Sitting of 17 April 1812

TEN PETITIONS OF CHRISTIANS FOR LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid he held in his hand one Petition, and there were lying by his side, other Petitions of an exactly similar nature, signed by between 8,000 and 9,000 persons, praying for complete Liberty of Conscience to all the subjects of the Brisish empire. These Petitions were signed by Christions of all denominations, dissenting from the church of England. It was almost exactly similar to a Petition, which he had had the honour of presenting to the House on the same subject three years ago. In using the word "honour," he meant it not to be understood, not as in the ordinary course of expression, when a person presented any application to that House, but as expressive of the gratification which he felt, and honour which he esteemed to have been conferred on him, in having that Petition put into his hands by one of the most enlightened and liberal Christians in this or any other country. A man who, during a long life, had been distinguished for universal benevolence and charity, and who was still anxious, even at his advanced period of life, not to relax in his exertions, but to persevere to the ecd in that course, and for that object, for which he had laboured through life—good will to his fellow men, and peace on earth! After having said this, he was satisfied that he had sufficiently designated the person to whom he alluded, to be the Rev. M. Wyvill. The Petitions which he had to present were from York, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull, Norwich, &c.
The Petitions were then brought up and read, setting forth,
"That the Petitioners were Christians, who consider absolute liberty of conscience respecting religion to be the unalienable right of all men, that it is the duty of all men to examine as diligently as may be in their power, the doctrines of religion, and after such diligent examination, to

419
adopt and to profess what may appear to them to be the truth; and that, in the performance of that duty, men ought not to be obstructed or discouraged, or otherwise tempted to act hyprocritically, by any law tending to bias them in the course of such examination of the doctrines of religion, by subjecting them, in the case of their dissenting from the doctrines of any I established church, to suffer death by burning or otherwise, or to suffer any corporal or pecuniary punishment, or to be injured in their reputation by any disability more or less disgraceful; and that the Petitioners acknowledge, with high satisfaction, that, in the present reign, considerable progress has been made towards the full restoration of the rights of conscience, by the wisdom of parliament and the benignity of the king rescinding various laws, in whole or in part, which were violations of those rights; yet, since other penal laws, not less injurious to (hose rights, remain unrepealed, since some of these laws subject to corporal punishments or pecuniary penalties, others, as in the case of the test laws passed in the reign of king Charles the second, subject to disgrace, disability, and privation of civil rights, persons, whose only offence it is that, in conformity with their duly, they have examined the doctrines of religion, and by such examination have been induced to embrace and to profess religious opinions different from the doctrines of the Established Church; and that the Petitioners feel it to be their duty humbly but earnestly to remonstrate against the longer continuance of any of those intolerant laws; and they do, in conformity with the premises, expressly petition the House, that every such law may be repealed, and the rights of conscience may thus be restored to all the subjects of this United Kingdom; and the Petitioners humbly beg leave to add, that this request, as it appears to them, is grounded on the most evident considerations of justice; and they trust that the compliance of the state would yet conciliate the affection of millions of their aggrieved fellow subjects, and unite them for ever to the interests of the empire: under each of these aspects their request claims, and they hope will be found to deserve, the assent of the House, as they are statesmen anxious for the safety of their country, and as they are moralists determined to act impartially on the rules of justice; but, when the Petitioners consider farther,
420
that every attempt to influence men in their choice and profession of religion by penal laws, whether corrupt or compulsive in their operation, is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, and forbidden by its plainest precepts in numerous pasages, they hope it may be allowed them more particularly, and with all possible eereestness, to intreat the serious and sincere Christians in the House to interpose their endeavours, not only to vindicate the Gospel from the groundless charge of intolerance, but to influence this Christian state to conform its laws for the protection of the Established Church, to the purity, benignity, and exalted integrity of the religion of the Gospel, to renounce the whole system of persecution, the long accumulation of ages of barbarism and discord, and to free an almost countless multitude of injured individuals from the temptation of ensnaring tests, and the more oppressive severities of compulsive intolerance; by the success of such salutary counsels, at once restoring concord and safety to the empire, and freeing our national Church from the just reproach of retaining that support which persecuting laws can bestow, but which Christianity condemns, and would disdain to accept."
The Petitions were ordered to lay on the table.
Mr. Whitbreadthen said, that were it not for the circumstances of the present times, he should bring forward a specific proposition on the subject of these Petitions. Considering, however, that a right hon. friend of his had given notice of a motion which would shortly come before the House, and which would involve the interests of Christians of every denomination; going, as it naturally would, to the repeal of all the disabilities of the present day, he should wait, therefore, the result of that discussion, which, he presumed, would be for a committee of the House to take this important question into consideration. Being now on his legs, however, he begged leave to state, that unless the decision of the court of King's-bench on a case now pending before them, should render the thing unnecessary, he should submit to the House a motion on a subject not altogether unconnected with religious toleration. It had hither to been supposed, that it was required of magistrates to tender the oaths to persons wishing to qualify for preaching or teaching, who tendered themselves. This had hitherto been, considered to be the law, but it was

421
now alleged that it was not so, and a more limited interpretation was now wished to be given to the enactment of the statute. If the court of King's-bench should decide in favour of this more limited construction, he gave notice, that he should, on the 29th of April, bring forward a proposition for making that which was the more liberal interpretation, the legal interpretation also.

PETITION FROM DUDLEY, RESPECTING THE RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Mr. Lytteltonpresented a Petition from the commercial and manufacturing inhabitants of Dudley. He said he felt it his duty, in presenting this Petition, to state to the House, that in the populous neighbourhood of Dudley there was at this moment the greatest distress prevailing, from the very high price of provisions; that the higher classes of manufacturers in that town and neigbourhood had on all occasions evinced their loyalty and patriotism, and from these praiseworthy principles, had always endeavoured to alleviate the distresses of the working men, by expending their capitals in giving them employment, in hopes that the American markets would soon be opened, and the monopoly of the East India Company done away; so that new sources might be opened to the encouragement of British industry and adventure; but he was afraid it could not be done much longer; and it seemed necessary the House should give attention to the subject.
The Petition was then read, setting forth,
"That the Petitioners beg leave to represent to the House the distressed situation of the numerous manufacturers of that populous town and neighbourhood; and that in consequence of the great depression in trade, the labouring mechanics have not sufficient employment to enable them to maintain their families and to preserve them from want; and the petitioners look up to the House as the representatives and protectors of this great commercial empire, and indulge a confident hope, that the House will adopt such measures as may be best calculated to remedy the distresses and difficulties under which they are at present labouring; and the petitioners are of opinion, that it is expedient to discontinue the commercial monopoly of the East India Company at the expiration of their present Charter; and it appears to them to be both unreasonable and
422
unjust, that British subjects should be denied the privilege of trading to India whilst it is allowed to neutral nations; and praying the House to adopt the necessary measures for the abolition of the commercial monopoly of the East India Company, or at least such part thereof as to their wisdom may seem expedient."
Mr. Creeveywished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. That right hon. gentleman had lately signified his intention to bring forward certain propositions, the week after next, respecting the Company's renewal of their Charter. On former occasions of this kind, a statement of the Company's affairs had been laid before the House, which was referred to a Committee, and a report made thereon: but it would be impossible this could now be done, so that the members would have time to consider the report in the present session. He wished, therefore, to be informed by the right hon. gentleman, whether he meant to persist in his notice; as, considering all the outports of the country had their delegates in town, for the purpose of attending to this important question, it was highly desirable to know whether it would really come on or not?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, that he had certainly mentioned his intention of submitting certain resolutions on that subject to a Committee of the whole House the week after next;, and, if he had altered his intention, he should have signified the same to the House. It was his intention not only to submit that business to the consideration of the House, but to carry it through during the present session, unless difficulties should arise of which he had at present no conception.

