Sitting of 27 January 1819

PRIVILIGE OF PARLIAMENT—ROBERT CHRISTIE BURTON, ESQ.
The Speakerrose and said:—I have to acquaint the House, that on Saturday, the 16th instant, I received a letter from a gentleman of the name of Robert Christie Burton, describing himself to be member of parliament, for the borough of Beverley, which

129
letter, with the permission of the House, I will now read:—"Ludgate Hill, No 39, January 14th 1819. Sir; I have the honour to inform you that, on the 17th day of June 1818, I was elected member of parliament to represent the borough of Beverly, in the east riding of the county of York; but, being in the custody of the warden of his majesty's prison of the court of Common pleas, at the suit of creditors for civil debts, the deputy warden, Mr. Nixon, informs me, that he cannot consent to release me until he shall be authorized to that effect by a warrant from the right hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons; I am therefore to request that you will be pleased to inform me what are the requisite steps to be adopted upon the occasion. I have the honour to be, &c. Robert Christie Burton, M. P." I wrote to Mr. Christie, in answer, that I would take the first opportunity of laying his letter before the House. I afterwards received a second letter as follows:—"Ludgate Hill, No. 39, Jan. 20th 1819. Sir, I am to request that you will be pleased not to consider my letter of the 14th instant as an official communication, or in a parliamentary point of view, as circumstances will occur enabling me to take my seat in the House on Monday next. I have the honour, &c. Robert Christie Burton, M. P." In consequence of this request, I did not lay the preceding letter before the House. Late last night I received a third letter, as follows:—"Ludgate Hill, No. 39, Jan. 26th, 1819. Sir; Having perused the various acts of parliament, and consulted the best authorities, relative to my situation as a member of the House of Commons, I beg leave to refer you to my letter of the 14th instant upon the subject, and to request that you will be pleased to take the earliest opportunity of submitting my case to the House, in order that I may be enabled to avail myself of those privileges to which I am entitled as a representative in parliament. I have the honour to be, &c. Robert Christie Burton, M. P." The House will perhaps pardon me for calling their attention to a similar occurrence which took place in 1807, when an hon. member stated that he was detained in similar confinement. An order was then made to refer the complaint to the committee of privileges, which sat next day, and whose only object was, to establish
[130
the identity of the individual. That having been proved, the committee made their report, and he was ordered to be discharged out of custody. Some hon. member will perhaps move a similar proceeding in the present instance.
Mr. Bathurstaccordingly moved, "That it be referred to the committee of privileges to examine the subject matter of the said letters, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House." The motion was agreed to, and the committee was instructed to sit tomorrow.

WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS BILL.
Mr. Bennet Mr. Bennet moved, that leave be given to bring in a bill for reviving and further continuing for a limited time, an act made in the 51st of his majesty, intituled, "An Act to explain and amend the Laws touching the election of the knights of the shire to serve in Parliament for England, respecting the expenses of hustings and poll clerks, so far as regards the city of Westminster." Leave was given, and the bill was brought in, and read a first time.

SILVER CURRENCY.
Mr. Grenfellrose to put a question to the chancellor of the exchequer, upon a point of the utmost importance to the public. He had received information that day, of the correctness of which he had no Reason to doubt, that the price of standard silver had advanced to 5s. 7½d. per ounce, or three halfpence above the price fixed by the Mint regulations. In the year before last, when those hew regulations were made, that price was four or five per cent above the price of the general market. His reason, therefore, for now putting a question to the right hon. gentleman was because, whenever the price of silver should be such as to afford a profit upon either melting or exporting the coin, it would begin to disappear. Should the price therefore remain at its present amount, the disappearance of the new silver currency might be calculated on, as the new gold coin had already disappeared; unless government were prepared with some means of counteracting that effect. What he wished now to know was, whether any measure was under consideration for the purpose of checking the evil already begun.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it must be evident to the House that to a question so important as that of

131
the hon. gentleman it was impossible to return an answer without some time for consideration. He had heard of the rise in the price of silver mentioned by the hon. gentleman, although he had no knowledge of the fact; but he certainly had reason to believe that the present high price was not likely to continue.

