had witnessed it, he could not possibly judge of it.
Mr. Whitbread,as his right hon. friend had devoted the greater part of the exordium of his speech upon him, hoped he should be allowed to say a very few words. In the first place, his right hon. friend had mistaken him, when he had represented him as anxious to load ministers with all
892
the responsibility of acting in the present instance, and not willing to share in that responsibility. He had not expressed any such sentiment: but though his right hon. friend had done so much justice to his private probity, he had accused him of pertinacity. He should certainly, in the present instance, so far adhere to this pertinacity, that, as he had uniformly arraigned the measures of the present administration since they came into office, as he had uniformly distrusted and doubted them, he should not now begin to give them gratuitously his confidence upon a great and most important crisis. At the same time, he was positively against giving the information required. He had been often reproved as a man too prompt in calling for information: in the present case, he knew how to draw the line. It was, however, a topic of national feeling; and he was well aware, when his right hon. friend, like another Timotheus, seized the golden lyre, what an enthusiasm he would excite: but he doubted very much if such enthusiasm might not be productive of more harm than good, if prematurely called forth before the brave Spaniards were furnished with means of resisting their formidable foe. When he heard so much said, in the usual tone, of Buonaparte, calling him the merciless despot, severe tyrant, plunderer, common enemy of mankind, he wished from his heart that England could come into the cause with clean hands. He commented upon the third object of this country, in case of cooperation with Spain, and wished it had been altogether omitted; it was the narrow policy of subjecting the interests of the great cause in which they were engaged to the minor concerns of British objects, British views, and British interests exclusively.
Mr. Secretary Canningrose to explain a misconception which the hon. gent. seemed to feel, as to what he had stated respecting the objects to be prosecuted in the contest. He had mentioned British objects on that occasion, for the purpose only of disclaiming them as any part of the considerations which influenced his majesty's government. In this contest in which Spain, was embarked, no interest could be so purely British as Spanish success; no conquest so advantageous for G. Britain, as conquering from France the complete integrity of the dominions of Spain in every quarter of the world.
Mr. Whitbreadwas glad that he had

893
given the right hon. gent, the opportunity of making this explanation.
Mr. Windham,though there were many important topics belonging to this question, and arising out of the discussion as far as it had hitherto gone, did not mean to offer any observation upon them. He had then risen only to touch upon one or two particulars, which were more personal than any general reference to the general situation of the country; the one that it might not be misunderstood, and the other to rectify a mistake that might prevail respecting it. And here he must observe the gloomy prospect held up at the onset by the bad specimens of candour, openness, and ingenuousness, with which the right hon. gent, had endeavoured to construe the sentiments expressed by his right hon. friend, as pledging the whole of those who acted with him to a general support of the measures of administration. [A cry of No, from the treasury bench.] If not to their other measures, to those at least which might be connected with the object which his right hon. friend had in view. He had felt it necessary on his part to disclaim being included in any such pledge, and he hoped this construction of the right hon. gent. was not a specimen of the openness which the house was to expect in the progress of this transaction. The points upon which he wished to touch were, first, the advice which had been given by his right hon. friend to ministers, either to do a great deal, or to do nothing in this case. If his right hon. friend meant by doing a great deal, to send a large force to the assistance of Spain, he feared that we should not be able to do that. But it was not thence to be concluded that nothing was to be done. Though we could not assist them in the highest degree, it did not follow that we might not do what would be extremely serviceable to them. The part of his right hon. friend's sentiments in which he completely concurred, was that in which he recommended not to adopt the conduct that had been pursued in former wars since the commencement of the French revolution. It was his decided opinion, that we should not mix little British interests with this important question. He was happy to agree with his right hon. friend on this point; though he could not concur with him as to the alternative, or admit his conclusion, that if a great deal could not be done, nothing was to be done. The other point upon which he wished to touch, related to the
894
general censure which his right hon. friend had passed upon the conduct of all late administrations, he was ready to admit that this censure was just in general, but he denied that it would apply to the last administration, of which he had the honour of being a member. He defied any gentleman to prove one instance in which it would apply. If they could not show any such instance, they should receive his statement with more temper. He did not claim any praise for that administration, because it had not an opportunity of incurring the censure. He was anxious to urge as strongly as his right hon. friend the propriety of encouraging hopes for the restoration of Europe in that way alone in which they were likely to be realised. He had often been reproached for enthusiasm on this subject; but he trusted he should not be readily reproached again, inasmuch as his impressions, though late, had been adopted. It seemed now to be admitted, that the only way of overturning revolutionary despotism, was by aiding the internal means of a country with external co-operation. Now, there was nothing external but England; it was Buonaparte and France every where beside, and those who would not take to the pinnace or the long-boat in the late storm, were' now-glad to catch at any broken oar, or fragment of a plank. When Europe was unsubdued; when Austria was entire; when Prussia was a formidable military power; when Italy was not yet parcelled out; and Spain itself was whole; the internal state of la Vendee held out the fairest hope of arresting the progress of the revolution. What then had been neglected, was now looked up to with sanguine expectation; and the only hope now was, that this insurrection in Spain, might prove a la Vendée. Here he should recur to the expectation, or rather deprecation of his right hon. friend, that we should mix no little interests in the contest, but conduct it on the principles stated by the right hon. gent, in his second speech. We should remember how great an arrear we had to settle, how much Spain had to forget in consequence of the outrage which she sustained in the capture of her frigates. Were they prepared to restore them, and prove to Spain the disinterestedness with which we were to embark in her cause? As to the advantage or disadvantage of bringing this motion forward at this time, he owned he did not agree wish the sentiments of his right hon. friend. He