PETITION FROM THE HALLAMSHIRE CUTLERS, RESPECTING THE RENEWAL OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Mr. Wilberforcepresented a Petition from the master wardens searchers assistants and commonalty of the company of cutlers, within Hallamshire, in the county of York, setting forth,
"That the Petitioners are of opinion that a free trade to every part of his Majesty's dominions is the natural right of all his subjects; and that such trade ought to be liable to no restrictions which do not more evidently promote the advantage of the commonwealth, whence, in their very principle, restrictions are only temporary, and ought to be removed as soon as the

423
balance of public interest between a free trade and a monopoly is restored in favour of the former: and that, on the 1st of March, 1814, the entire right of commerce in the seas and to the territories between the Cape of Good Hope and the Straits of Magellan, granted to the East India Company, will expire, when the free trade in those seas and to those territories will of course revert to all his Majesty's subjects, to whom it belongs, and from whom it ought not to be withheld, unless the paramount interest of the state itself requires a continuance of the afore-mentioned monopoly; and that, since the incorporation of the East India Company, the British dominions in that quarter of the globe have been so greatly enlarged, that it is impossible for the Company, in its present circumstances, to carry on a traffic throughout the East, commensurate to the extent of territory under the government or the controul of his Majesty, whence their monopoly is not even beneficial to themselves in proportion as it is detrimental to the general interests of British commerce; and that it is well known that the prosperity of the East India Company has not increased with the glorious progress of his Majesty's arms, which have left the enemies of Britain without a colony; and that the annual exports of our home manufactures to all the regions of the East, scarcely amount to one fifth of the ordinary exports to the United States of America, though the former countries exceed the latter sevenfold in extent, and fifty-fold in population; hence the Petitioners presume that, after the expiration of their charter, the Company still remaining a corporation, may fully, if not more profitably, employ their funds in the trade as heretofore, while the mother country will be benefited beyond what it has been or can be under the monopoly, to the extent of the additional commerce opened by the industry spirit and capital of enterprizing individuals; and that the intercourse with the East Indies, prohibited to the subjects of these realms, having been conceded to foreign powers in amity with his Majesty, the merchants of the United States of America have been enriching themselves commercially and politically, exalting their own nation, and supplying many parts of the world with East India produce, to the loss of this country: and that the Petitioners will not dwell here on the difficulties under which, as merchants and manufacturers, the numerous inhabitants
424
of their district labour in the present circumstances of the country, but they look, with confidence, to their representatives in parliament for relief, under temporary calamities, by an unreserved grant of every facility to commerce which the interest of the whole state demands, and which the most liberal policy will justify; and they do most earnestly and respectfully intreat the House, not to deprive the whole body of British merchants of any part of their rightful inheritance, a free trade to every part of his Majesty's dominions, by renewing the charter of the East India Company; and they rely on the wisdom and virtue of parliament thus to turn to the utmost advantage the immense possessions of our sovereign in the East, to counterbalance, in some measure, the iniquitous and tyrannical prohibitions of our enemy on the continent of Europe, to compensate for the interruption of friendly intercourse, whether temporary or permanent, with the united States of America, and, above all, to render this country so far independent of commerce with rival nations, that, whether at war or at peace, we may have strength and resources within ourselves to conduct the former with glory and success, and to enjoy the latter with honour and security."
Ordered to lie upon the table.

PETITION FROM SHEFFIELD AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Mr. Wilberforcepresented a Petition from several merchants manufacturers and others the loyal inhabitants of the populous town of Sheffield, in the county of York, and its vicinity, setting forth,
"That no inconsiderable portion of the wealth of the United Kingdom is derived from commerce and manufactures, and the town and vicinity of Sheffield are particularly indebted to these for the means of support; and that of all foreign markets yet discovered for the sale of our manufactures the United Stales of America has" been the roost important; and that the Orders in Council to counteract the Berlin and Milan decrees of the enemy have for a long period deprived the Petitioners of this most valuable market, in consequence of which many of their towns-people and neighbours are unemployed, and their families dependent on the poor rates for subsistence; and they solemnly assure the House, that if they regarded those Orders as necessary for supporting the honour and dignity, the just rights and independence

425
of the United Kingdom, they would willingly bear the pressure without a murmur; but, they are persuaded that they are unnecessary for these desirable ends, that they have proved most disastrous to those, whom they were intended to benefit, and most advantageous to the enemy, whom they were intended to distress; instead of retaliating upon France the evils which her unjust and atrocious Decrees were framed to inflict, they have rendered those Decrees effectual against ourselves, and have done that injury to our commerce and manufactures which all the measures of our enemy had vainly attempted to produce; and the Petitioners are further of opinion, that such is the predominant influence of France over a vast portion of the European continent, that she can command the supply of every necessary article without possessing a single flag on the ocean, while the exclusion of other nations from her ports, caused partly by her own, but more effectually by our regulations, has encouraged within her dominions manufactures which would not otherwise have arisen; and that the Orders in Council, by producing an amazing extension of the licence system, have not only deprived this country of a considerable amount of bullion, but also enabled France to trade unmolested on our own coasts, and create a navy which may, in time, become truly formidable; and that by allowing the intervention of neutrals, we exclude ourselves from the only chance of carrying on a profitable trade with the enemy, and are in imminent danger of seeing our friends arrayed against us under the banners of France; and that should the Petitioners' hopes of preserving peace with America be disappointed, and that most valuable mart for their languishing manufactures be totally destroyed, they fear that the consequences would be ruinous to themselves, and extensively hurtful to the country; and praying the House to recommend to his royal highness the Prince Regent to rescind those Orders in Council, which, in the opinion of the Petitioner", have failed to produce the beneficial effects intended, and while they have enriched the enemy, have deeply injured our friends."

PETITION FROM BIRMINGHAM AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Sir Charles Mordauntpresented a Petition from several merchants, manufacturers, and other
426
inhabitants of the town of Birmingham, setting forth,
"That the Petitioners most humbly represent to the House, that the industry and ingenuity of British manufacturers, aided by the spirit of our invaluable constitution, have produced those great mechanical improvements, and called forth that division of labour, which have given to the merchants of this country a pre-eminence in foreign markets, and have greatly contributed to support that naval superiority which has hitherto constituted the strength and security of the nation; and that not only the revenue, but the very existence of society in its present state in this country, depends upon the prosperity of its manufactures and commerce; and that they view with the deepest regret the present ruinous situation of the manufactures and commerce of the United Kingdom, and are decidedly of opinion that the Orders in Council, by closing their commercial intercourse with the United States of America, are a principal cause of the evils they deplore; and that they consider the system of licences as a virtual acknowledgment of the impolicy of the Orders in Council, giving relief to their inveterate enemy, affording a just cause of complaint to those whom they desire to consider their friends, degrading to the character of the British merchant, subversive of morality, and highly injurious to the navy of Great Britain, a system which, at the same time that it affords a partial and dear-bought assistance to the commerce of the metropolis, renders not the smallest relief to the distressed manufacturers of the United Kingdom; and that, when nearly all the channels of trade to the continent of Europe are closed, the commerce of the East, possessed by an exclusive monopoly, and the national expenditure unparalleled in the annals of the world, the Petitioners deem it incumbent upon them earnestly to recommend to the consideration of the House, the propriety of revoking those measure which the Petitioners conceive to have been originally contrary to the recognised laws of nations, inconsistent with the principles of sound policy, and which threaten to involve this kingdom in a war with its most valuable commercial connection, America, a country linked to England by the powerful affinities of common origin, similarity of language, laws and manners; and that, in the opinion of the Petitioners, the direct tendency of

