Sitting of 8 May 1820

WOOL TAX.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, he had the honour to present a petition from the merchants and manufacturers in Wool, of Huddersfield and its neighbourhood, against the late duty imposed on foreign wool. The petitioners stated, and he believed justly, that, as an effect of that impolitic tax, a considerable quantity of capital had been sent out of the country. A noble friend of his intended to give that night a notice of a motion for its repeal. Till that discussion he should defer further observation on the effects of a tax whose further continuance he so much deprecated.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Lord Miltonsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. the president of the board of trade. He wished to know from him, whether it was the intention of his majesty's government to repeal the late duty on wool? If such an intention was entertained, it would afford him the greatest satisfaction, and in their hands he would gladly leave it. If, on the contrary, they were not disposed to take that course, he rose for the purpose of giving notice that on Tuesday next he should move for the repeal of the late duty on foreign wool.
Mr. Robinsonstated, in answer, that he did not know if to be the intention of his majesty's government to take any such step. The notice, of the noble lord might therefore stand as proposed.

COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS—PETITION OF THE MERCHANTS OF LONDON.
Mr. Baringsaid, he had the honour to rise for the purpose of presenting from a most extensive and respectable body, the merchants of London. Whether he adverted to the terms, in which their petition was couched, to the respectability? of the gentlemen by whom it was signed, or if the peculiar circumstances of the country
166
under which it was presented, he felt, and the House, he thought, would also feel, that a more important subject had never been submitted to its consideration. He did anticipate, when he reflected on the general interest which the petition had created—on the general desire that was expressed by so many persons representing, as they did, so many different interests—that thus appealed to, the attention and wisdom of that House would be applied to its investigation. It would be for the House to ascertain whether, in the present distressed state of the country, the causes of that distress were so irremediable that it was not in its power to afford relief—or whether, on the contrary, these effects could be remedied by a successful application of its attention and wisdom. There was, in the present circumstances of public embarrassment, much, he feared, to which no remedy could be applied, at least, no parliamentary remedy; but at the same time, he was satisfied there was a great portion of that embarrassment and distress, which could be relieved by a prompt and efficient exertion of that House. He should have said, that none of the persons who signed or supported the present petition, entertained any intention of attacking the interests of any other class. Indeed, it was quite clear to them, and to every other man who understood his real interests, that no particular branch, either as to its commerce or its agriculture, could be benefited by any measure which improved the general prosperity. In fact, it was quite impossible for any man of the least information to suppose that commerce could derive benefit from a state of things in which agriculture and manufactures were the reverse of flourishing. The commercial evils under which we laboured had been attributed to the transition from war to peace; but it ought to be considered that we had been five years in state of peace, and that we were now not only without any beneficial alteration, but rather in a condition of aggravated distress. While all other parts of Europe were recovering from the general suffering, Great Britain was the only country in which every branch of industry remained not merely as depressed, but much depressed then it had it had hither to been. He confessed that when he contemplated our situation he was sorry to say, that he discerned strong indication that must still be considered a declining coun-

167
try. The agriculturists loudly complained of the distress which they experienced—thernanufacturers and the merchants united in similar declarations of pressure. With respect to commerce especially, he was persuaded that during the last two years it had not been in the slightest degree productive to those who were engaged in it; nay he feared that, on the contrary, they had sustained much loss. He entertained the same apprehension with respect to manufactures. The mind naturally turned to the investigation of the cause of this extraordinary state of things. He wished it was in his power to give a satisfactory solution of it; but difficult as that was, it would, he was afraid, puzzle him much more to suggest a remedy for the evil. The extraordinary improvement which had taken place in every part of our industry and commerce during the late war had been followed by a langour as remarkable. No country had ever taken greater strides towards unbounded wealth and splendor than this country in the late war. During that period, in consequence of our maritime supremacy, we monopolized the trade of the world. Every effort made to injure our commerce recoiled on those by whom it was projected. At the present moment, having gained the objects for which the war was undertaken, our industry and trade were in a state of utter prostration. The extraordinary success which we enjoyed during the contest naturally rendered us careless and inattentive to those wise principles to which we were originally indebted for, our commercial greatness. Fortune poured her gifts upon us in so uninterrupted a stream, that we seemed to think any care to retain her favour superfluous. Now, however, the case was very different. We must no longer indulge in dangerous relaxation. Our agriculture, our manufactures, our commerce, all required the greatest possible care; They could no longer be left unattended to. Formerly, no imprudent measure, no false step, could check their growth; now they might soon and easily be stunted without the power of recovery That which rendered our condition still more alarming was, that the trade we had lost bad gone into different, channels. The various countries, of Europe shared it among them, instead of being without competition, we had competitors all over the world; and it behaved us therefore to act with the utmost circumspection.
168
The safest and the wisest course which under these circumstances, it appeared to him that we could pursue, was, a recurrence to those old established principles and maxims to which the country first owed its commercial success. To those principles and maxims he was persuaded we must look as affording us the only hope of retrieving ourselves. It was not the loss of our commerce alone which occasioned the general suffering. We had lost a great commerce, but we had also incurred an immense debt, added to, and aggravated by what was in that respect, at least, an unfortunate departure from our ordinary currency. Easily as in the times of our prosperity we had borne this load, he confessed that he could not but entertain a feeling approaching to despondency when he contemplated the inadequate means to which be must now look for sustaining it. That debt, he repeated, had been materially increased by the alteration which had taken place in the character of our currency last year. Whether that alteration was right or wrong, was not the present question; but no man could deny that it had added from a fourth to a third to our debt. No man could deny that now gold was at the Mint price, namely 3l. 17 s 1d. an ounce, the pound note, and. the debt payable with it, must be of a very different value from that which they were when gold was 4l. 10 s. an ounce. The alteration in our currency had also operated in aggravating the effect of the taxes to a similar extent. It had also aggravated the effect of the corn laws. Calculating on the increase in price both of food and of labour, which all this occasioned, it was impossible for any man not to see the impossibility that this country so burthened could enter into a successful competition with the commercial rivals which, had started up around us. Whether we had sunk to the lowest state of our probable depression—whether things had come to their level—it was perhaps difficult, to ascertain. He feared not. He feared that, as the House had seen from year to year; ministers coming down with prophecies of nor eased prosperity, the croakers would now have their turn. Certain it was, that since the peace there was no evil prognostic which the most confirmed alarmist could have ventured upon, that had not been sadly verified.
On the subject of corn the laws, he would not trouble the House; because,

169
whatever might be his opinion of them, it was not his intention to recommend, nor did the petitioners wish for any immediate disturbance of those laws. He was perfectly persuaded that no laws of any kind could long, uphold the present price of produce in this country; but he felt it would be highly improper at present to agitate the minds of the country by a discussion which could not be followed by any immediate practical results He was quite sure that every intelligent man would condemn with him the absurdity of opposing the interests of one class of the people to the interests of another. And yet a manifesto had made its appearance from certain persons associated for the purpose of endeavouring to induce parliament to impose further restraints on the importation of agricultural produce (on which object he would say nothing as he was sure it would be discountenanced by the House), in which manifesto, the interests of the agriculturists were spoken of as of much more importance than the interests of the manufacturer or the interests of the merchant. Nothing could exceed the absurdity of all this, and he was persuaded that more nonsense in the way of political economy was never broached. To assert that one class was more useful in society than another, or that the interests of one class should be preferred to those of another, was just as foolish as it would be to say, that in the human body, the heart, or the lungs, or the liver, was more serviceable than any other organ in the performance of the animal functions. Every person of common sense must feel that this country, highly populous as it had become, must mainly depend for the support of that population, and for its comparative prosperity, on the cultivation of every branch of its industry. It was most important that parliament should consider, since we could not recover what we had lost, how we should retain what we still possessed. To do this we must look back to the principles of our ancestors. The first desideratum was such security and tranquillity in the country as would enable the possessor of capital to employ it without apprehension. The second, and it was that to which the petitioners principally referred, was 58 great a freedom of trade as was compatible with other and important considerations. The benefits to be derived from security were incalculable. Without that security the distress in when great part
170
of the population was involved must be deeply aggravated. In former times the institutions of the country were respected and the laws were obeyed, while rational liberty was enjoyed, and the result was, that the country was the favourite theatre of commercial enterprise. But a great change had taken place; and to him it was evident, that if the state of insubordination which had so long existed were permitted to continue, the most fatal Consequences would ensue. He was sorry to find that the effects of the present state of things were beginning to be felt, as he apprehended they would be felt, in Scotland* where the good sense of the people seldom failed in ascertaining their bear interests. He was sorry to hear from Paisley, that a considerable number; of the smaller manufacturers were with drawing themselves in consequence of the state of insubordination in which I that neighbourhood was thrown. Without a return to order, without respect for the laws was perfectly restored, it was impossible to expect that the possessors of; capital would risk it in commercial speculations. To a people so discerning as the Scotch, he was surprised that the example of a country close to them had not been sufficiently convincing on this subject. What was the reason that in Ireland, with its cheap food, and its immense population, manufactures had never been established to any extent? Because the greater part of that country had always been in a state of the worst insubordination and lawlessness. An additional proof of the necessity of security to commerce and manufactures, might be found in the fact, that the very small portion of manufacture existing in Ireland, was carried on precisely at the little spot of it where tranquillity was established. He considered, therefore a main obstacle to our hope of commercial recovery, to consist in the general insubordination and insecurity which pervaded the country.
But that was not the sole obstacle. Another great obstacle was that of which the petitioners complained—a reluctance to return to the old and established principles on which our commercial prosperity was originally founded. We were now surrounded with jealous rivals; Every government was endeavouring to aggrandize its subjects by commerce. Nor was it surprising that many parts of Europe, as well as America, where trade was unres-
†