895
thought that a demonstration of the disposition to promote the cause of Spain made to that house, to the country, and to the Spanish nation, might be productive of advantage. But though he felt this impression, it was still to be apprehended, that such a demonstration might have the effect of influencing the Spanish nation to its ruin. He had no objection however, to the expression of a disposition on the part of the country, to support all rational measures that might be necessary to aid the efforts of the Spanish people.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that enough had been said as to the discussion of the motion, in what had fallen from the right hon. gent, who brought it forward, and from his right hon. friend who followed him; yet certain topics had been touched upon by other gentlemen in the course of the debate, which rendered it impossible for him to pass them over without observation. Undoubtedly, a difference of opinion might exist as to the propriety of bringing forward the motion; but of this he was convinced, that in the view which the right hon. gent, had taken of the subject, no mischief could possibly arise from the discussion. He did not press any proposition upon his majesty's ministers which required any improper disclosure. It had been brought forward by a right hon. gent., who, on all occasions of difficulty, in every crisis of the country, waving all political hostility, had uniformly come forward in support of the country. The hon. gentlemen opposite were, unquestionably, not pledged by the sentiments expressed by that right hon. gent, to a general support of government. It was not an irrational pledge of that description to which his right hon. friend had adverted, and, if the gentlemen on the other side were not disposed to concur in the feelings and sentiments of that right hon. gent., if they felt not a disposition to assist the Spanish nation on this opening for resistance to the tyranny of France, they certainly were at liberty to pursue what cause they might deem most expedient. But on this, as on every former occasion, they seemed in language to have disowned the right hon. gent, who had from such laudable motives brought forward this question. The house and the country would not fail to contrast the tone of that right hon. gent.'s speech with the chilling language of the hon. gentlemen on the bench with him.—He had to regret the course of the observations pursued by the right hon.
896
gent, who spoke last in the latter part of his speech, in bringing forward some topics between the two nations, at a time when the co-operation of both was necessary for the salvation of the world. It was not a course which any true patriotism would recommend at such a time, to remind that nation that England was the power to oppress it by the plunder of its frigates, and this, too, when the object of the right hon. gent, was to disclaim any pledge to support the contest. Then, again, the right hon. gent, had adverted to all the topics of the last fifteen years, and certainly it was not with a good grace that such condemnation came from that right hon. gent., who had been so long during that period in office. But no gentleman was more ready to condemn any principle, which he might have once entertained; and it appeared that he was always in opposition to all the governments of which he had been a member, though he generally remained in office to the last. Surely, when the right hon. gent, stated, that no British objects were to be prosecuted in this contests he could not mean to contend that objects of British interest, which might not be connected with Spanish objects, should not be attended to; at any rate, it was not for that right hon. gent, to maintain such a doctrine; he who had sent out a force to Alexandria, who had diverted a considerable part of the forces of the empire to Buenos Ayres, and who had even dispatched an expedition to the other side of South America, for the purpose of supporting the cause of Europe by an attack upon the back of Spanish America. It was rather strange that the right hon. gent, should be so fond of returning to the charge of ship-stealing, when he had himself sent a fleet to Constantinople, not to support the Russians, but to bring away the Turkish fleet, whilst the troops which were necessary for the success of the expedition had been sent, not to Constantinople, but Alexandria. That right hon. gent., too, had dispatched another expedition to Lisbon, the only force he had employed in Europe, and for the purpose of bringing away the Portuguese fleet. He could assure the right hon. gent., that the present administration in the conduct they should adopt, would not follow his practical example, but act upon the result of their best and soundest judgment in adopting such measures as might, under all the circumstances of the case, be most conducive to the great and important ob-