427
the Orders in Council is to force America upon her own resources, and to oblige her to become a manufacturing nation much earlier than, in the natural course of events, would be the case; and that the town and neighbourhood of Birmingham, containing a most numerous population, and being unquestionably one of the most important manufacturing districts in the British empire, have greatly depended upon a friendly intercourse with the United States of America, and are suffering most severely under the operation of the Orders in Council; and that, if this destructive system be persisted in, thousands of laborious and respectable mechanics will inevitably be deprived of their present partial and precarious employment; and whilst the Petitioners deplore their distressed situation, aggravated by the advancing price of every necessary of life, their concern is greatly heightened by the consideration, that the capital of the merchants and manufacturers is rapidly absorbing in stock, constantly depreciating in value, their ability to participate in the increasing burdens of the state pro-portionably diminishing, and their efforts consequently paralysed, at a period when all practicable means should be resorted to for cementing national union, and supporting with vigour the momentous contest in which we are engaged; and earnestly praying the House to take measures for obtaining a revocation of the Orders in Council."
On the motion that the Petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Baringrose, and said, that it was impossible for him to see Petitions of this kind, signed by 14,000 persons, presented to that House, without feeling a sensation of regret that they should so silently be ordered to lie on the table. He could not think of the distresses under which the Petitioners laboured, and which in other places had led to confusions and riots of the most alarming kind, without in some measure calling the attention of the House to the subject. The effects which these Orders in Council were calculated to produce were now seen on the people of England. The present Petitioners were not disloyal or disaffected persons—they were not men disposed to obstruct the government—but to support it. They had even been willing to suppose that the measures adopted were salutary ones, and, in expectation of a change for the better, the masters had gone on keeping their
428
workmen in employment, though to a limited extent; till now, seeing themselves reduced to ruin by their exertions to carry on their trade under every disadvantage, and those under them brought to a slate of starvation, they could no longer shut their eyes against the conviction, that their calamities arose from the obstructions imposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on commerce. It was impossible for any one to converse with those persons who had come up in order to present those Petitions, without being convinced of these facts—that there were great orders from America which the manufacturers could not execute, and that, they had, in their different lines of business, great stocks of goods which they could not export, on account of those obstructions, all of which arose from the Orders in Council. It was not his intention now to go into any discussion on the policy of the Orders in Council; he should only express a hope that when all the Petitions on the subject were presented, some gentleman would bring forward the question, and that the House would no longer be led astray by speculative opinions, but would listen to the statements of those who were really interested in the question, and who so severely felt the weight of the pressure and distress brought upon them by these Orders in Council. The government of this country began by excluding the trade of neutrals; then they adopted measures which they thought were calculated to distress the enemy; and, in what had this ended, but in the complete ruin of our own manufactures?—and in granting licences to bring into this country the manufactures of our enemies, for which the right hon. gentleman had found a market.—If this was not the language of their printed licences, he could not say what those licences meant, extending, as they did, to lawns, laces, silk, perfumery, and all other articles of French manufacture. If this country and France had been in a state of perfect peace, there was not another article which France could have asked permission to import into this country, save only wine and brandy;—and the only condition required for all this was, that there should in return be loaded and exported from this country, goods to the amount of 5l. sterling, for every ton's burden of the vessel.—This was the species of reciprocity, which the right hon. gentleman established for the manufacturers and traders of this country;

429
and the House could not well err as to the opinion to be formed of such measures, when they saw from the Petitions on the table what was the result. This 5l. per ton mentioned in the licences was merely nominal, and in lieu of this 5l. there might be imported into this country to the amount of 5,000 l. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would now explain to the House, what reciprocity there was in this trade which he had given us, and which no commercial man was able to understand. The right hon. gentleman said, indeed, that our manufacturers were in a state of suffering at the time these Orders in Council were passed; but there was no statement from any of the manufacturing towns to warrant such an assertion. He could tell the right hon. gentleman, and so would all these Petitioners, that at the time alluded to, the trade with America was rapidly increasing, and was greater than any thing which he could obtain for them from all the continent of Europe.—He was sorry to think that one of the means of alleviating the distresses, under which our manufacturers now laboured, namely, that of throwing open the trade to the East Indies, instead of being a boon would increase their sufferings, while it endangered the safety of our Indian empire. Throwing open that trade, he was satisfied, could never materially increase the demand for the manufactures of this country in the East, and this would operate as an addition, rather than a diminution of the distresses at present felt by our manufacturers, and would in an especial manner disappoint the expectations of those who speculated in adventures to the East. In these circumstances, he contended, that the House was called on to appoint a committee, to consider in what manner the sufferings of the manufacturing interests could most effectually and materially be diminished. What the House could do, they were called on now to do it was plain, that no good was to be expected from the fanciful and visionary speculations in which the right hon. gentleman had been indulging.
Mr. Rosesaid, as the Orders in Council would soon, as stated by the hon. gentleman, come before them for general discussion, he would now abstain from that subject so incidentally introduced. With respect to the Licence trade, too, as the papers and licences were to be laid on their table on Monday; it would, perhaps, be as well to leave that matter till a
430
fitter time, when the necessary information was before them. The hon. gentleman had said, that for the value of 5l. per ton exported, all the manufactures of France were permitted to be brought into this country—but he had not stated, that on these manufactures so heavy a duty was imposed, as sufficiently to protect the British trader. On linen and lawns, for instance, there was a duty of 60 per cent.; and, as for lace and cambric, the permission to import them, be believed, did not add a single yard to the quantity brought into the country; and it was upon this principle, that all administrations had permitted them to be imported. He trusted, the House would not allow itself to be drawn into a discussion every day on the same subjects. As for the iron manufacturers in Dudley and Birmingham, he knew, that they felt the existing pressure more than any other description of persons, as their articles were more limited to the American market. But the House, on discussing the subject, would be able to see, whether or not our American trade was injured by the Orders in Council, which were not issued for the purposes mentioned by the hon. gentleman, but for the purpose of retorting upon our enemy, France. No doubt, the manufacturers in this country were, at this moment, suffering greatly; but the question was, whether their sufferings proceeded from these Orders, or, as he contended, from the measures of Buonaparté? If the revocation of the Orders would hurt the country generally, though it might relieve a certain proportion of distress, they were placed in a very painful dilemma, in deciding upon the line of conduct incumbent upon them as a legislature, to pursue, either to come to that revocation, or continue to lock up America from trade. No person could feel more sensibly than he did for the distresses of our manufacturers, and he was satisfied their motive in petitioning was most pure; but it by no mans followed that those distresses were occasioned by the Orders in Council. In Birmingham he was happy to think, that the manufacturers still continued to keep the workmen employed, though the pressure upon them was great; and he had also the satisfaction of understanding, that the poor's rates had been reduced in Birmingham within the last three years.
Sir C. Mordauntconfirmed the statement, that Birmingham was not actually in that state of distress which warranted the