171
tricted by the fetters imposed upon it in this country, beat us in the market. In France great strides were making. He had been for some time a resident in that country, and he knew it to be the fact, that no government could pay more attention to the interests of commerce. He had that morning received a letter from a friend at Paris, in which his correspondent said "Manufacturers of all kinds are more employed than they have been for years:—the labourers are all at work;—and there is no branch of industry without bread." What the petitioners wished was to draw the serious attention of the House to the subject, and to the expediency of some legislative interposition. They stated, that it was not possible they could be expected to enter into competition with their continental rivals, unless some attempt were made to return to the old principles of freedom of trade. At the same time they were very far from wishing for such a sudden alteration as might be injurious to existing interests. It was evident that something must be done. It was impossible that the country could rise from its present depressed state without some change in our commercial system. It was a subject wholly divested of the prejudice of party feeling. All parties must concur in one wish. He was convinced that no gentleman was more anxious to see the sound principles to which be had alluded carried into operation than the right hon. gentleman in whose hands at present the regulation of our trade was placed. He did not wish to say any thing harsh of that right hon. gentleman's predecessor, than whom no man could be more zealous or desirous of doing good; but he could not speak of her a with equal praise. But that which was one of the most alarming symptoms was, the apathy with which the government in general regarded this subject. So far were they from being sensible of the necessity of some exertion, that (as in matters of finance) they went on from year to year, trusting that the next year would be spontaneously productive of some favourable change, and apparently with very indistinct notions of what the real condition of the country was. Whenever a question arose between two classes of the community, government, without seeming to have any opinion, of their own, stood by, until they ascertained which party could give them the most effectual support. If the House looked back to an
172
earlier period of those which were still our own times, they would behold a different picture; they would find Mr. Pitt engaged in framing a commercial treaty, and, amidst difficulties of every description, boldly taking whatever steps appeared to him to be the best calculated to advance our commercial prosperity. He wished that he could see a little of the same spirit in the present day. Instead of that, ministers were balancing one party against another, and trying how they could keep their places from one year to another; neglecting in the mean while all those great commercial and national questions to which their most lively attention ought to be directed.
Having stated that the general object of the petitioners was a renewal, under certain limitations, of the freedom of trade, by the abolition of all injurious restrictions, he might, perhaps, be excused if, without entering into minute details, he suggested some of the improvements which were deemed desirable. The first doctrine which the petitioners wished to combat was, that fallacious one which bad of late years arisen, that this country ought to subsist on its own produce; that it was wise on the part of every country to raise within itself the produce requisite for its consumption. Now really it was most absurd to contend, that if a country by selling any article of manufacture could purchase the produce which it might require, at half the expense at which that produce could be raised, it should nevertheless be precluded from doing so. It was one of the wise dispensations of Providence to give to different parts of the world different climates; and different advantages; probably with the great moral purpose of bringing human beings together for the mutual relief of their wants. But these absurd reasoners had found out that the only true wisdom was in spite of that benevolent ordination to endeavour to producer at, home by considerable effort and vat great disadvantage, that which with ease and at half the expense, might be procured: elsewhere. To some countries greater fertility of soil, to others greater ingenuity on the part of the people, was imparted. But according to the profound gentlemen to whom he alluded, no exchange should take place, of the produce of the one for the fabric of the other. Nay, they would have the Swede or Norwegian scratch his barren rocks, in the hope of a scanty crop, rather than

173
purchase with his ample forest the means of living from countries possessed of abundance.
But to come more closely to the immediate object in view. There was the duty on the importation of wool. On what principle could that be defended? A tax on the raw material! He was curious to hear what ministers would say on the subject, when the noble lord (Milton) should bring forward the motion, of which he had that evening given notice. He believed this was the first time in which in any country, where commerce was protected and fostered, that such an impost had been attempted. The woollen manufacture especially—the favourite branch of our ancient industry—that that should be subjected to such a burthen, he strongly felt as to be most injurious. It might be asserted, that it could bear the tax. Let it be recollected, however, that as it was not always possible to ascertain exactly how much in animal could bear, so it was not always possible to ascertain exactly how much a manufacture could bear; and that in touching the manufacture to which he alluded, they tampered with one of vital importance, a single mistake about which might be fatal. He conjured the House to keep this in mind, when they came to the consideration of the question which the noble lord intended soon to raise; and he was happy that the subject was in such excellent hands. The chief manufacture of the country was at stake. When he said that the manufacture of the country was at stake, he would add that the agriculture of the country was equally at stake. The tax on the raw material from abroad must inevitably bring down the price of the raw material here. Since the tax had been imposed, the trade had fallen immensely; and he had no doubt the price of wool would fall also. Many persons would contend that the home market was every thing, and that the foreign market was nothing. Suppose it should turn out that manufacturers in all parts of the continent, where they were thriving in consequence of the cheapness of labour and the freedom of the raw material from duty, should beat us entirely out of the foreign market, in what state would the interests of agriculture then be at home? If the woollen manufacture were to sink, wool of home growth must be exported in immense quantities, similar to those in which our princes formerly paid their
174
subsidies, and would of course be deteriorated in value. The tax, therefore, would eventually be as injurious to the farmer as to the manufacturer. Under all these circumstances, he certainly had felt the greatest surprise to find his majesty's government, without having heard a word on the subject, declare their determination not to countenance any alteration in the law. A tax on the raw material was contrary to the practice of this country in all times, until the extreme prosperity which existed during the late war, when every old principle was borne down, when it mattered not, commanding the seas as we did, whether we imposed a duty on wool, or on any other commodity necessary to our manufactures, and when we could neglect with impunity those maxims which we must now re-establish if we wished to avert a portion of the evils that threatened the country.
Another important point was, such a revision of the regulations respecting the revenue as would show where our old principles had been deviated from, accompanied by a determination to correct those aberrations, unless very cogent reasons could be shown for persevering in them. Every endeavour should be made to abolish restriction as far as it was practicable to do so. For instance, in the article of timber. Why not allow the Norwegians, the Poles, the Russians, to import their timber into this country, which would necessarily cause a great consumption of British manufactures and great employment of British shipping? And here he would observe, that the restrictive system had not only driven us out of the continental market, but had communicated a character of severity to our commercial regulations generally injurious to us. He was sure that our re-' strictions, and especially those on the importation of timber, had created many enemies who possessed considerable means of annoyance. On that subject he would not, however, say more, as he had reason to hope that the gentlemen opposite had made up their minds to allow at least of some alteration in the existing law.—Another desirable step would be to do away totally prohibition as much as possible. Where protection for particular manufactures was considered to be necessary, it ought to be in the form of duty and not in that of prohibition. Prohibition had no doubt seriously injured the revenue by the encouragement which