BANK RESTRICTION.
Mr. Protheroe, seeing an honourable Bank director in his place, wished to learn from him, whether it was the desire of the Bank, that the committee about to be appointed to inspect their affairs, should be a secret committee? He asked this question, because he felt that that committee, in order to be useful, ought to carry with it the confidence of the country; and he had great doubts whether that confidence would be given to a committee whose investigations were secret, unless it could be shown, at the same time, that disclosure would be attended with public danger.
Mr. Manningsaid, that he had not the honour of a seat there as a Bank director, but as a duly elected member of parliament. He therefore called for the protection of the House against such sudden interrogatories. He would, while he sat there, discharge, to the best of his ability, his duty as a member; but although, from courtesy, he might answer a question, he hoped it would not be forgotten, that he appeared there as a member of parliament, and did not take his seat as a director.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that if the hon. member for Bristol would refer to the report of the secret committee which sat in 1797, to inquire into the affairs of the Bank, he would perceive that there was nothing in such a proceeding to preclude the House from a general consideration of the subject. He wished to take that opportunity of stating his intention to move, on Tuesday next, for a committee of secrecy, to inquire into the state of the Bank, with reference to the expediency of the resumption of cash payments at the time fixed by act of parliament, and into such other matters as might be connected therewith. It was pot usual to move in the first place that the committee should be one of secrecy, but he thought it due in candour to intimate, that he intended to propose that this should be its character.
Mr. Tierneydeclared, that his difficulty in understanding what course the right hon. gentleman really had it in contemp-
[132
lation to pursue, was only increased by this statement of his intentions. The words in which he had just expressed the motion which he was to submit to the House, might mean the same thing in substance as those of his own, or they might mean something very different. His own motion might include the right hon. gentleman's question, and the right hon. gentleman might only think that the former was exceptionable as being too comprehensive. If he were desirous merely that some part of his (Mr. T.'s) proposition should be excluded, he begged that he would extend his candour so far as to say so, and it might happen that the same motion might embrace the objects of both, and the right hon. gentleman's be the better of the two. He wished likewise to know whether, if a committee of secrecy were assented to, it was to be chosen by ballot.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that upon the best information which he had, as to the rules and practice of the House, committees of secrecy were always elected by ballot. With regard to the terms of his motion, the right hon. gentleman must recollect, that the one of which he had himself at first given notice was so vague in its expression, that he had found it necessary, subsequently, to correct it. If the right hon. gentleman meant nothing more than was included in the inquiry to which his (the chancellor of the exchequer's) motion would naturally lead, he could not perceive what objection he could have to adopt it.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that in his construction of the right hon. gentleman's notice, he had learned nothing distinctly, except that the committee was to be secret, and to be chosen by ballot. Of this there was no doubt, and this was the limit of the information he had acquired of the nature of that inquiry which was to be proposed. The object of his own motion was to inquire openly, and generally, into the state of our currency, of the foreign exchanges, and the degree to which they were affected by the restriction of cash payments at the Bank. This inquiry he thought important, in order that the country should know what the system was upon which they were embarking, and proceed with its eyes open. If the right hon. gentleman thought him wrong in the manner of framing his motion, be wished him to say so; for he had

133
no desire to squabble about words, or trouble the House unnecessarily with a long debate. But it certainly appeared to him at present that the right hon. gentleman differed from him merely from the love of opposition, and a persuasion, he supposed, that nothing could be right which proceeded from that side of the House. Let the right hon. gentleman, therefore, state explicitly whether his inquiry embraced the same object which fee (Mr. Tierney) had now explained to be what he had in view, and if it were so, he would cheerfully withdraw his notice, leaving the right hon. gentleman the glory of carrying his point, and resting quite satisfied with the secret gratification of having obtained what he wanted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the collateral matters referred to by the terms of his motion would certainly include the state of the currency, and other questions; but the first point of inquiry would be, the state of the affairs of the Bank, a topic not even mentioned in the words of the right hon. gentleman's notice.
Mr. Tierneywished to know whether the right hon. gentleman would be satisfied with a secret committee to inquire into the state of the Bank simply. For his own part, he had no doubt of its solvency; but he hoped that a secret committee was not deemed necessary for investigating the general policy or necessity of continuing the restriction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion, that it would be more expedient that the whole inquiry should be submitted to one committee similar in its formation to that which gave general satisfaction to the country in the year 1797.
Mr. Tierneyreplied, that he should think he deserted his duty to the country, if after the right hon. gentleman's declaration, he did not take the sense of the Mouse on the question of referring this most important inquiry to a committee chosen by ballot, and whose report every man well knew would be nothing more than an echo of the right hon. gentleman's own opinion.