431
use of such a hard word as "starvation." Such an allegation ought not to go forth uncontradicted. It was true that Birmingham suffered in common with all other places in the empire, but the want of employment had hitherto not been felt there. At the same time he was aware, that distress of that kind must soon attach to the manufacturers, as, from their immense stock on hand, they must either find a market, or cease to employ their workmen. As a proof that they had not yet been severely afflicted, he corroborated the statement of the right hon. gentleman who preceded him, that the Poor's Rates had decreased, and noticed that the recruiting service was very slack. As for America, she could not do without Birmingham—she could not even shave herself, or catch her mice without their aid. He had only further to notice, that the signers of this Petition were loyal men, who, if they were convinced that even their immediate privations were for the good of the country, would be content to retire from trade, and dig potatoes in their gardens.
Mr. Whitbreadconceded that the hon. baronet had given a true description of the condition of Birmingham; but while he gave credit to the hon. baronet, he was also bound to believe what was stated by the petitioners, who were Birmingham men, and whose account in some points varied very much from his. They stated, that if the Orders in Council were not revoked ruin would follow, and he perfectly believed the fact. It was true the labourers had not yet felt what it was to be out of employment, because the manufacturers, in an exemplary manner, and highly to their honour, bad in these perilous times forgone all those advantages to which commercial men usually looked—they had exhausted their capital for the sake of employing their men, and avoiding those dreadful consequences and disorders, the end of which it was not easy to foresee, but of which every moment was bringing them tidings from various quarters of the kingdom. In such circumstances, the House was peculiarly called on to do all that in them lay, to ward off impending ruin from persons of this meritorious description. All these things demanded enquiry, and proved the expediency of referring it to a committee to ascertain, by their deliberative wisdom, if in their complaint these manufacturers assigned the true causes, and what could be done for their relief. The House would
432
compare the march of the right hon. gentleman this year with his march the year preceding. Last year, when a calamitous case was stated, though by no means comparable with the present, out of respect to the petitioners, although he knew that their prayers could not be attended to, he had agreed to, or rather himself proposed, the appointment of a committee to examine that case. But now all enquiry was refused. He asked the right hon. gentleman to say, if he would consent to allay the exasperated feelings of the country; and if it was his intention, now when he saw the whole heart of England in confusion, to refer the matter to a committee to enquire if the complaints made were well founded, and, if it must be so, to tell the unhappy complainants there was no relief? Last year, upon a most extraordinary report as ever came from a committee, exchequer bills for the relief of our great manufacturers had been issued, the whole of which had been employed in continuing the labours of the poor. Of these bills one instalment had fallen due, and was paid—another instalment was due to-morrow. Now had not the right hon. gentleman been told, that so great was the distress of the persons assisted, that having expended the money in the creditable way he had mentioned, they were unable to make good or meet this payment? Birmingham, they were informed, had not suffered actual distress; but if not so, it was on the very verge of suffering. The House had been taught by the calculations of the right hon. gentleman to expect that the master manufacturer would be completely relieved, and instead of that they found he could not repay the money advanced for his aid! Was it not a time then to take these petitions into consideration? and did it not become the right hon. gentleman to consent to a committee to enquire into the effects of the Orders in Council, and to ascertain whether or not they were the causes of these calamities? He could not help thinking the hon. baronet had been rather indiscreet in the way in which he had spoken of America. If America was shut, Birmingham must be idle; and if idle, the population would starve. Her ports then must be opened, either by necessity or by policy. Policy had hitherto had a contrary effect; and he disliked the taunting tone in which it was said, that America could not even shave herself, or catch her mice without our aid. It was insulting to America, to

433
tell her, she was so dependant on Birmingham, that she could not do the most trifling thing without aid from that place. The hon. baronet might until lately have told us that America could not ride her horse, that she could not shoe her horse, that she could not drive a nail without Birmingham. America however had learned to ride and shoe a horse, without the aid formerly asked; and, if they looked at the latest orders to Birmingham, they would find that bridle-bits and nails were excluded from those orders, America having been induced to manufacture these articles herself. This shewed the progress of the arts in America—and so they would continue to progress, if Great Britain continued her policy; from making nails, she would arrive at the manufacture of the most important articles. In short, if they shut America now, they shut it for ever. For these reasons, and on account of all the frightful things passing in the interior of the country, he demanded enquiry.—The accounts from Sheffield, from Manchester, from Leeds, from Huddersfield, were such, that if the House read in the newspapers similar intelligence from Ireland, they would at once conclude that that country was in a state of insurrection and rebellion.—But in England these events did not seem to make the same impression, and because they were new and uncommon, they were not considered to be of the importance they were. Let them do something to soothe the feelings of the country, and not be told, when they pressed for enquiry, that they were using inflammatory language, and not falling into the proper loyal course; let them not be told that their petitions were treasonable, and that they were influenced by persons with whom they had never communicated: that they did not feel their sufferings, but were persuaded by party men to violent acts. And what were these violent acts? Petitioning parliament and the Regent for relief. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would declare, if a Committee was moved for, if he would consent to its appointment. One topic had this night surprised him—he alluded to the licences. He was astonished to learn, that after importing all the manufactures of France, a vessel was only required to export to the value of 5l. per ton of import, instead as he had before understood from the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose), of being obliged, in the first instance, to export to that amount, and, on returning, to put her imported
434
cargo under the king's lock, till a cargo of equal value in colonial produce was exported. Mow he saw that a ship might go out in ballast, and that both etiquette and reciprocity were sacrificed. He concluded by expressing his hope and expectation of some relief being granted, and his anxiety for an answer from the right hon. gentleman.
Sir C. Mordauntsaid, that when a motion was made for a Committee, it should have his support.
Mr. Rose, in explanation, stated, that vessels could not go out in ballast—they must take out to the value of 5l. per ton, and if they imported wine or brandy, they must export an equal value of colonial produce.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not rise to enter into any general discussion on the Orders in Council; but after what had passed, he felt himself called on to make a few observations. The hon. gentleman had stated, that the petitions came from persons who had an opportunity of forming their opinions by experiment, upon the evils resulting front the Orders in Council; now this he apprehended they could not; for the very point upon which he and the hon. gentleman were at issue at the present moment, was, whether those evils proceeded from the Orders in Council, or from other causes? It was true that these person" were competent to state the pressure which was felt in trade, but he knew not how they could decide whether that pressure would have been less if the Orders in Council had never existed: or whether in fact the Berlin and Milan Decrees would have produced the mischief without them. He would say, that not only our difficulties had not increased since the adoption of these Orders, but that the whole trade of the country was in a better state. He was surprised to find the hon. gentleman's knowledge of trade so far overborne by his zeal against the measures of government, as to induce him to say, the Orders in Council were to prevent neutrals from trading with the enemy. He would maintain that the end was to open all trade, even to France itself, if France would trade with Great Britain. France had prohibited trade with Great Britain, and Great Britain had prohibited all trade to France, but what should go through Great Britain. The result was a pressure upon France, such as must compel her to open her ports to the trade of this country. He