175
it gave to smuggling. The customs had fallen off a million and a half in the course of the last year. He was sure that a good deal of that defalcation might be ascribed to prohibition. Nothing could be more absurd than to suppose any prohibition would prevent the introduction of articles that were in demand. The fact was, that at an advance of 20 or 25 per cent all light prohibited articles might be had at our doors. He would not say which sex was the more to blame, but such was the fact. Indeed, it was quite impossible to suppose that ladies would not procure French gloves or shoes in this way, if they could not get them in any other; and thus the revenue suffered without the attainment of the object which the prohibition contemplated. He did not wish to make any general sweeping assertions; but he must observe, that hon. gentlemen in agreeing to cite the navigation laws as affording a protection to commerce were much mistaken. Their tendency was, to injure commerce. For instance, coals—so necessary to our manufactures—might, but for the navigation laws, be brought to our ports at half their present price by Dutch or German vessels. The principle of the navigation laws was, that no produce should be imported into this country except in our own vessels, or in the vessels of that country to which the produce belonged. He thought that no restriction ought to be held on foreign ships importing into this country, whether the produce was of their own or any other country. When this restriction was imposed, he was sure that those who framed it did not clearly see the advantage of a free intercourse between this and other nations. The freedom of the transit trade was also a most desirable object. The importation of every commodity for re-exportation ought to be allowed, and any opposition to this principle was a restriction of our commercial transactions. He was not aware that a regulation of this sort would interfere with the interests of any gentleman or set of gentlemen in this country; but if it so happened that it did, he felt convinced that the House, or any committee to whom the subject was referred, would give every attention to any representations which should be made to them. But upon a subject of this kind, he hoped gentlemen would go into an inquiry, without any prejudice or party feelings, looking only to the advancement of the commerce of the country, and not
176
listening or yielding to any interest without considering the justice of the objections which should be made.
A great objection had been made to the transit of German linen, and petitions had been presented against its importation even for exportation. A vague and idle notion existed that this would injure the linen trade of Ireland; that that trade was in fact at stake, if such an importation were allowed. A noble lord who was interested in this trade, was so strongly of this opinion, that the question was decided against the importation. The House should, however, consider, without looking to the right or to the left, that their great object ought to be to use every possible means to revive the trade and commerce of the United Kingdom. He was aware that the linen trade of Ireland deserved their greatest attention, and ought to be encouraged by every possible means; there was no trade which was more entitled to protection, but the transit to which he alluded could by no means affect that trade. The consumption of German linen here was the only means by which the Irish linen trade could be affected. What, in the mean time, was the effect of this prohibition? If we were to send goods to foreign markets, they must be made up of assorted articles. Suppose we send to the French colonies, what were we to send but such articles as would suit the market? There was a time when we sent our fleets under convoys, and when no other country could oppose us; then we could send out what we pleased; but now that exclusive monopoly was at an end. Every nation was as free as we were to go to the different markets; therefore we were bound to exert ourselves, to procure a market as well as our neighbours. It was also of importance that we should alter our commercial regulations with respect to France. He was aware that strong prejudices existed against us in that country, not to speak of those existing here. But he did not think it would be difficult in a little time to remove those prejudices. And here he felt it necessary to state, that he by no means blamed the noble lord (Castlereagh), who lately conducted negotiations between this country and France, for not having stipulated for or forced any commercial concessions, ft was desirable that all restrictive regulations between the trade of England and France should be removed, but to do so we must begin

177
at home. It would be unfair to attempt a negotiation for a commercial intercourse while we kept our ports shut against them. Let it be considered, that it was not by a restrictive system that this country had grown to such a pitch of greatness, but on the contrary, that such a system was a bar to that greatness. It was necessary also to remove an impression which our system of commerce had made abroad. We were looked up to as the first commercial nation in the world, and it was therefore believed that we had adopted our restrictive or protecting system, from a conviction of its beneficial effects on our commerce. This impression it was our interest as well as our duty to remove, by altering our commercial regulations with foreign powers.
The next point to which he would direct the attention of the House, was an extension of our trade with India. He was aware that this was a delicate subject; that it was one concerning which we had to deal not with a foreign power, but a great power at home. But he felt persuaded, if the gentlemen who conducted the affairs of that Company had a fair case made out to them; if it was clearly shown that the trade between this country could be extended without injury to their interests, that their concurrence would be easily obtained. At all events, he was sure they would come fairly forward and argue the subject—and if upon inquiry, such extension should be shown to be injurious to their interests, he would be the last man in the House or the country to press his suggestion. He was aware that there were two great objections to the extension of this trade: first, that it would open a facility of smuggling in the China seas; and secondly, that such an extended intercourse on the part of this country would derange existing regulations, and involve the India government in difficulties with the government of China. He knew that it was a difficult matter to manage the government of China. But to these two objections he would give what he conceived to be an unanswerable argument. What was there now to prevent the Americans from trading between China and Amsterdam? It was a thing daily done. If, then, this was the case, he should like to know what injury was likely to be done to the India Company by English vessels carrying on a similar trade? It was urged on former
178
occasions, that English vessels would enter into smuggling transactions. Suppose them to do so, there was a means of catching them at some time. The vessels and their commanders were known; besides, there were securities given which could always be come at. But where was the remedy against a foreigner who smuggled goods from China to England, or elsewhere? He came, deposited his cargo, was off, and nobody could find him or make him responsible in any other way for what he had done. Then came the argument, that such an extension of trade would involve the India government in difficulty with that of China; but it was known that the Americans had for a considerable time carried on that trade without being involved in any such difficulty; at least, we had not heard of any—why could not this country be allowed to carry it on in a similar manner? Why should it not be open to our own merchants as well as to foreigners? Besides, this trade would give to this country a commercial intercourse with the Spanish colonies in South America. The trade in the Indian seas would be wonderfully improved if opened to the spirit and enterprise of British merchants. That trade was now carried on by Americans, whose vessels went from port to port unrestricted as to their tonnage or any other disqualification to which British traders were subject. Let this trade be thrown open, and it was impossible to say what advantages might not be derived to this country from it—from the ingenuity, enterprise, and industry of the merchants of Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, and our other commercial sea-ports. At all events, enough was known to show that it would be an improvement to the commerce of the country. He begged pardon for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House. He was sure, that whatever proposition of this nature was proposed to to the company, they would meet it with that fairness and deliberation which the discussion of so important a subject demanded.
He believed that he had pretty generally pointed out those alterations which he conceived practicable in our commercial system. He was sure the House would feel with him, that the circumstances of the times were such as to call for the minutest inquiry, on their parts, into ever possible means of improving our trade and commerce. It was their

179
duty to show to the country, that nothing practicable was left undone to contribute to relieve those distresses under which so many laboured. It was natural when any portion of the country felt distress, that they should apply by petition to parliament for relief, and it was the duty of parliament to show that they adopted every means in their power of affording it. He knew very well that there were many and severe distresses, which it was out of the power of any parliament to remedy. He recollected the lines of the Poet—
"How small of all the ills which men endure, The part which Kings or Lords can cause or cure."
But it was the duty of parliament to turn their minds seriously to the question—to show the people that their wants were not neglected—to let them see that no party feeling or prejudice operated, but that all, however differing on other points, were united on this. By doing so, they would do more to quiet that disturbed feeling, to set at rest those angry passions, which arose in a great measure from distress, than could be done by any other means.—The hon. gentleman, after moving that the petition be received, sat down amidst loud cheers from all sides of the House.
The petition was then brought up and read; setting forth,
"That foreign commerce is eminently conducive to the wealth and prosperity of the country, by enabling it to import the commodities for the production of which the soil, climate, capital, and industry of other countries are best calculated, and to export in payment those articles for which its own situation is better adapted; that freedom from restraint is calculated to give the utmost extension to foreign trade, and the best direction to the capital and industry of the country; that the maxim of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly applicable, as the best rule for the trade of the whole nation; that a policy, founded on these principles, would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state; that, unfortunately, a policy, the very reverse of this, has been, and is more or less adopted and acted upon by the government of this and of every other country; each trying to exclude the productions of
180
other countries, with the specious and well-meant design of encouraging its own productions; thus inflicting on the bulk of its subjects, who are consumers, the necessity of submitting to privations in the quantity or quality of commodities, and thus rendering, what ought to be the source of mutual benefit and of harmony among states, a constantly recurring occasion of jealousy and hostility; that the prevailing prejudices in favour of the protective or restrictive system may be traced to the erroneous supposition, that every importation of foreign commodities occasions a diminution or discouragement of our own productions to the same extent; whereas, it may be clearly shown, that although the particular description of production which could not stand against unrestrained foreign competition would be discouraged; yet, as no importation could be continued for any length of time without a corresponding exportation, direct or indirect, there would be an encouragement for the purpose of that exportation of some other production to which our situation might be better suited; thus affording at least an equal, and probably a greater, and certainly a more beneficial employment to our own capital and labour; that of the numerous protective and prohibitory duties of our commercial code, it may be proved, that while all operate as a very heavy tax on the community at large, very few are of any ultimate benefit to the classes in whose favour they were originally instituted, and none to the extent of the loss occasioned by them to other classes; that among the other evils of the restrictive or protective system, not the least is, that the artificial protection of one branch of industry, or source of protection against foreign competition, is set up as a ground of claim by other branches for similar protection; so that if the reasoning upon which these restrictive or prohibitory regulations are founded, were followed out consistently, it would not stop short of excluding us from all foreign commerce whatsoever; and the same train of argument, which with corresponding prohibitions and protective duties should exclude us from foreign trade, might be brought forward to justify the reenactment of restrictions upon the interchange of productions (unconnected with public revenue) among the kingdoms composing the union, or among the counties of the same kingdom; that an investigation of the effects of the