897
ject which they had in view. As to what had been said respecting the extent of the assistance to be afforded, he was aware of the justice of what had fallen from the right hon. gent, who had brought forward the motion, and if the occasion should arise, he could assure that right hon. gent., the country was in a situation to afford effectual assistance. When he considered the contrast between the patriotic sentiments of that right hon. gent, and the language of those around him, who were disposed to throw worse than cold water upon the hopes of the retrieval of Europe, he was sorry to see him sit amongst them, but he was confident that the country would do justice to that right hon. gentleman.
Earl Templeregretted that the discussion had taken place, and was sorry for the manner in which the question had been discussed. However important the lesson of his noble friend as to recrimination, and the consistency of remaining in a government with which he differed, he must regret that the people of Spain, who looked to this country for support, should find that this question had been made a ground of recrimination by gentlemen on both sides of the house. He hoped that the principle stated by his right hon. friend, of considering any power that should be at war with France as in alliance with us, would not be acted upon to the full extent. He thought that they should not be considered as our allies any longer than whilst they would fight with us to obtain a secure and honourable peace.
Mr. Secretary Canningagain explained. He had been misunderstood by his noble friend, if he had supposed him to have stated the principle to that extent. He had intended expressly to say, that we should consider all powers embarked in hostility with France as our allies, engaged in a common object for the attainment of a safe and honourable peace, and not for purposes of perpetual war.
Earl Templewas glad he had given his right hon. friend an opportunity of making this satisfactory explanation.
Mr. Sheridandid not feel it necessary to reply. His object was to awaken the country to the opportunity which, if the information from Spain was true, might lead to the rescue of Europe, and to the release of oppressed countries from the grasp of a ruthless conqueror. He had, however, no objection to withdraw his motion, convinced that much benefit must
898
accrue even from the present discussion.— The motion was then withdrawn.

VOTE OF CREDIT.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house resolved itself into a committee of supply. The right hon. gent, stated to the committee, that the Vote of Credit, of which he had given notice, was 2,500,000 l.; but as 300,000 l. the amount of the Sicilian subsidy, which was to be defrayed out of that vote, had since been granted to his majesty by parliament, he proposed to vote only 2,200,000 l. The following sums were then voted: Vote of Credit for Great Britain 2,200,000 l: Vote of Credit for Ireland 500,000 l: Board of First Fruits in Ireland 10,000 l: Charge of Treasury in Ireland 6,000 l: Protestant Dissenting Ministers 9,159 l. 4s.

FOREIGN PROPERTY IN THE FUNDS.
The order of the day being read for the house to resolve itself into a committee of ways and means,
Mr. Bankes Mr. Bankes moved, "That the account of the amount of all exemptions granted to foreigners, in respect of the duty on dividends in the various funds of Great Britain, and on the dividends of the East India and South Sea Companies, under the property tax, in the year ending 5th April 1807, be referred to the said committee."
Mr. Magensopposed the measure in contemplation, as contrary to our established policy. He was persuaded that if the property of foreigners was to be subjected to this tax, it would prove extremely injurious to the prosperity and wealth of this country.
Mr. Sharpwas sorry that the subject had been mentioned at all. The sum was extremely small, but the sacrifice of principle would be great. No advantage could be derived from such a measure as this, that would be at all equal to the injury which it would produce.
Sir T. Turtonsaid that the income tax was in its operation altogether unjust and oppressive; but there was no part of it more unjust than this exemption. It was fair, reasonable and proper, that foreigners who had property in the funds should equally with the subjects of this country pay for the security of that property.
Mr. W. Smithdid not think the measure unjust; but at the same time, he thought that it was impolitic to press it at present.
Lord H. Pettyobserved that the tax in question was not a property tax, but one on the profits derived from property. It would have been impossible to have got