PETITION FROM LONDON, COMPLAINING OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord Hollandsaid, he held in his hand a petition from the lord mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London, in common council assembled, relating to the present state of the criminal law of the country, which was evidently deserving of the most anxious attention of their lordships, it being a subject that loudly called for legislative consideration. The petition did not come from visionaries, or merely speculative men, but from men of business, men immersed in the commerce of London, and in the every day habit of attending to those subjects which must be materially involved in any consideration of the criminal law of the country. Amongst those also who petitioned were men who formed an important part of the magistracy of the country, and who were in the constant practice of those duties which were essentially connected with the administration of the laws. These considerations more peculiarly rendered the petition deserving of their lordships consideration. That the subject itself was one of the greatest importance could scarcely admit of a doubt; nor could he
[120
imagine any reason why they should not enter into the consideration of the criminal code, with a view to render it more consonant to the general feelings, unless they were to deem that a valid argument, which was, in truth, a most whimsical one, namely, that the code was to be upheld by the continual breach of its enactments—which was the every day practice. The petition truly stated the reluctance of prosecutors to come forward, of jurymen to convict, and of judges to punish to the extent of the law. And could it be for a moment contended, that the mere terror of punishments which were rarely inflicted could have any effect in preventing the commission of crimes? Did not, on the contrary, the alarming increase of offences prove the utter uselessness of continuing punishments of which the state of the public feeling did not allow the application? He was aware, that a reference by analogy to the practice of other countries was not always a wholesome argument; but he might be allowed, with regard to the present subject, to observe, that in a neighbouring country, France, previous to the revolution (the horrors and bloodshed of which were so often lamented by persons who forgot to notice the great amelioration in the condition of the people, and the improvement of their moral state in consequence of that event), the punishment by law for the minor offence of stealing in a dwelling-house was death, and that death aggravated by the torment of the rack. The effect of this severity of punishment was, that the masters, acting with that humanity which became them, would not prosecute servants for stealing their property; and the consequence of this was, that in scarcely any house in France was there any security for property. Either by the constituent assembly or the national convention this law was abolished, and a comparatively light punishment substituted, which improvement of the law had been transferred to the Code Napoleon, and still remained a part of the law of France. What had been the consequence? Persons who would have before shrunk with horror from prosecuting servants for theft, had since done it without reluctance; and the offence of stealing in a dwelling house was now scarcely known throughout France. This was a striking example of the efficacy of substituting mild but certain punishments, for those of a severe or sanguinary cha-