181
restrictive system at this time is peculiarly called for, as it may, in the opinion of the petitioners, lead to a strong presumption that the distress which now so generally prevails, is considerably aggravated by that system; and that some relief may be obtained by the earliest practicable removal of such of the restraints as may be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the community, and to be attended with no compensating benefit to the public revenue; that a declaration against the anti-commercial principles of our restrictive S3'stem is of the more importance at the present juncture, inasmuch as in several instances of recent occurrence the merchants and manufacturers in foreign states have assailed their respective governments with applications for further protective or prohibitory duties and regulations, urging the example and authority of this country, against which they are almost exclusively directed, as a sanction for the policy of such measures; and certainly, if the reasoning upon which our restrictions have been defended is worth any thing, it will apply in behalf of the regulations of foreign states against us; they insist upon our superiority in capital and machinery, as we do upon their comparative exemption from taxation, and with equal foundation; that nothing would more tend to counteract the commercial hostility of foreign states than the adoption of a more enlightened and more conciliatory policy on the part of this country; that although as a matter of mere diplomacy, it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular prohibitions or high duties, as depending upon corresponding concessions by other states in our favour, it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions in cases where the desired concessions on their part cannot be obtained; our restrictions would not be the less prejudicial to our own capital and industry, because other governments persisted in preserving impolitic regulations; that, upon the whole, the most liberal would prove to be the most politic course on such occasions; that, independent of the direct benefit to be derived by this country on every occasion of such concession or relaxation, a great incidental object would be gained by the recognition of a sound principle or standard, to which all subsequent arrangements might be referred, and by the salutary influence which a promulgation of such just views, by the legislature and by
182
the nation at large, could not fail to have on the policy of other states; that in thus declaring, as the petitioners do, their conviction of the impolicy and injustice of the restrictive system, and in desiring every practicable relaxation of it, they have in view only such parts of it as are not connected, or are only subordinately so, with the public revenue; as long as the necessity for the present amount of revenue subsists, the petitioners cannot expect so important a branch of it as the customs to be given up, nor to be materially diminished, unless some substitute less objectionable be suggested; but it is against every restrictive regulation of trade not essential to the revenue, against all duties merely protective from foreign competition, and against the excess of such duties as are partly for the purpose of revenue and partly for that of protection, that the prayer of the present petition is respectfully submitted to the wisdom of parliament; the petitioners therefore humbly pray, that the House will be pleased to take the subject into consideration, and to adopt such measures as may be calculated to give greater freedom to foreign commerce, and thereby to increase the resources of the state."
On the question, that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that after the able and eloquent speech of his hon. friend, it would be idle in him to attempt entering into the subject. But as it was a subject upon which he had before delivered his opinions, he hoped he might be allowed to express his opinion upon it now; and he assured the House that in doing so he should not take up much of their time. He begged then to state, that he gave his humble, but most hearty concurrence in every principle contained in the petition, and so ably advocated by the hon. mover; and he begged to add, that in the House, or out of the House, he would give its principles his most zealous and active co-operation.
Mr. F. Robinsonsaid, that as no other gentleman seemed disposed to rise, he felt it necessary to offer a few observations on the question so ably introduced by the hon. mover. He hoped the hon. member and the House would do him the justice to believe that he was fully sensible of the extreme importance of the subject before them. He had always given it as his opinion, that the restrictive system of commerce in this country was founded

183
in error, and calculated to defeat the object for which it was adopted [Hear!]. He had not the slightest objection to repeat those opinions now. The hon. member had done him the honour to pay him some compliments, to which he did not conceive himself entitled; but, he must say, neither did he conceive himself or his colleagues deserving of the qualification which was tacked to them, namely, that he and those with whom he had the honour of acting, had a sort of pathetic-feeling, and went on from year to year, looking more to their offices than to the interests of the people. He might have felt differently on this question, and he admitted that he did feel differently from some others with whom he acted, but on questions of this nature, and particularly on that of the transit duties, he met with more opposition from the other than from his own side of the House. Therefore it was that he felt the restrictive system so deeply rooted, that it was difficult to induce any gentleman to oppose it. This it was which had prevented him from carrying his principles into effect. But on looking into the question, he found that the hon. member and he agreed as to the general principles. They agreed, at all events, that it was impossible all at once to alter our commercial system. He was by no means prepared to say, that upon an inquiry, and upon arguing the question, many practical improvements could not be made. In point of fact, a considerable alteration had been made, and a considerable relaxation had taken place, in our commercial regulations, within a few years. Within the last two or three years, three commercial acts passed; one of Richard the 3rd, one of Edward the 2nd, and one of Elizabeth, had been repealed. The hon. member would also recollect, from the report of the Lords, the repeal of duties on 300 articles, upon some of which large duties existed, and upon others there was a total prohibition. The next point alluded to was the duty on timber. He felt no difficulty in saying that that duty required amendment; and it was his intention, in the course of the session to propose such an arrangement to the House. That objection he did not dispute. And he must say, that in all the communications which he had had with the interested parties on this subject, he had told them, that he was determined to propose such alteration to parliament.
184
He agreed with the hon. member, that the importation of timber from the Baltic was preferable to that from Canada; but it was only fair to say, that the duty on timber was not a duty of protection, but of revenue. There was a duty before, but that of 1813 was a revenue duty, and it appeared to him necessary to make an alteration. The hon. member's next point was the navigation laws. He fully concurred with that hon. member, in saying that the navigation laws were hostile to the free commercial intercourse of the country. But he would say, that the injury so sustained was but as a feather in the scale compared with the great advantage derived from those laws in the protection and safety of the country. By the strict enforcement of those laws, we were able to keep our naval force, and protect ourselves in cases of emergency. But he was far from saying, that even in these laws there was not room for relaxation and improvement. Indeed, there were many improvements now in operation, but they were so scattered about in different acts of parliament, that it would be idle to attempt to point them out. With respect to the transit duties, he could not deny what had been said by the hon. member; indeed, he had endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to alter them according to what he conceived to be the commercial interest of the country, but, he had met with much opposition, whether from the efforts of a noble lord, connected with the trade, he would not say, but so it was, that he was unable to induce those connected with and interested in the linen trade to concur with his view of the question. He did not, however, think it difficult to show those persons that they were in error. Those duties had effected the purpose desired to be effected by them, and in the altered state of things all rational grounds for maintaining them were removed. As to commercial treaties with foreign countries, it was evidently the object of every country to enter into such treaties as would most favour their own interests. One point he had beard from the hon. gentleman with particular pleasure, as it confirmed what he had stated before, and what some of the friends of the hon. gentleman had not admitted; the hon. gentleman had justified his noble friend and the government for not, at the peace, obtaining commercial advantages as favours from friends, or punishments on enemies.

185
Justice, peace, and policy, were equally opposed to such an acquisition of commerce. With France it was not easy to manage a commercial arrangement. Great prejudices existed on both sides, and very foolish prejudices they certainly were. Nothing was so preposterous as for any persons in either nation to repine, if any did repine, at the prosperity of the other. The prosperity of each nation contributed to promote commerce; the interests of commerce made peace necessary; and peace and commerce would thus go hand in hand. Much better was this rivalry than such animosity and narrow-minded contentions for military distinction, which led to so many evils. With regard to the agriculture of the country, he would only state, that it was a question of the greatest importance; it was one on which a great feeling had been excited, and there was not a member in the House who would not feel it his duty to attend to every suggestion which should be made as to its improvement. When any such question should be agitated, it would be the duty as well as the wish of his majesty's ministers to give it their best consideration. At the same time he did not feel that there was any thing so radically wrong in the present system as to induce an alteration; yet, he must repeat, that both he and his colleagues were always ready to attend to every suggestion which should be made with that spirit of fairness and candour evinced by the hon. member who presented the petition. When new measures were last year proposed respecting the corn laws, lie felt it his duty to give his decided opinion against any interference on the subject of additional protecting agricultural duties, as he conceived that no alterations could then be made. With respect to India, he did not deny that the commercial interests of England would be promoted by an extension of the trade with that country; but he begged it to be considered that this was a question of compact. They ought not to suffer their anxiety to relieve the distresses of the country to press them into an act of unfairness or injustice. What the feeling of the India company upon this subject was he did not know: but they ought not, in honour, in good faith, or in fair dealing, to interfere with the interests of that company unless with its consent.
Mr. Philipsargued, that the right hon. gentleman had made liberal admissions,
186
but had at the same time intimated that his principles were counteracted by divisions in the government. If the same means had been used for removing restrictions as had been used for continuing the droits of the admiralty, the same result would have been obtained. If political economy were an object for which ministers chose to use their influence in that House, there was no doubt that the result would be the success of the right hon. gentleman's liberal and just views. But the objection was, that it was necessary to yield to the errors of others. This only showed, that on this, as on all other subjects, there was a division of sentiment in the government. But if this argument was good so far as to prevent us at once from retracing our steps, at least we ought not to advance one step further with the restrictive system. Yet, last year, a tax was imposed, of the worst kind of restriction, against the feelings of the country, and against common policy. The duty on foreign wool was in every view unjust and impolitic. That duty was severely felt both in Ireland and in this country, and added considerably to the already overwhelming distresses of the manufacturing districts.
Mr. W. Douglassaid, he very much lamented that on a question like that before the House, there should be heard the least expression of any thing like party feeling. He was convinced that it could not be the wish of the petitioners to take any other view, but to represent to parliament what they really thought to be the sound principles of political economy, and to show how far the restrictive system of trade was contrary to those principles. Those alone were the objects of the petitioners; and he begged to express his entire concurrence in the sentiments of the hon. mover. He was happy to hear the right hon. the president of the broad of trade express his concurrence in those sentiments; but still he could not help feeling disappointment at some parts of that speech. The right hon. gentleman concurred in the views of the petitioners. He considered them important and desirable; but although a similar petition had been presented at the conclusion of the last session of parliament, and though the right hon. gentleman then, as now, professed sentiments friendly to those objects, yet he did not point out what practical alterations might be made; he did not say what specific plan might be