435
would state that that very system of licences which was represented to be a departure from the Orders in Council, was a proof of their efficacy and effect.—He agreed that when the question of licenses was before the House, this matter would be better discussed. As to the importation of wine and brandy, the French were obliged to take a considerable quantity of sugar and coffee in return; and with regard to laces, muslins, and other articles of the kind, they would be brought in illegally if there was no allowance granted. He was surprised that so much misinformation should exist with respect to the outrages perpetrated in different parts of "he country; and that they should be ascribed to the Orders in Council, to starvation, and such causes. But was it owing to the Orders, or to starvation, that the mills were broken down? Was such misconduct to be excused, defended, and palliated? Was it fair to hold eat to the House that the destruction of the most valuable property which was daily to be deplored, was to be attribated to the Orders in Council? Was such language consistent with a due regard for the peace and welfare of the country? Was it not as indefinite as it was mischievous? As to the town from which this petition was presented, they bad heard the statement of the hon. baronet, who had told there, that, at the present moment, the want of employment was not severely felt. The hon. gentleman had recommended that the subject should be referred to a select committee, but the House should recollect that this was a case involving a great political question, which it was not the practice of parliament to delegate to any circumscribed committee, but to determine in a committee of the whole House. A detailed examination of evidence did not appear to him to suit a subject of that kind. He knew what an effect the shutting of the American market must have; but would the hon. gentleman state whether they would repeal the Orders in Council, and what they would expect from such a step? There was one time when gentlemen thought that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were done away, but that time was past. No man who knew any thing of the subject would say so now. It was notified by France herself that they should continue to operate, that they should be considered as the fundamental law of the continent, until we abandoned our system of blockade; and until Great
436
Britain conceded the doctrine that free bottoms made free goods. There was no man in that House who lamented the distresses that were felt in the country more than he did, but would any man say he was prepared to give up our maritime rights, by which Great Britain had risen to power and consequence? When this declaration on the part of France, with respect to the continuance of his Decrees, was known in America, he was not without a hope that America would not charge upon this country an unnecessary strictness in the measures to which she had resorted. But whatever the effect in America might be, this country ought to know that those Decrees were in full force now, and were to continue so until Great Britain should yield-up those privileges upon which her prosperity was so strongly founded. The hon. gentleman had asked, him on the subject of the exchequer bills granted as a loan to commercial men, whether he knew that the next instalment due to-morrow would not be paid? He would answer, that he anticipated no such circumstance; so far was he from thinking so, that he was firmly persuaded, the instalment would be faithfully discharged. He had no doubt, indeed, that it would be an accommodation to the gentlemen concerned, to be allowed a further time for the payment, but this, consistently with the public interests, he could not allow. If the Orders in Council were repealed before the Berlin and Milan Decrees, the consequence would be, that France would have her neutral trade open with America, while we were denied the trade of the continent of Europe. Unless the House was prepared to say that this would be judicious, the present did not seem to him to be a period in which it was possible to do away the Orders in Council.
Mr. Broughamexpressed his surprise at the speeches of the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a moment when Petitions signed by so many thousands and tens of thousands were presented to the House. They had treated it as a new question. He remembered, when, two months ago, he had given the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of detailing his sentiments upon this subject, that he was referred to the returns of Mr. Irvine from the Custom-house docks, and told, upon their authority, that there was little or no misery. He hoped the House would not refuse to the people the poor

437
satisfaction of reasoning with them under their sufferings, and enquiring into the causes by which those sufferings were produced. It was not enough to give them a debate as an answer. The hardware manufactories were carried on by about 70,000 persons, not persons brought from the field, but men of skill, who had undergone a regular apprenticeship. If these men were sent to recruit our army, or to till the ground, that force would be irrecoverably disbanded, which was necessary to the working of the manufactories. At present the master manufacturers kept them working a little at the reduced wages of 12 s. a-week, instead of from 25 s. to 35 s. This was not confined to Birmingham; in Leeds and other places they would find thousands out of employment. In Manchester alone, the poor who received relief from the parishes amounted to 25,000 persons, one-fourth of the population. As to the impropriety of allowing a committee on the subject, he would only ask, why might not the Orders in Council go before a select Committee as well as the question relating to the West India interests, in which evidence was gone into as to the evils that would arise from a war with America? That was a precedent which in a matter of such importance as the present, the House was called on to follow. He would tell the right hon. gentleman a remedy for the evils which now existed:—repeal the Orders in Council as far as regarded America, and if that did not satisfy her, it would at least satisfy the people of this country, that every thing had been done consistently with the safety of the realms. Then the House would be met by the affections of the country, not by such symptoms of discontent as had lately burst forth. He conjured the right hon. gentleman not to refuse enquiry to a petitioning nation, when they came to the House with cries and groans. He warned him that he would not be suffered—the nation would not allow him to go to war with America, more than they would suffer Mr. Pitt to do so. The right hon. gentleman might not wish to take this warning, but he was bold enough to predict, that many months would not pass before he would be convinced of the truth of it.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he did not rise to discuss the policy and expediency of the Orders in Council, which would soon come under the consideration of parliament; that it had not come sooner, the hon.
438
gentleman must bear his portion of responsibility. For he deprecated the idea of calling the attention of the House from the true ground of the question, and imputing an inattention in government to the public misfortune. His right hon. friend had not said there was no commercial distress, but by comparing the trade and manufactures of the country with their state in former periods, had shewn that the evil was not so great as it was represented. The cotton manufactory had arisen to such a state of prosperity, as to export to the amount of from 12 to 18 millions in one year. The natural consequence of this was to bear on the other exports. Was it fair to endeavour to give this country a dislike to the war, when the war could not be prevented; and was it not proper, with a view to obviating such a result, to shew that the depression of trade did not exist to such an extent as had been stated? He maintained that our gain by America upon the surrender of the Orders in Council, would be trifling in comparison with our loss of the trade of the continent, which would follow such a step. He believed, that the impressions out of doors were greatly exaggerated. Many parts, he would allow, suffered; but it was chiefly owing to the failure of the harvest, and not to the Orders in Council; and he could never believe that the people of this country were so dead to those maritime rights by which they had been elevated to their present state, as ignorantly to surrender them to the enemy, or even to neutral nations. The Berlin and Milan decrees were the fundamental law of France, not to be departed from, until we should abandon our Orders in Council, and what was called the new blockade, which was the measure of the late Mr. Secretary Fox, adopted in the year 1806. They were to be enforced against us as long as we refused to recognize the system of an armed neutrality. Such was the spirit of her last decree. He denied that there was any disinclination on the part of ministers to discuss the question; they had refused the committee before, thinking it to be unnecessary, but they were prepared to meet the subject on its own grounds. It was not by florid descriptions of distress that the country could be carried through its difficulties. His Majesty's ministers felt these difficulties as much as any one could feel them, but still they would not sacrifice the real interests of the country to any temporary

439
pressure; they acted upon more enlarged views, for the ultimate advantage and prosperity of the empire.
Lord Stanleyobserved, that something more was due to the Petitioners than merely to lay their petitions on the table; they ought to be taken into consideration. Under this impression, he should consider it to be his duty to make a motion on the subject. So far from encouraging the violent measures which had been pursued in various parts of the country, he strongly reprobated them; but conceiving that the Petitioners ought to be heard, he gave notice that he should, on Monday, the 27th, submit a motion to the House for that purpose.
Lord Binning, adverting to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) respecting the commercial loan, the payment on the next instalment being due to-morrow, wished to state, as chairman of the committee, that great numbers of the subscribers would have been glad that the day of payment was further postponed; but they were ready nevertheless.
Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, observed, he had merely stated, that the right hon. gentleman had refused to give the extension to the subscribers. But whether there was more or less of distress he did not know.
Mr. Lytteltonwished to correct a wrong impression which might have been made by some statements in the Petition. He much doubled whether all the manufacturers were employed He knew that previous to the meeting a kind of census had been taken of the number of manufacturers, and on the average nearly one-half were out of employ. It appeared also, that in some of the great manufactories only one-third were then employed; but in no instances were more than two-thirds employed.—With respect to parochial relief, there was no place in England where the poor were better off than in Birmingham. There were many friendly societies and clubs; from these they received consider-able benefits. He understood, however, that in the course of a few months there would be out of employ 70,000 manufacturers. He was aware that those who stated facts of this nature might be taxed with having inflammatory designs—with want of patriotism but the statement was true.
General Tarletonattributed the distress in trade to the Orders in Council; the highest and the lowest, the richest and the
440
poorest, were equally aggrieved by them. He condemned the manner in which the Petitions had been received, as turning a deaf ear to the complaints from all parts of the country. He had expressed his feelings in respect to the riots at Nottingham, and called for enquiry; but his call was disregarded, and what was the consequence? The spreading of those riots into other counties. Convinced of the necessity of enquiry, he should support the motion of his noble friend (lord Stanley) whenever it might be brought forward.
Mr. Marrryattthought that attempts had been made to inflame the minds of the manufacturers against his Majesty's ministers by circulating a report that the licences were issued only for the purpose of increasing the fortunes of a few private individuals.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