121
racter; which, from the circumstance of their being so, were seldom inflicted. In moving that this petition should lie upon the table, he certainly did not mean to take up the subject to which it referred for the purpose of pressing it upon the consideration of the House. The task had fallen into abler hands. He trusted, however, that no long period would elapse, before some effectual steps would be taken, not for the purpose of rashly innovating, but in order to make those practical reforms in our criminal code which the state of the public feeling undoubtedly called for; and that we should no longer be left to protect our property with weapons which we could not and durst not use.—His lordship then presented the petition, which was read by the clerk at the table, and was couched in the same terms as the one presented to the Commons, and which will be found at p. 81.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the petition, or making any objection to the discussion of so important a subject, when it should come before the House. The present, however, was not the time for discussion, nor did he mean to enter into it. Were he to say any thing upon such a question, it would be necessary to say a great deal. He wished, therefore, to refer it to another opportunity. What he wished to call their lordships attention to now was, a mere matter of fact. Upon such a subject it was necessary to know how facts stood. It was necessary to consider how far the increase of crimes might have arisen in the last and preceding years, in consequence of the transition from war to peace, and the circumstances naturally attending such a change. They should look to former corresponding periods of war and peace, to know whether the same effects followed from the same causes. There was certainly no period in their history completely analogous to the present. There was no preceding war in which the military and naval establishments were so large. This was to be borne in mind, when computing how far the same changes arose from the same causes in other periods. Documents quite satisfactory could not, it was true, be consulted, for until within a few years no general return was made of convictions and punishments. It was in 1805, when he had the honour of being secretary for the home department, that such re-
[122
turns were first made, and they were afterwards regularly transmitted by all the judges to the home office. Though there was not previously any information of this kind respecting the country at large, it might be had with respect to capital convictions and punishments within the city of London since the year 1749. These returns included the worst species of crimes. If their lordships looked to the period of the American war, it would appear that in the year 1777, the capital convictions in the city of London were 63; in 1778, 81; in 1779, 60. It was remarkable, that the increase of capital convictions and punishments at that period, commenced with the peace, and went on progressively increasing for a few years after, and then began to diminish. In 1780 they were 84; in 1781, 90; in 1782, 108; in 1783,175; in 1784, 153; in 1785, 151; and in 1788, the diminution was considerable. For the four first years after the peace, the greatest number of crimes, compared with the smallest number during the war, was as three to one, and the smallest number in the same period after the peace, as compared to the greatest during the war, was as two to one. If they took the war of 1756, they would find the same result. In 1759, the capital convictions were 15; in 1760, 14; in 1761, 22; in 1762, 23; and in 1765, 41. He did not state these facts for the purpose of drawing from them any general result, or with a view of embarrassing the subject, but, while attending to the facts of the petition, it was necessary also to consider how far similar causes operated at various periods of the same nature. When the subject came under their lordships consideration, it would be worth while to attend to these facts, and to be apprised of the correct state of them.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion under the present circumstances. It was a most important subject, and he should be glad that an opportunity were given of taking such an extended view of it as that alluded to by the noble earl. The principle laid down by that noble earl did not appear to him sufficient to account for the late extraordinary and unprecedented increase of crimes. It did not by any means commence with the peace, but went on progressively, from time to time, during the war also. Its progress was not therefore

123
to be looked for exclusively in the transition from a state of war to peace. There were other circumstances to be considered, though he was not now prepared to state them; but he felt confident that the increase of crime could not be referred to any single principle. It arose from weight of taxation, from the fluctuation of property incidental to war, and from the manner in which that war was supported. It was the conviction of the magistrates, that the crimes so prevalent at the present day did not belong, in any great degree, to soldiers and sailors; they were rather surprised how few could be traced to them. Crimes, it was true, might be committed by others, influenced by the state to which the families of soldiers and sailors were reduced; but the great number of juvenile offenders could not be accounted for upon any such principle. If there was any class of culprits upon which the interference of the legislature could produce a powerful and lasting effect, it was with respect to them. Their great increase was a most remarkable feature in the depravity of the present times; and it arose, he had no doubt, principally from the state of the prisons. This was not to be attributed to the keepers, but to the insufficient means of managing such places properly, and the want of machinery to conduct them with any beneficial results. They thus became schools of vice, and hence arose the present systematic and improved education in crime. It could not be accounted for, except in a very slight degree indeed, upon the principle of a transition from war to peace. Besides, the noble earl spoke of the years immediately succeeding the war of 1756 and the American war; whereas, they were now in the fourth year after a peace, with crimes rapidly on the increase. [The earl of Liverpool said, he gave the returns for 1786 and 1787, four years after a peace.] The years 1786 and 1787 might bear out the noble lord's statement. It was not however merely of the increase that he now spoke, but of the immense mass of crime that existed altogether. It would be found that the convictions had increased from 3 or 4,000 to 13,000 in the course of twelve years. This was not to be accounted for on the solitary ground suggested by the noble earl. It was of the highest importance to ascertain, what the causes were, and to find whether they were such as it was within the reach of
[124
the legislature to remove. As such was the object of the petition, it should have his warmest support. To innovate rashly; to change long existing laws without sufficient reason, was unwise and impolitic; but when crimes had increased to such an unprecedented degree, it was right to consider whether they might not be diminished by some change in the present penal code of the country.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had not stated the transition from war to peace as the only cause of the increased crimes, but as one which he considered very material. He, however, still contended, that the increase, with respect to the late war, was proportionally similar to that which had taken place in former wars, and on the conclusion of peace.
Lord Kingalluded to the report before their lordships relative to the means of preventing the forgery of bank-notes, and observed, that if they wished to put a stop to the lamentable effects of forgery, they must remove the cause. There were very few instances of the forgery of country bank-notes, while executions for forging Bank of England notes were numerous. The reason was, that the competition of country bankers occasioned a vigilant attention on the part of each house to the state of its notes. If many forged notes were suffered by country bankers to get into circulation, it would affect their credit. Hence they were constantly on the watch. But the Bank of England, having no competition, did not feel the necessity of the same vigilance. The only remedy for this was, either to return to cash payments, or if that was not to be, to allow the bankers of London to issue one and two pound notes, in which case, from the competition, great vigilance would be used, and forgery become much less prevalent.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