187
followed; he did not countenance the appointment of a committee to satisfy the country on those points upon which the public mind required to be satisfied. On looking at the present state of the country, that plan appeared to him the very best plan that would most contribute to give general employment: that plan would be found the best for the landed interest, as well as every other interest in the country. The House should be prepared to take an enlarged and impartial view of the subject—not to oppose one interest to another, but to struggle to promote the objects of all; and, when they came to discuss the situation of the country, to adopt what appeared to them the best means for its relief and its prosperity.
Mr. Beaumontconcurred in the principles laid down by the hon. mover. Much of the evil under which the country now laboured might be traced to her commercial system, and the sooner it was improved the better. It was a fit subject for the interference of his majesty's ministers. When it was recollected that the right hon. the president of the board of trade, had so unequivocally expressed his opinion against the present restrictive system, that fact alone was sufficiently strong to require the interference of ministers, and to induce them to promote, by all practical means, the objects suggested by the petitioners.
Lord Miltonsaid, he had heard the petition before the House read with great pleasure; he had listened too with much satisfaction to the speech of the hon. member who brought it forward. If any thing indeed in the present distressed state of the country, could give satisfaction, it was that of hearing the sound principles of political economy and the liberal principles of commerce embraced by so respectable a body of men as the merchants and traders of London. But that was not the only satisfaction which he had experienced in the course of the debate. The speech of the right hon. the president of the board of trade would have increased the satisfaction he felt on the present occasion, were it not for the little alloy which was too apparent in it. To him it appeared, that the principles and the conduct of the right hon. gentleman were not in unison. He had expressed very excellent principles, but when he came to explain his conduct, and the conduct of the government with whom he acted, he was not
188
so successful in rebutting the accusation so often and so forcibly made against them, that they were more disposed to countenance particular interests than the enlarged and general interests of the community. This was a subject upon which no partial interests should prevail—on this subject they were called upon to legislate for the empire at large, and the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Beaumont) should not consider that he was the member for Northumberland, nor he (lord Milton) that he sat there as member for Yorkshire—but both of them should look on themselves as the representatives of the people, bound to consult and to promote the general interests. It was admitted on all hands, that the situation of the country called for a union of counsel and of action; but if they looked at particular interests, they would lose sight of more enlarged objects, and, by narrowing their views, would decrease the capability of promoting the general good. Looking at the different interests of the country, he saw the agricultural interests, to use a homely phrase, scrambling for the increase of the price of corn—and, with respect to the manufacturing interests, he observed the same feeling, and heard from them the complaints of general distress. To him it appeared that the great error of those different interests was, that they did not see the difficulty in its proper light the distress of which they respectively complained, was not, in truth, the distress of the agriculturalist, nor of the manufacturer, but it was the distress of the country at large—in which, of course, the agriculturist and the manufacturer were comprised. He did not think so ill of the patriotism of either party as to doubt that they would not sacrifice their particular interests, and consult the general interest. Certain it was, we could not go on long in the situation in which we were. Last year the chancellor of the exchequer came forward, and stated with a great deal of fairness and frankness, that a surplus of 5,000,000 l. was necessary. He did not know whether to blame the right hon. gentleman's want of sincerity, or to discredit his prophetic powers in the declarations he had made respecting the produce of the new taxes; but blame or discredit must fall somewhere. Either he saw that he could not raise the revenue which he announced, and then he was guilty of misleading the House and the country; or he did not see, but expected

189
the realization of his predictions, and then he was the worst prophet that ever opened his mouth in parliament. If the opinions of So insignificant an individual as himself were worthy of being remembered, he might appeal to the recollection of the House, whether he had not then asserted that government would never succeed in their attempt to raise additional supplies by fresh burthens—that on the present system the sources of taxation were exhausted, and that ministers began at the wrong end when they endeavoured to raise taxes without first adopting some measures to enable the people to pay them. Now with regard to the petition before the House, he was glad to say, that in all its principles he concurred. It stated the restrictive system as one of the causes of the national distress; and though it was not the sole cause of this distress, it was certainly one of them. The pressure under which the country at present laboured had been ascribed to various causes by various persons. Some said that it was mainly attributable to the system of poor laws, and the immense increase of the poor rates. Now, as regarded this growing evil, it ought to be considered whether the system which we had been pursuing for many years had not a tendency to absorb capital from the general body of the people, and to accumulate property in a few hands. While therefore, during the war, our population increased, owing to the augmented demand for labour, this increased population extended the system of dependence, and multiplied the number of those who required relief when the extraordinary resources of war were withdrawn. The pressure of the times had consequently not fallen in due proportion on the higher classes of society. It was felt with great severity by the labourer, the manufacturer and the artisan, while it scarcely affected the rich capitalist, or the great landed proprietor. The present commercial system was another cause of the general distress. The restrictions by which it was distinguished were of a nature not only to injure ourselves, but to provoke retaliations of a similar injurious tendency from other nations. Accordingly, instead of an interchange of commodities, founded on the reciprocal capacities and wants of different nations, every nation seemed to consider that it ought to receive nothing from its neighbours, and to wish to realize the prediction of the poet—
║
190
—nec nautical pinus
Mutabit merces; omnis ferit omnia tellus
If we were to obtain the articles which other countries could supply, we should obtain them with as few restrictions as possible. This principle would not go the length of inducing us to abolish the regulations with regard to the importation of grain and the navigation laws. If the independence of a country was of more consequence than an increase of its wealth or an addition to its commerce, the laws which protected that independence should be maintained at the expense of these advantages. But though this principle might lead us to support the corn laws, and the navigation laws, it should be carried no farther; and we ought to be allowed to procure the luxuries and commodities of other countries, where our security and independence were not affected as cheaply as we could. Another cause of the present distresses of the country was the change lately effected in our currency. He rejoiced at the measures taken to enforce and prepare a return to cash payments, but he could not conceal from himself, that the transition had occasioned a considerable degree of embarrassment and pressure. The House was unwilling to alarm the country concerning the temporary results of a measure which they conceived so necessary to its permanent security; and there hon. members had not placed anticipated evils in so strong a light as they might have done. He believed even his hon. friend near him (Mr. Ricardo) had formed too low an estimate of the pressure which a change in our currency would create; nor had the evil yet, he was afraid, reached its point of greatest severity. He rather wished than dared to hope that we had now passed the extremity of the evil, and that we had not still to suffer more than we had yet suffered. At any rate, ministers ought to have considered this point with more care, before they had added the burthen of additional taxation to the pressure arising from a contraction of our circulation. He could not bring himself to believe that they could now realize the five millions which they predicted would accrue from the new taxes. He had to express his obligations to the petitioners for bringing the state of the country before the House; and when he saw merchants of such high respectability, and so well acquainted with the condition of the