SINECURE BILL.
Mr. Bankesmoved the second reading of the Sinecure Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not rise to oppose the progress of the Bill, but to state that he conceived it was not framed on a right principle, and therefore it was but fair to the hon. gentleman and to the House to state, that when the blanks were filled up, he should discuss the principle, and endeavour to convince the House that it was so erroneous that it ought not to be adopted.
Mr. Bankesthought the principle of the Bill was not objectionable. He stated that he should propose in the committee to fill up the blanks on that day se'nnight.
The Bill was then read a second time.

THE PRINCESSES ANNUITY BILL.
On the question for the third reading of the Princesses Annuity Bill,
Mr. Tierneyrose, for the purpose of stating as shortly as he could, the objections that had determined him, however unwillingly, to resist the question just put from the chair. He acknowledged that from the very first there had been such a mystery thrown about the whole of the measures proposed to parliament for the establishment of the royal household, that he had had from the beginning no small distrust of them—that distrust, however, had not prevented him from looking at them again and again, and using all his industry to understand them—but in vain. He was as much in the dark as ever. The more he had considered the subject, the

441
more difficult he had found it. As to the mere increase of 6,000 l. a year, in addition to the 30,000 l. settled by the former Bill, to that he had no objection; but if the former Bill was the professed model of the present, why did the present Act depart from it in the most essential provision; the time at which the Act was to take effect? He could very well understand, how a Bill giving 30,000 l. a year to the Princesses might be not essentially different from one giving but 30,000 l. a year, but what he felt it difficult to comprehend, was, why the present Act was to take effect immediately, when the former was intended not to take effect till after the King's demise? Had any thing occurred since the enactment of the former Bill, that rendered an immediate provision necessary? Was there any thing in the present state of the country that made it desirable to increase its expenditure? One might suppose that the straitened state of our finances, the distresses of our manufacturers, and the calamities that marked the present times, did not particularly recommend the present as a period at which we should be more prompt to impose a charge upon the public than we were disposed to be at a former and much more favourable period. Unfortunately, however, the right hon. gentleman thought otherwise, and as he never thought without good reason, he would see why the right hon. gentleman thought so. He had given two reasons, one, the present state of the King; and the other, the present state of the Prince. The right hon. gentleman had spared himself the trouble of shewing why the indisposition of his Majesty made it necessary for the Princesses to have more money to spend, and he had been quite as satisfactory in his explanation of his second reason. For after having been urged in some measure to explain what he meant by the present state of the Prince, it turned out that the present state of the Prince meant neither more nor less than the present time of life of his Royal Highness, which was saying in other words, pretty much to this purpose, that because the ordinary revolution of twelve months had added one year to the age of the Prince Regent, parliament was bound lo give annually to his Royal Highness 36,000 l. a year of the public money. But the right hon. gentleman must excuse him if he said, that he did not believe that either of these reasons had any thing to do with the business. There must have been some other—one
442
that could not be disclosed—and was, therefore, most assiduously kept back. If there was no such secret reason, he asked if the Princesses were to have a separate establishment? he believed that they were not. He was convinced that those amiable personages would not hear of abandoning their royal father in his present calamity, and the Queen in her afflictions, in order to spend 36,000 l. a year under another roof. Then where was the necessity of the grant, unless so give the Princesses an opportunity of laying by so much money every year? He would, however, put the question directly to the right hon. gentleman, and ask him, were the Princesses to have an establishment independent of the Queen? He put the question so directly, that he did not think the right hon. gentleman could help answering it. If so, what was to be done with the saving that must in that case arise out of the civil list, as to the general expenditure of the Queen's household? But, then, for want of something better they were told that the Princesses had arrived at a certain age; but had not the Princes, their royal brothers, arrived at a certain age? and was not this a reason as applicable to the one as the other, if admissible in the case of either? As to what had been said of the necessity of independent establishments for those illustrious personages, he contended, that this added nothing to their independence, but made them, as far as it could, dependent on the Prince Regent, at whose pleasure the annuities were to be paid. Another strong objection to the Bill was, the fund upon which these annuities were charged:—instead of being charged upon the hereditary revenue of the crown, they were charged upon the consolidated fund. Had they been charged, as they ought to have been, on the hereditary revenue, then, in case of the demise of the crown, the charge would have fallen as it ought; but according to the present Bill, there was no chance upon any event of a relief to this pressure upon the public. But his main objection was to the thing itself as a whole. There had been throughout the entire conduct of it a struggle to disguise, to confuse and to deceive. But the simple question was, if 184,000 l. a year was not enough to provide for the comforts and splendour of the Queen and her royal daughters? The different items of their joint establishment already amounted to 184,000 l. a year. Why then were they called upon to give

443
the Princesses 36,000 l. a year? A good reason might be very reasonably demanded in such times; and what was the reason? Why, the time of life of the Prince Regent. Did this "time of life" break out as a new light upon his Majesty's ministers? Was it altogether a sudden discovery? Did they not know last year how old his Royal Highness would be this? And why did they not then propose this provision for the Princesses? For let the right hon. gentleman argue as he might, the Prince Regent was now but one year older than he was a year ago. It had been more than insinuated at the time of asking for more money for the King's household, that his Majesty was in a state which enabled him to derive gratification from his recognition of the persons in daily attendance upon him. Here he would put another plain question to the right hon. gentleman: Did he know that his Majesty, since the passing of that Bill, had any personal intercourse with one of the lords of the bed-chamber, or the grooms or equerries then voted? It was remarkable too, that the moment that Bill past, the Bulletins were reduced from once a week to once a month. It appeared, that on a recent occasion no groom was in attendance, and that an equerry had acted in his stead. What did all this prove? Why, that the whole scheme was little other than an ingenious mode of providing for those who had the good fortune to be in favour with the minister; and was this a way of answering the petitions they had heard read that day? But why antedate the Bill? unless to give the Princesses an advance of 9,000 l. Did they want this? Were they in debt or distress? If they were, in the name of truth and common sense why not say so at once, and come down with a message to the House to that effect; but according to the present mode parliament were telling the public as plainly as they could, that they did not think it necessary to explain why they voted away that money the country found it so difficult to contribute. He should propose, therefore, as an amendment, that instead of dating the Bill from the 18th of February last, it should be limited to take effect upon the King's demise. He again protested against the mode in which the whole business had been thrown upon the House, and hurried through it. He believed that there were very few of the gentlemen, then in the House, who knew the nature of the two Bills, which had
444
then been passed; there was something most suspicious in the whole transaction-there certainly was some curious secret at the bottom. He acquitted the royal Princesses of the slightest concert in the business. He had the highest personal respect for each and all of them. There had been, however, some way or other, a deal of juggling; one could see throughout the whole of the business an anxious and stirring bustle to divert people from the true scent. There certainly was a something that was to be concealed at the expence of revealing any thing else.
Before he sat down, he could not help adverting to the singular circumstauces in which her royal highness the Princess Regent was left to appear before the country. It seemed as if her fate was already sealed, abandoned as she was by her once chivalrous champion, her old friend, her faithful counsellor. But if the right hon. gentleman had found reason to change his opinion with respect to her, why had the Princess Charlotte of Wales, the future hope of England, been altogether overlooked in these arrangements? She was now bordering upon her 17th year, and not, either from her rank, prospects, or time of life, wholly exempted from the right hon. gentleman's consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied to part of the objections of the last speaker, and to part only, because he conceived that no inconsiderable portion of the arguments made use of by the right hon. gentleman were wholly inapplicable to the question immediately before the House. The greater part of the speech they had just heard was to points which had already gone by, and which the House had already decided upon. With respect to the suggestion of the propriety of creating a new fund by the abolition of the King's Household, he put it to the House, whether if the King's state of health was wholly irrecoverable, they would hear of any proposition to abolish during his life those provisions they had already made for his comfort and splendor, as far as either could be consulted. But even if the reduction did take place, he denied that the saving resulting therefrom would do more than provide for two of the Princesses. As to the fund upon which it was charged, the objection could have scarcely been meant in seriousness, because it was notorious that the hereditary revenues had merged in the consolidated fund. He certainly could not consent to the change