CARE OF HIS MAJESTY'S PERSON BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on this bill,
Lord Hollandsaid, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not object to the care and custody of the king's person being vested in the duke of, York, it having been deemed fitting by the legislature that the custody of the king's sacred person should be separated from the executive government; and some measure being rendered necessary by the

125
demise of her late majesty, he undoubtedly thought that the duke of York, from his station, his high character, and the relation in which he stood to his majesty, was the fittest person that could possibly be chosen for that high trust. He still, however, thought, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble earl opposite on the preceding evening, that the present bill was, by the clause relating to the Windsor establishment, rendered inconsistent, and that to render the bill an intelligent piece of legislation, it was absolutely necessary that that clause should be struck out. Either their lordships should have before them, previous to passing this bill, a statement as to the extent of the establishment, or the bill should relate solely to the care and custody of the king's person, without referring at all to the establishment. The noble earl had, however, said, it was impossible that the establishment should be augmented; but where was the evidence of this? for not one word tending to such a conclusion was to be found in the bill. But, then, it had been said by the noble earl, that it was intended to reduce the establishment, without, however, entering into any detail, though he did not mean to charge this as matter of blame, it being perfectly natural. This was certainly evidence of the present intentions of the noble earl, whose opinion, no doubt, had great influence in that House. But it was possible, that the noble earl might change his opinion; and it was just possible, though not so probable as the former, that the majority of parliament might differ in opinion with the noble earl. Their lordships would recollect, that it was not the first time the noble earl had changed an opinion after intimating that opinion in that House. It was not long since, and upon a question, too, relating to the royal family, that the noble earl, after delivering an opinion in that House, found reason, in consequence of the silent voice of a little parliament of his own, to correct the opinion which he had first stated. Another instance occurred during the short time of the present session; the noble earl having expressed an opinion, on the first day of its opening against any inquiry into the affairs of the Bank, which opinion, in consequence of a communication with a certain little parliament of his own, he had since found reason to change. Where, then, was the security in the present case,
[126
that some little parliament of lords of the bed-chamber, and persons connected with the Windsor establishment, might not induce the noble earl to change, to alter, the intention he had expressed of reducing that establishment? Upon a former occasion, when he (lord Holland) thought the Windsor establishment much too large for any purposes of comfort to our afflicted monarch, lords of the bedchamber started up, to say, forsooth, that they, who had stuck by the king in his prosperity, would not desert him in his adversity; and that they would not take away one iota from the splendor which surrounded their sovereign. What security was there now, that lords of the bedchamber might not again start up, to declare that they would not take away any part of the splendor which surrounded the monarch? and with this additional reason, that his majesty required more consolation now, from the circumstance of his having lost her who had been his companion for upwards of fifty years. Why, then, if there was no security, notwithstanding all that had been said, for the reduction of the Windsor establishment, or even that it might not be increased, surely it became the House to pause before they sanctioned an establishment without knowing of what that establishment was to consist, and when the bill might be passed for vesting the care of the king's person without any reference whatever to the establishment, and be perfectly effective for that object. The noble lord concluded by moving to leave out all the words in the bill relating to the Windsor establishment.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that their lordships were now only proceeding to legislate on a part of the subject, upon which no difference of opinion existed. They were all agreed as to the propriety of establishing the custody of the king's person in one of the royal family; they were agreed as to the propriety of vesting it in the duke of York, to whom the control of the establishment was to be given, in consequence of such appointment, by the present clause. To this he thought that no objection could fairly be urged. A difference of opinion might arise with respect to the amount of the establishment; but the best way of proceeding, in such a case, was to separate the two questions; to appoint the duke of York, in the first instance, and to leave the other subject for a future occasion, not as