191
commercial and manufacturing interests, complaining of the public pressure, and proposing measures of relief, he thought there could no longer be any doubt of its severity.
Mr. Ricardobegged the noble lord to recollect, that at the time when he spoke on the bullion question last session the price of gold was at 4l. 3s. per or. and that now it was at 3l. 17 s. 10½d there could not, therefore, be such a pressure arising from this measure as the noble lord had described. At the time when that discussion took place, he certainly would rather have been inclined to have altered the standard than to have recurred to the old standard. But while the committee was sitting, a reduction took place in the price of gold, which fell to 41. 2s. and it then became a question whether we should sacrifice a great principle in establishing a new standard, or incur a small degree of embarrassment and difficulty in recurring to the old. With regard to the petition before the House, he had heard it with great pleasure; and he was particularly pleased with the liberal sentiments delivered by the right hon. gentleman opposite. It was to him a great source of satisfaction that sound as well as liberal principles were put forward by so important a body as the merchants of London; the only thing that astonished him was, that it was only now that these principles were put forward—that they should have taken so much time in their progress, since they were first promulgated by Adam Smith. However desirable the system now suggested, it could not be denied but that some difficulties lay in the way of its completion. The difficulties were of two kinds; the first difficulty resolved itself into a question of revenue. To increase the sources of revenue was doubtless the object of every wise government; and where taxes of a particular kind pressed heavily upon the people, it did not appear to him a very difficult thing to substitute other taxes. Another difficulty, and a greater, was, respecting the vested interests. Many persons vested their capital on the faith of the continuation of the restrictive system, and therefore, however injurious that system might be, nothing could be more unjust than, by the immediate abolition of that system, to occasion the absolute ruin of those who vested large capital on the faith of laws so long established as the restrictive laws. But from this no argument could be surely drawn to continue the
192
system in future times. No argument appeared to him more mischievous—more calculated to promote commotion and rebellion, than this—that if they once did wrong they should never do right, but that they should go on in error and make every mischievous system perpetual. He thought the House ought now to do what was suggested by the bullion committee. There were difficulties of a very formidable kind connected with the system embraced by the committee, at least with its immediate execution. And what was done on that occasion? Why, that which ought to be done on the present—to spread the return to cash payments over a great space of time. So now might they return, gradually return, to a better system of commercial regulation, allowing full time to those who had their property invested, to turn it into other channels. After they had done so, they might say to the capitalists, "The present system will continue only so long as you can accommodate yourselves without any sacrifice of your interests, to the new one which we propose." Some restrictions might thus be removed immediate, without any inconvenience; others might be gradually relaxed, and others might be left till our situation had so greatly improved as to render their removal no inconvenience. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman who had expressed such liberal principles of political economy, and had so freely declared himself against the policy of our commercial restrictions, had yet made a reservation in favour of the corn laws. They were necessary, he said, to protect the agricultural interests; and he (Mr. Ricardo) would admit the validity of the argument, provided it could I be made to appear that the agriculturists suffered more burthens than other classes of the community. But what were their peculiar burthens? They did not suffer more from the malt-tax, or from the leather tax, or from any other tax with which he was acquainted, than any other class of men. These taxes were common to all, and all felt their pressure alike. But the poor-rates, it was said, operated on them as a peculiar burthen. Well if the poor-rates were really more oppressive to them than to other classes, and tended to raise the price of grain, he would recommend a countervailing duty on the importation of foreign corn, to the amount of the operation of that cause. He allowed that the poor-rates actually

193
raised the price of corn, because they fell upon the land, and operated as a burthen solely upon agriculturists. But if, while this burthen was felt by them, other classes of the community felt equal burthens, they wore put to no disadvantage, and ought to receive no protection. He was fully prepared to admit, that the necessity for supporting the poor constituted the only or the best apology for the corn-laws. Tithes likewise were another burthen to the landed interest, and tended, he would allow, to a certain extent, to raise the price of grain, and for these he would have no objection to allow a countervailing duty. There was this difference between poor-rates and tithes—that while we must support the poor, whatever was the produce the church could only claim a tenth of what was raised; for, whatever was the deficiency of produce, the clergy must conform to their proportion, and find it Sufficient for their support.
Mr. Ellice,after a few observations in reply to Mr. Ricardo, said, that since the return to cash payments was finally settled, to the present time, every staple article or produce connected with manufactures had experienced a fall of from 30 to 50 per cent; the only articles exempt from the operation of that system were agricultural produce, and that was kept up by the protection of the corn laws. With respect to the petition before the House, he entirely agreed in the objects proposed, and he was willing to give the fullest credit to the professions made that night by the right hon. the president of the board of trade, to concur in the propositions that petition contained. But, unfortunately, the state of the debt and the finances, rendered it impossible, without some great alteration, for the House to pay much attention to the petition before them. When they considered the state of the public debt, when they knew how the right hon. gentleman opposite would be reminded by his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer of the loss to the revenue which would follow an alteration in the system, they would, he feared, but deceive the country, if they were to encourage hopes of any great advantage being likely to be derived from the present petition, or the system, however admirable, which it suggested. There were other consideration? which ought to be met. His hon. friend who presented the petition had stated that a number of Gentle-
194
men in Glasgow and its neighbourhood, who were engaged in manufactures, were alarmed at the disturbances of the country and had withdrawn their capital from trade; but he should also have looked to the causes which led to the distress in that part of the country. In Lancashire, when the wages of labour were low, the poor-rates were resorted to. If that system were to go on, the whole manufacturing interests of Scotland would be soon destroyed, because, in Scotland they could not, as in Lancashire, make up the deficiency of wages by the poor-rates. This was one of the difficulties which must stare them in the face, when they attempted to adopt and regulations. Still, however, some benefit might be derived from the proposed plan, and some vexatious regulations which impeded the true principles of commerce might be done away with. The bonding system was a vexatious and injurious regulation—but the whole of the bonding system (particularly with respect to the repeal of the stamp duty) could not, he was aware, be got rid of without encountering much difficulty. Under all the circumstances, he approved cordially of the plan proposed by the petitioners, whilst he lamented the difficulties that existed in the way of its ultimate success. When any practical attempt should be made to promote that object he would bestow upon it his best attention, and exert for it his best energies. He would entreat the right hon. gentleman opposite to take the matter under his own management, and to suggest to parliament at no distant day, some mode of carrying into effect whatever could be adopted to meet the objects of the petitioners.
Mr. Marryat,after complimenting the petitioners and different members of the House, for the liberal ideas which they had expressed, entered into some statements as to the commercial advantages which this country enjoyed from its colonies. By the restrictions imposed on them, and the manner in which the intercourse was carried on with them, they were made to contribute most largely towards the prosperity of the mother country: they were limited to an intercourse with us alone: their produce was imported in British ships, and paid for in British manufactures.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, he could not but concur with the hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, that in the present

195
state of the country little could be done towards furthering the object of the petitioners. The restrictions of which they complained could not be entirely removed while the taxes remained the same. It was impossible now to discuss the question to any useful result. He was glad to find thru all the hon. gentlemen who had addressed the House upon it had spoken with the greatest temper and moderation; but, to effect any practical purpose, the question must be brought before them in a very different shape. The different parties affected should lay their interests before the legislature, and then the whole subject might be fairly discussed.
Mr. Baringsaid, that there was one point of importance on which he had the misfortune totally to differ with his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo); on that point, as on every other, he would differ with him with reluctance and with diffidence. When his hon. friend stated that the difference in the currency was but as 3l. 17 s. lO½d. compared to 4l. 3s. he must differ from him entirely. He did conceive that the difference between 1l. sterling at present, and 1l. sterling during the period of the war was at least 5s. On an average during the war as compared to the present time, the difference was at least five and twenty per cent. This he stated without considering the casual difference between one day and another. The value of the currency had been fluctuating during the whole of the war, and defied all calculation; the value of commodities did not immediately follow the fluctuation of the currency, but took time to accommodate itself to the value of money. It was impossible to say what the value of a pound sterling was during the war; yet the difference was seldom for the last 12 or 15 years, as compared with the value of money at the present time less than five and twenty per cent. He had entered on this point because he considered it a vital one, and because it was, in his opinion, necessary that every gentleman should make up his mind on the subject, not with a view to a practical result on the question before the House, but to form correct or consistent opinions generally on the concerns of the country. He stated this because he felt that the change in the currency was one of the circumstances that weighed on the country; for, besides the putting an end to the depreciation of the currency, the scarcity had been augmented by the difference in the facility in
196
the negotiation of paper, which carried the change in the state of the monied world much beyond the difference of prices. In saying this he did not venture to say, that if the thing were to do over again he would not do as he had done; he was sure the country had done what was honourable and liberal, in declaring that they would return to the old standard. Whether they had promised more than they would be able to perform, was a point on which, he was sorry to say, he had not made up his mind. We had now a declining commerce and a declining revenue; and till we could say that this decline had ceased, it was impossible to say whether the country could perform what it had promised. He should, perhaps, in the next session, have to make a proposition on this subject; he said in the next session, because the present session was likely to be so short as to afford little time for investigation, and because he was willing that the country should proceed for some time with its present system, to see what might be its effects. All the difficulty of the country was in its having a large debt; for without that we might accommodate our taxes to any standard of value whatever. We had now to pay our creditors a higher value than we had received from them; but in doing so it would be contended by no one that we should go further than the law under which the debt was contracted required. Now, we had done something more. In returning to the metallic standard we had taken gold alone as a standard, and not silver and gold. We had then, as it happened, undertaken to pay not only all that was required by law, but something more. To add facilities to the circulation he should probably propose, if events did not alter his opinion, in the first place to make perpetual the plan of his hon. friend for payment in metallic bars instead of coin, for which the country was infinitely indebted to his hon. friend, and in the next place to give the Bank the option of paying, either in gold or in silver, not in depreciated or debased coin, but in weight. It happened that at present, for instance, silver was 1J or 2 per cent under the Mint price, so that payment in that metal would be a facility to the Bank, whilst the most scrupulous could not deny that in paying the pound sterling in one of the metals which formed the legal standard at the time when the debt was contracted, the strictest justice