445
proposed, as to the time at which the Bill was to take effect. There was a great difference between the Princesses setting up a separate establishment (of which he believed they had no intention) and being compelled to confine their residence to Windsor for the remainder of their lives, under any circumstances whatever. As to their dependence on the Prince Regent, he contended that though the annuities were nominally during pleasure, they were to all intents and purposes effectually during life.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that the speech of the right hon. gentleman was much more remarkable for what it had omitted to say, than for any thing it had said. The two most important points in the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) had been passed over without the slightest allusion to either. He did not censure the right hon. gentleman for not attempting to do what he might have found it very difficult to do well—in certain cases where no ingenuity could defend, perhaps silence was at once the most prudent and the most candid extenuation. Be the motive what it might, it was certain that the right hon. gentleman did not say one word respecting either the Princess of Wales or the Princess Charlotte of Wales. Why the minister thought it prudent to say nothing upon a subject of such general importance he should not pretend to explain, but he questioned much if the country in general would be disposed to put the best construction upon a silence that was at best suspicious.—With respect to those topics upon which the right hon. gentleman was not afraid to speak out, he (Mr. Whitbread) did not think him much more successful than those upon which he had been silent. He had not explained why he did not, in the first instance, upon the memorable 18th of February, state at once the whole system of this increase of the household establishment. He had said, that the hereditary revenue merged in the consolidated fund, and that therefore it was immaterial upon which fund those annuities were charged; never was there a greater fallacy in point of argument; because, though it had so merged, was there a doubt that upon the demise of the king, the hereditary revenues only would be answerable to the claims of the annuitants, provided those annuities had been charged upon that fund? He had told them that the Princesses approved of this increase. Of that there could be no doubt; but did
446
the right hon. gentleman, when he consulted those royal personages on the propriety of enlarging their annual draughts upon the public purse, did he then submit to them a faithful representation of the present state of the civil list, and the present miseries of the manufacturing part of their royal father's subjects? If he had not done so, he had not done his duty.—With respect to the establishment of his Majesty, neither he nor any of his friends wished to detract from whatever might be necessary to the King's Comfort or splendour. But why pay four grooms of the chamber, for instance, when, of those four, there was but one could do the duty—three of them, general Legge, sir Harry Neale, and general Campbell, being now abroad on foreign service? Did not these appointments shew that ministers themselves did not think so many necessary?—For his part he thought some of those officers might well be paid out of the civil list—on the same principle that he had thougnt that the Prince Regent ought to have paid his own private secretary out of his own privy purse—"I have heard," said Mr. Whitbread, "that the Queen is about to hold a drawing-room, of course no hopes can now exist of his Majesty's recovery, because if there were any, such a step, I presume, would not be resorted to; but in case that drawing-room is held, I would wish to know, is there to be any public appearance of the Princess of Wales?—This is no private concern—the public have a right to demand why the acknowledged consort of their Regent does not appear in public as such. No affectation of delicacy can be permitted to stand in the way of a nation's anxiety upon a question of such national importance.—If any man can satisfy the public upon this topic, it is the right hon. gentleman. They know him to have been at one time the zealous adviser and devoted adherent to the Princess of Wales. They believe him to have conscientiously undertaken her defence, to have written her vindication—to have published it. That vindication is said to have involved in it an attack upon her royal consort. It is known to have been an attack upon his Royal Highness, and the Regent's first minister is known to have been the author of it, and after he had published it, after it had been read by one and by one hundred, it was bought up at an enormous expence; bought up by the private secretary of the right hon. gentleman. I ask him now,

447
does he retain his former opinions of the unexceptionable conduct of the Princess of Wales? I ask him if he did not lately in this House solemnly record his confirmation of that opinion; and if it is now what it was the the other night, I call upon him to explain, if he can, his apparent desertion of her just claims to that respect, notice, provision, and consideration due to her? These are questions, which, as he; values his own consistency, as he values the character and claims of the Princess, and as he respects the Prince his master, he is bound to answer.
Sir J. Newportopposed the Bill, and asked why the right hon. gentleman had deviated from the former proceeding of charging the annuity to the Princesses on the hereditary revenue, for the purpose of charging it on the consolidated fund.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that in the former Bill the grant was to take place at a future period, but that in the present Bill it was to take place immediately, and must therefore be charged on the fund immediately applicable. In 1806, when an additional grant was made to the Princes, the ministers of that day naturally proposed that it should be charged on the consolidated fund; and he believed no instance could be found of a grant which was to take place immediately having been charged on the hereditary revenue.
Mr. Courtenayconfirmed the statement just made by the right hon. gentleman, and supported the Bill.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that the present grant might be charged on that part of the consolidated fund, which was constituted by the hereditary revenue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained the manner in which the hereditary revenue was merged in the consolidated fund, and which rendered it impossible to make a charge on any distinct part of it.
Mr. Tierneymerely wanted the grant to be charged on the hereditary revenue, so that on the demise of the crown, parliament would be enabled to ascertain what were the exact sums with which the revenue was burdened.
Mr. Roserepeated the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hereditary revenue of the crown was by no means so large as gentlemen opposite seemed to think.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that it was 1,400,000 l. per annum.
Mr. Rosediscovered the right hon. gentleman's
448
mistake. He had confounded the hereditary revenue of the crown with the temporary revenue which had been settled on all the sovereigns of the country from the time of queen Anne, at the period of their accession. The hereditary revenue did not at present exceed 350,000 l. a year.
Mr. W. Smithopposed the Bill. He solemnly declared that from his soul he pitied the right hon. gentleman, when he reflected upon the feelings he must have experienced before he could have made up his mind to come down at such a time with such a proposition to the House.
Mr. Secretary Ryderwas suprised that now, for the first time, the hon. gentleman should have found an opportunity of giving vent to his feelings, upon so late a stage as the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. W. Smithbegged pardon for interrupting the right hon. gentleman, but he had fallen into a slight mistake. Instead of this being the first time that he (Mr. Smith) had spoken against the Bill, it so happened that it was only the fourth!
Mr. Secretary Ryderbad no hesitation in acknowledging the error he had fallen into, in supposing that the speech he had just heard was the first made by the hon. gentleman; but however mistaken he might be as to him, he believed he was accurate in saying that many gentlemen at that end of the House, who had been that night so vehement against the Bill, particularly one honourable gentleman then in his eye, had not spoken against the Bill in any of its former stages.
Mr. Whitbreadbegged pardon of the right hon. gentleman, but if he was the person alluded to, it was another slight mistake, for he had resisted the Bill in every stage.
Mr. Secretary Rydercontended, that there had been objections thrown out in the debate of that night, which they had never before heard of. He thought the claims of the Princesses irresistible, whether in reference to themselves personally, or as the daughters of their afflicted and venerable monarch—He did not court that sort of popularity to which certain gentlemen laid exclusive claim; he was persuaded however that the measure was a popular one. As to the Princess of Wales, she already had an independent provision, which the Princesses had not. He hoped that his right hon. friend would continue true to the confidence reposed in him, and not be tempted by any threats or attacks to