127
being less fit for legislative provision, but as being more likely to divide the sentiments of the House. The noble lord had alluded to a former session, when a reduction of the establishment was spoken of. He had no hesitation in stating, that if a proposition to that effect had been made at that time, he would have opposed it. What difference there was in the present state of things, which might justify a different course, it would be for him to explain when the subject came regularly before their lordships. This much he would state at present, that while her majesty lived, she was queen consort; and when the establishment was first taken into consideration, regard was had to her majesty's situation, as well as to the king's. But this would come more properly into discussion when the other measure was before them. The noble lord had objected against giving to the duke of York the patronage of the establishment, when they did not know to what amount it was to be reduced. The noble lord's objection would have some weight if he was perfectly prepared to say, that in case the establishment was continued at its present amount, the duke of York ought not to have the control of it; but the ground upon which he urged them to adopt the measure was this, that whatever that establishment might be, leaving its limits to be determined by future discussions, it was fit that the duke of York should have the patronage, and exercise every power over it which her majesty had done before him. The question was, whether they would refuse to the duke of York, being custos personœ, the privileges that belonged to the character in which they were agreed that he should be placed. The noble lord did not like an imperium in imperio; neither did he: but it was to be observed, that the question was not now proposed for the first time, that the principle had been already acted on, and that this was not the only case to which if was applicable. The objection of an imperium in imperio extended, in fact, to any, establishment for any branches of the royal family. It was applicable to the establishment of the prince of Wales. If any inconvenience was felt from its application to these cases; a fact of which he professed himself perfectly un aware, their lordships would balance such inconvenience with that of having the members of the royal family, and particularly the prince of Wales, without establishments
[128
suitable to their rank. His lordship concluded by repeating, that the objection of the noble lord would be valid if he could go the length of saying that the duke of York ought not to have the patronage of the establishment, if it was to be continued at its present amount.
Lord Hollandsaid, he did not join issue with the noble earl. It was by no means necessary, to support his objection to refuse the patronage of the establishment to the duke of York in the case alluded to. In one word, his objection was this, that if they agreed to the clause in its present shape without any qualification they would allow a principle of larger extent than the noble lord himself would, upon reflection, be willing to recognise. At the same time, having stated his opinion, he would not give their lordships the trouble of dividing.
The amendment was then negatived.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had now to propose to fill up the blank, and to move the appointment of a member of the council, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the death of lord chief-justice Ellenborough. It was from no want of respect for the learned person who succeeded that noble and learned lord that he did not propose him for this situation; but the official duties of the chief-justice rendered the appointment inconvenient, as it was desirable that a sufficient number of members should always be ready to attend the council on the monthly and quarterly meetings. He should therefore move the appointment of marquis Camden.
Lord Hollandconcurred most heartily in the motion, and congratulated their lordships on the choice which had been made of the noble marquis, who had acted so generous and disinterested a part with respect to the reduction of his own establishment. Hence, he was the fittest person that could be selected.
The bill then went through the committee.