197
was done. As to the petition itself before the House, the principles which it contained had met with so unanimous a support, that he wondered whence that opposition could come, by which the right hon. the president of the board of trade seemed to be deterred from attempting any reform of our commercial system, and he could not help expressing a hope that for the future that right hon. gentleman would not listen entirely to the suggestion of others, but, in treating the subject, would rely on his own excellent understanding.
Mr. Ricardo,in explanation, stated that he had never imagined that the currency had never been depreciated more than 4 per cent. He had merely contended, that at the time when the subject was taken up by parliament in the last year, there was only that depreciation; which was too small to warrant an alteration of the ancient standard. He was well aware that during some of the latter years of the war, the depreciation had been as great as 25 per cent.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table. A similar petition was presented from the chamber of commerce of Edinburgh. On the motion, that it do lie on the table,
Mr. Ricardosaid, he would take that opportunity of making an observation as to the two standards of gold and silver. He fully agreed with his hon. friend, that a payment in both would facilitate the payment of the public creditor; but then there was a question whether two stand ards would not be more liable to fluctuation than one invariable standard. If payment were made in one metal, it would be liable to less fluctuation than if made; in two, and in two it would be less than if made in three; therefore he considered the payment in one metal as preferable, being liable to less fluctuation.
Mr. Baringconsidered the difference in this respect as more theoretical than it I would be found in practice. He had never found the variation to be so great as was apprehended; and as, upon his hon. friend's own admission, the payments in both metals would afford a facility which could not be other wise acquired, bethought that plan preferable.
Mr. W. Smiththought that the price of one would act as a corrective on the other. He therefore preferred the plan of payments in both.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CIVIL LIST.
On the order of the day for further considering the Report of the Committee on the Civil List,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that before he moved the second reading of the resolutions, he should shortly explain the circumstances under which they were offered to their consideration. In doing so, he should have lamented if it had been necessary to trouble the House with that infinite mass of voluminous details which at former times it had been necessary to investigate. The object of those who had on former occasions offered those details to parliament was, either to explain the manner in which deficiencies had arisen in the civil list, and to exculpate those who had had the management of it, or to form the ground of some new system. Neither of those causes now called upon him for any observations He had no deficiencies to account for, because none had occurred since the last arrangement of the civil list, and he had no new system to propose, because the system then adopted had been found perfectly effectual. In comparing that last establishment in 1816, with the former arrangements, it was necessary to remark that at four former times had parliament made payment of the debts of the civil list, and four times without accounts or investigation on the mere statement of the fact in a message from the Crown—and thus four times had voted a permanent increase of the civil list. In 1782, a very considerable improvement in the civil list arrangements took place, and permanent rules were laid down for the administration its revenues. It was thus the civil list charges were divided into classes, to be paid in regular succession, and on this principle it was hoped that such, a system of economy would be carried into practice, as would prevent the recurrence of embarrassments. If Mr. Burke, the illustrious author of that bill, had gone a little farther, his hopes would probably have been well founded; but though he divided the ordinary expenditure into classes, a power was given to make occasional payments to any amount. Though no limits were set to the contingent expenses, there was no deficiency in the civil list thenceforward, till the breaking out of the French war—but after that; all the contingent expenses were so increased, that there was an arrear of 900,000 l. At that time extensive accounts were laid before parliament—the

199
debts were paid, and further provision was made for the civil list expenditure. From that time forward, though the ordinary expenses of the civil list exceeded the sums allowed for them, it was not found necessary to call for a direct provision for them, as the large sums at the disposal of the Crown, in the shape of droits of Admiralty, &c. afforded a fund to supply those deficiencies. Yet in 1801, the authority of parliament was again resorted to, and estimates were framed for the future expenditure of the civil list. In 1812, the subject came again under investigation, and an excess of 121,000 l. per annum was found to have taken place. Between 1812 and 1816 a further increase of expenditure took place, and a greater excess happened than in any former years. A committee was then appointed, which sat three months, and the arrangements in consequence of its report were brought forward in the House by the noble secretary of state for the foreign department. That bill repealed so much of Mr. Burke's bill as regarded the payments according to the order of classes, and directed that the demands of each class should be answered by appropriations at the beginning of each quarter. The advantage on the score of economy from this arrangement was very considerable, because the different departments of the household being thus enabled to deal with ready money enjoyed an advantage thereby, which they had never had under any other system of the civil list. It also provided in a complete manner for the comfort and convenience of the persons, many of whom were in narrow circum-stances, who depended on the civil list. The distress which some of the officers suffered who were five, six, or seven quarters in arrears, might be easily conceived. In both these particulars, the I arrangement of 1816 was an improvement, but with respect to the public the advantage was still more considerable, by its economy in comparison with former times, The expenses of the civil list since 1816, had been less by 150,000 l. than the average of the three years before. In proposing the establishment at present of a system similar to that of 1816, he was proceeding on a principle already sanctioned by parliament, of providing a sufficient, but not an extravagant allowance, retaining such a control over the expenditure as would prevent the recurrence of future debt. The establishment of 1816,
200
he should therefore propose entire, with the exception of the reduction of the first class. That class contained allowances to the amount of 298,000 l. a year, being the allowance for the Windsor establishment, the privy purse of his majesty, the allowance to her late majesty, and the privy purse of the Prince Regent exercising the functions of royalty. Of these allowances, the king's privy purse of 60,000 l. a year, was all that would remain; and as this class alone was the only one in which the circumstances connected with the demise of the Crown had made any alteration, it was the only one on which he should propose any change. There would be thus a saving of 238.000 l. with the exception of such provision as the liberality of parliament chose to make for the servants of his late majesty. He did not feel it necessary at that moment to go into any further detail, as he understood there was a motion in amendment to come from the other side of the House. If that should be the case, he should have the usual courtesy of the House in being allowed to reply. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That this report be now taken into further consideration."
Lord John Russellsaid, it was with considerable pain, that, on an occasion of a grant such as the present, he felt it his duty to move that this report be taken into further consideration at a future day. This he did with the view of its coming before a select committee. It would have given him much pleasure if his majesty's ministers had taken this latter part of the task upon themselves, because it would best have come from them. He felt, also, doubts of the success of his motion, when he found that neither the learning, the wit, nor the eloquence of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) were successful in an appeal on the subject the other evening. His motion, however, had one advantage which did not belong to that which was submitted by his hon. and learned friend—that it was not complex in its nature, nor intricate in the immediate question to which it referred. The question to which he wished to call the attention of the House was simply this—whether they, the representatives of the people, just returned from the people, with their professions and promises still on their lips, would, in a new parliament, take estimates into which they had made no inquiry, on which they

201
had given no opinion, and agree to those estimates without looking either to the necessities of the sovereign or the distresses of the people. He thought that a mature and due examination into those estimates would be more grateful to the monarch, more beneficial to the people, and more satisfactory to the House itself, than the plan which was proposed on the other side. The time, too, was one at which minute examination into every branch of our expenditure was called for; it was a time when the complaint of distress was heard from all classes—when our commerce was embarrassed and our agriculture reduced. A part of this distress, by the way, had arisen from the arrangement with respect to bullion payments last year. He did not mean to find fault with what had been done in this respect; he only mentioned the circumstance for the purpose of showing how much more difficult it was to retrieve errors than to fall into them. In this state of the country, when we had more taxes than at the end of the war, the House, he conceived, should pause before they sanctioned any grants without a due inquiry into the grounds on which they were proposed, and the necessity which existed for them. For his part, he would say, that if the arrangement of 1816 were as economical as the establishment of the president of the American republic, still it ought not to be adopted without due consideration. As to the assertion of a right hon. gentleman with respect to time, he would say, that ministers had dissolved the parliament when full time might have been allowed for the consideration of this subject. If it were intended to pass it over now without consideration, it would have been as well to mention the whole sum required, and say, "that was the sum demanded by his majesty," as to come down with those resolutions to the House for the sums now proposed. With respect to the present civil list, he conceived there was a fallacy in it, for it should be considered that the queen was still to be provided for, as well as the servants of the late king. There were also some of her late majesty's servants to be provided for; yet these, he thought, should form part of the list. It should be recollected, that when the last arrangement was made there were two establishments. There were, it might be said, two kings and two queens to be provided for; and was it not a little
202
too much to say (if any regard to economy was kept in view) that the same sums should now be demanded as when these several establishments were to be supported? His late majesty had a groom of the stole—an office which might be reduced without any derogation from the due support of the royal dignity. At least there were many offices of that kind which might be spared, without derogating in any respect from the dignity of the Crown. Many of the unmeaning institutions of feudal times might be safely reduced, without producing any diminution of the monarch's dignity, or any inconvenience to the public. That such an office as that of master of the hawks belonged to the "olden times," and had once contributed to the splendor and dignity of the Crown, was surely no reason for continuing it at the present day, when it was entirely useless. If such situations were to be upheld from respect to ancient usage, and without any regard to their utility, the king ought still, on the same principle, to have his fool, and be allowed straw for his beds, and litter for his chambers. But, of all the faults which were to be found with the civil list that had been proposed, the greatest defect was in its arrangement. Various arrangements of the civil list had been made on various occasions; and from the report of the committee of 1815 it appeared that its debts had been paid nine different times: 4,866,000 l. had been given to the civil list out of the droits of admiralty; upwards of 9,000,000 l. had been paid out of the consolidated fund; making, together with other sums, an amount of 17,641,000 l., which had been supplied to the civil list when the committee made its report; and, adding to this the various civil charges which had been defrayed since that period out of other funds, it was a moderate estimate to say, that, altogether, 20,000,000 l. had been paid towards the civil government, from funds different from the ordinary civil list. The old and original notion of a civil list was, no doubt, that the whole charges of the civil government were to be paid out of it. These charges, however, were soon found to be so great, that the allowance granted in the name of civil list could not cover them all; but still no perfect arrangement was entered into for supplying these deficiencies. Some parts of these expenses continued to be paid out of the consolidated fund,