449
deviate from that proper and respectful silence which he had hitherto maintained upon the subject. (Hear! hear! from the Opposition side of the House.) He was not afraid to repeat what he had said. As to the drawing-room, it was the Queen's right to hold one, if she pleased. It had been stated as extraordinary, that her Majesty was about to hold a drawing-room. He did not know what view the hon. gentleman entertained of the case, but his Majesty, notwithstanding his unfortunate affliction, was still King; of course her Majesty was still Queen of these realms, and under those circumstances he knew not who ought to hold a drawing-room unless it were her Majesty.
Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, denied having asserted, that it was improper for the Queen to hold a drawing-room. All that he said was, that the Princess of Wales ought to be placed in such a situation, as to enable her Royal Highness also to hold a drawing-room.
Lord A. Hamiltonobserved, that the additional sum granted in the early part of the present session to her Majesty, was so granted on the express representation that the Princesses were to remain with her: and now they came forward for separate establishments. The establishment of the Princess of Wales was only 5,000 l. a year, and therefore he did not think any delicacy was exhibited towards her Royal Highness by those who talked so much about it.
The Bill was read a third time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen introduced several new clauses. On that being proposed by which the commencement of the operation of the Bill was fixed for the 18th of February last,
Mr. Whitbread, adverting to what the right hon. Secretary of State had said of delicacy, expressed his surprise that the right hon. Secretary had made this observation, at the same time that he must be aware of the course and conduct pursued by the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who sat next him, on an occasion highly interesting to that illustrious individual. He would ask if there had not been at a former period a solemn proceeding on the case of the Princess of Wales—if that case had not been referred by his Majesty to his ministers for their advice—if on that advice, her Royal Highness had not been received at court—if the right hon. gentleman's right hon. friend had not then caused to be
450
printed, at a private press in his house, a large number of copies of a detail of the transaction, for the purpose of giving them to the world? Why the work had been suppressed, he did not know. But he knew that several copies which had got abroad were bought up at a large expence, and he believed that certain advertisements offering rewards to those who would bring copies of the work to one Lindsell, a bookseller, proceeded from the right hon. gentleman or his agents, When these facts were notorious, he knew not why members of that House were to be arraigned for asking questions; certainly in one point of view, of a private nature, but of very great national importance in another.
Mr. Secretary Rydersaid, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the questions which had been put by the hon. gentleman. When he spoke of the conduct pursued by him and his friends, on the present and on similar occasions, when he had talked of delicacy, he did not flatter himself that his observations would be attended with much effect. But he thought it his duty to state his opinion, which he did not look upon as that of a single individual; for, if he knew any thing of the feelings of the public on this subject, there was no part of the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite which had created more disgust and disapprobation than the manner in which they had introduced this matter to the House. Though he by no means expected that what he had before said would have any weight with them, still he was surprised that the hon. gentleman should put a question to him on a business, with all the details of which he must be aware he (Mr. Ryder) was not acquainted. But, after the opinion he had given on the subject, if he even were perfectly master of those details, he should conceive himself as acting with extreme inconsistency if he returned an answer.
Mr. Tierneyproposed his amendment, that instead of "the 18th February, 1812," "the demise of his Majesty" should be substituted.
On this amendment the House divided. Ayes 35, Noes 101, Majority 66.
The original clause was then agreed to and the Bill was passed.

GOLDSMID'S ESTATE BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Lord Folkestonehaving adverted to the little attention which bad been paid to its

451
progress through the House, expressed himself anxious to receive some information as to the grounds on which it was introduced. He understood that Mr. Goldsmid, at his death, was very much indebted to government, as well as to private individuals, and ministers had thought proper to forego the priority of right which the crown could claim for the payment of debts due to it, and remained content to come in with the other creditors. Had an extent issued, he was informed, the public debt would have been entirely liquidated; but by the course which had been pursued, the dividend would be only 19 s. in the pound, the same as paid to the general body of creditors.
Mr. A. Baringsaid, that Mr. Goldsmid's principal property consisted in 4,000,000 l. of Omnium, which had been placed, as deposits, with several persons. If this had been sold precipitately, or to satisfy an extent, the loss would have been very great. He was possessed also of some real estate, but it was evident no person would become the purchaser of it, while an extent from the crown was hanging over the property. Under these circumstances, government had conceded their claim, and the Bill was introduced.
Mr. Johnstonethought the third reading might be postponed for a few days, without inconvenience, to give an opportunity for the printing of the Bill.
Mr. Baringhad no objection to the proposition, if such was the feeling of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the printing of the Bill would give no information as to the grounds on which ministers had thought fit to give up the right of the crown to priority of payment. If that information were desired, he would Cheerfully accede to the production of any documents from the Treasury, that might be deemed necessary; but this need not be a bar to the third reading of the Bill.
Lord Folkestoneexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation.
It was agreed that the third reading should take place on Wednesday next, and that the Bill should be printed.

GOLD COIN AND BANK NOTE AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion that the report of this Bill be brought up,
Lord A Hamiltonexpressed his surprise that the motion should be made at so late an hour, when the discussion was likely to occupy so much time. He, as well as
452
several other hon. members, had a clause to propose.
Mr. Parnellcomplained, that he had not yet had an opportunity of fully expressing his opinion on the measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the hon gentleman's memory appeared to be much weaker than those of other hon. members. He, recollected, that the hon. gentleman had, on a former night, honoured the House with a very excelent, but not a very short argument on the Bill.
Mr. Parnellsaid, the speech alluded to, bore on the measure only as it related to Ireland.
Lord Folkestonethought, as the Bill was introduced to re-enact a law which had expired three weeks ago, and as no evil, that he had heard of, had arisen from its cessation, the delay of a few days could produce no inconvenience.
Sir J. Newporturged, as a principal reason for postponing the report, that if brought up now, it would certainly create a debate, and probably a very long one, which, at so late an hour, would be highly improper. He should therefore, move, "That the House do now adjourn."
On this a new discussion arose, after which a division took place, when the numbers were,

For the Adjournment

35

Against it

101

Majority

66

Sir J Newport, however, expressing his determination to reiterate the question of adjournment, the reception of the report was postponed to Monday, and the House adjourned.