899
at the profits of foreigners, till the arrangement with the bank for detaining the lax upon the dividends. But it was not the intention of that arrangement to include foreign property. He maintained that, we had no right to meddle with it; and if we had, it would not be expedient.
Mr. Bankesdenied that there could be any injustice in this measure, as the state had certainly an eminent dominion over the property, and the utmost that foreigners could expect was, to be placed on the same footing with the natives of this country. He asserted that the exemption originated, and had been continued, in prejudice and delusion. Foreigners placed their money in our funds for their own advantage, from the superior security and profit which they afforded. There was no reason why they should not pay for this. They were generally aliens; and though this country owed them justice, they were entitled to no favour from it.
Mr. Windhamthought, that good policy was in favour of the exemption, as the advantage we derived from foreign property, as it stood at present, was greater than any we could have from the tax imposed on all that would then remain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had attended much to this subject, and felt much embarrassment how to give his vote. If he voted against the motion at present, he confessed that he should do so from a deference to character, and to what had been done before, contrary to the inclination of his own opinion. He took a review of the arguments on this subject, and observed that he did not see any reason in point of justice that would exempt foreigners more than the people of this country. But there were considerations of policy that appeared to him to render it inexpedient to alter the system at the present moment, though he did not conceive that the imposition of the tax would withdraw any material portion of this property from our funds. But the principal reason that induced him to oppose the measure at the moment, was, that it might produce a very bad effect, by persuading our enemy, that his measures against us had in some degree succeeded.
Mr. Hibbertsaid, that from the tenor of the debate, he conjectured that the subject would not be brought forward very soon again for discussion; and he was anxious, by more than a silent vote on this occasion, to express his decided opposition to the
900
measure proposed, and more especially after the hesitating negative given to it by the right hon. gent, who had just sat down, and whose speech was not calculated to add confidence to foreigners who either had embarked or might embark their capital on the credit of this country. There was a plain and familiar distinction which had not been noticed, but which yet applied, in his opinion, both to the justice and policy of the case. The foreigner who resided here, or who purchased land in this country, became, in common with all British subjects, a partner in the general risks of the state; but the foreigner who resided abroad and sent his capital hither was a mere money lender, and could not be considered as a partner. The former we could justly subject to his proportion of the cost of the common security; but we could not, with equal propriety, say to the latter, "We have had a bad year, our affairs are not prosperous, and we must, therefore, deduct a part of the interest which we contracted to pay upon the money you lent to us." We might say, indeed, if it should suit us to say so, "your money is a burthen to us we do not want it, you have forced it upon us against our inclinations; take it away, or we will reduce or withhold the customary interest;" but we could not in justice, without any such notice, surprize the foreign money lender by a tax. The same distinction applied to the policy of the case; those embarked in the same risk with us had not the power, even if they had the wish, to withdraw themselves, and we were sure of their co-operation by the durable tie of a common interest. It might happen that, in order to preserve our independence against the great oppressor of Europe, we might find it necessary to sacrifice not merely a tenth, but a quarter or even a moiety of our income in the form of a property tax; and while the expediency of levying such a tax generally and impartially upon all that were in the same concern with us was indisputable, it was surely questionable how far we should attempt to extend it to those who could withdraw their aid at pleasure, and whose confidence, however occasionally useful to us, was not likely to be increased by the unprosperous situation of our affairs. He was unwilling, at so late an hour, to enter into the consideration of the expediency and utility of inviting and retaining foreign capital in this country. It was a question which should be considered

901
relatively to our character as a commercial country, and not merely as it would affect us under a temporary flux of capital finding its way into the funds, the consequence of a casual and lamentable interruption of our foreign commerce. The great advantages which, under ordinary circumstances, were to be derived from a capital thus obtained in the support of our funds and the encouragement of the various departments of our national industry were, in his mind, too obvious and considerable to be treated with indifference, he gave, therefore, to the proposition of the hon. gent, in this first and preparatory stage of it, an opposition, not grounded on a regard to times and circumstances, but most decisive and unqualified.—The motion was then put, and negatived.