203
some were left chargeable on the civil list, and others were paid partly out of the one fund, and partly out of the other. Thus, the Speaker of that House was paid under one head, and the judges under another. The heir-presumptive was nowhere to be found in the civil list; but, on the other hand, the lord chancellor and rat-catcher of Carlton-palace appeared under the same head, and were paid partly out of the civil list, and partly out of the consolidated fund. When his hon. and learned friend moved the other night for an inquiry into some branches of the civil list, the whole of his arguments were met by the phrases "a stipendiary king" and "an insulated king;" and the right hon. gentleman opposite had deprecated the idea of inspecting the household accounts of the king, as a degradation fatal to the dignity of the monarchy. But who, he would ask, had brought before the House the accounts of the civil list? Why, ministers themselves. Those very papers from which the right hon. gentleman had read a list of charges for bread, butter, cheese, &c, by way of exemplifying the degradation to which such an inspection would subject the Crown, had been brought down by ministers, in order to show the debts on the civil list. It was not to be considered, however, because these were debts on the civil list, that they were debts of the king. On the contrary, the noble lord opposite at the time the subject was discussed, stated that they were not expenses of the Crown, or of any part of the royal family, but sums given as presents to foreign ministers, and charges of a similar nature; for instance, so many thousand pounds to celebrate the festival of the restoration of Ferdinand 7th at Madrid. Then the term "stipendiary king" was repeated over and over again, and the desire to insulate the sovereign from the civil charges was represented as a horrible thing, calculated to strip him of all his dignity, and reduce him to the level of a president of a republic. A want of respect for the Crown, or a desire to lessen its dignity, was not a prevalent feeling in this country. They saw that in the most violent political publications—even in those of Cobbett—there was every respect paid to the Crown; nor did there appear any wish to introduce a republican form of government. The hon. gentlemen opposite, when they wished the measures of government to be supported, did not call
204
on the friends of their country to rally round the minister, but round the Crown. It therefore could not be dangerous, but would rather be productive of benefit, to insulate the king from the civil charges, for the Crown was not protected by the charges on the civil list. What protection, for instance, could it derive from the charges under the head of secret service money? Surely, it would not be supposed that the Crown was protected by the money paid to Oliver, Castles, and Edwards, and men of that stamp. But besides those offices that added nothing to the dignity or safety of the Crown, there were several of a different description on the civil list, which, in his opinion, required some regulation. It had been the wise policy of this country to remove its judges from places of political debate, and to give them no temptation to yield to improper influence. But on the civil list there was one judge who had a seat in that House; and this circumstance lie considered a deviation from that salutary principle which was so well calculated to secure respect for those who administered the laws of the country. He hoped he had now said enough to induce the House to go into an inquiry on the subject of the civil list; and he should therefore conclude by moving, as an amendment, that the word "now" be omitted, and that the words "this day week" be inserted.
Mr. Warreseconded the amendment, and said, that when the committee of 1816 was appointed, it was deprived of the very life and essence of a committee of inquiry. When his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) proposed that it should be allowed to send for persons, papers, and records, his proposition was negatived; and when a proposal was made to call before the committee an efficient officer of the lord Steward's department, it was rejected. The committee had nothing to proceed upon; they were obliged to trust implicitly to papers delivered to them from the different departments. Into the grounds on which those papers were formed, they were not allowed to inquire. He could not, therefore, rely upon the accuracy of those statements, or upon the correctness of those calculations, to which the chancellor of the exchequer appeared to think the House so peculiarly bound to attend. He was by no means disposed to countenance any denunciation against the splendor of royalty.

205
On the contrary, no man could be more anxious to support that splendor; but he objected to any degree of expense unnecessary for that purpose, and believing, that such expense was included in the civil list, as it was at present arranged, he was desirous for a full, fair, and elaborate inquiry upon the subject. Such an inquiry he was led to expect that ministers themselves would have been forward to propose, upon the accession of a new king; that expectation was, indeed, encouraged by the language of ministers themselves upon the discussion of the civil list in 1815. But, at all events, he having pledged himself on that occasion to support such an inquiry upon the demise of the Crown, felt that he was called upon in this instance to redeem his pledge, and therefore he seconded the motion of his noble friend.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he had always thought that there was great difficulty in discussing this question, because, from the terms in which they expressed themselves, it appeared as if there were opposite and conflicting interests at stake. But he was sure that every person who carefully directed his attention to the subject, would perceive that the civil list involved the general interests of the state. In the first parliament of a new reign, such an inquiry as that proposed by the noble lord was likely to be received with great favour. But he would tell the noble lord, that, in the practice of former reigns, there was no precedent for such an inquiry. There was nothing in the circumstances of the late demise, or the present accession, which could be urged as a reason for taking the civil list out of its ordinary course. The amount of the expenditure necessary for supporting the dignity of the Crown, and defraying the charges of the civil government, was not necessarily changed by the demise of one sovereign, and the accession of another. On the present occasion, indeed, there were circumstances which, even admitting that precedents were in favour of the noble lord's motion, would induce the House to deviate from such a course. When the noble lord talked of the groom of the stole, his answer to the noble lord was, that the groom of the stole belonged to his late majesty, and that the saving arising from the termination of that office would be carried to the account of the public; for the whole of the Windsor establishment terminated on the demise of the late
206
sovereign, If no change had taken place from the situation of regent to that of sovereign, the noble lord might have had some cause to complain, and some grounds for demanding inquiry. But when it was proposed to give back the whole of that establishment which had been made for the late sovereign, neither the one nor the other of the noble lord's propositions could be sustained. It could not be made out that the establishment for the prince of Wales, when Regent, had been more than was necessary, or that in the administration of that establishment there had been any unnecessary expense. As to the first of these propositions, the noble lord would not say, that his majesty ought to have a smaller income as king than he had enjoyed as regent; and if the noble lord was disposed to quarrel with the manner of the application of that income, he had not made out the shadow of a case. All the particulars of the application of the civil list were before the House in the report of 1815, in details so minute as to be almost unbecoming the dignity of the Crown; so that any gentleman, if he thought there was an instance of unnecessary expenditure, might be able to point it out without any farther inquiry, The office of master of the hawks had been laid hold of, and held up to ridicule, as one that added nothing to the dignity or safety of the Crown, and that ought therefore to be abolished. But when he stated that this office was a freehold, granted by a former monarch, and as much property as any grant of lands made by Henry 8th, he thought he had satisfactorily answered all that had been said about it. The very same might be said of many other trifling salaries which had been made the subject of ridicule. The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) had, on a former night mentioned the vicar of the Tower, with his salary of 6l. 13 s. 4d., and had ridiculed the continuance of such an office; but if the hon. and learned gentleman had stated at the same time that this salary, and others of the same class, were granted in perpetuity, he would have been more correct. If the hon. and learned gentleman, or the noble lord, thought that these charges should be subjects of a particular motion, with the view of abolishing them. [Mr. Brougham denied that he had expressed a wish to abolish them]. He was happy to find that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned gentleman, and he

207
wished he had been pleased to state the reasons which induced him to treat these offices With so much ridicule. As to what had been said about the relative value of money at the time the civil list was settled and at present, he would appeal to all who recollected the state of the country in 1816, the price of commodities, and the state of the exchanges, whether the currency was not then as valuable, and the prices of commodities as low, as at present. He would assert positively that this was the case; and, in consequence of this circumstance, estimates were at that time laid before the House, in which a reduction of 21,000 l. was made on 150,000 l., in the three great departments of the master of the horse, the lord steward, and the lord chamberlain. This deduction was made without any report or recommendation from any committee. Here the right hon. gentleman took a review of the original institution, and of the several changes in the arrangement of the civil list. By the 12th of Charles 2nd, the civil list was first established for the support of the splendor of the throne, in aid of the produce of the hereditary revenue. In the reign of William 3rd, a civil list was granted to the king to the amount of 700,000 l., that sum including the receipts of the hereditary revenue; and it was provided, that if those receipts should exceed the sum specified in the act, the excess should not be appropriated without consulting the judgment of parliament. By the act of George 2nd, the amount of the allowance to the civil list was settled at 800,000 l., with a provision, that if the receipts of the hereditary revenue should exceed that sum, the excess should be at the disposal of the Crown; while, if there was any deficiency, such a deficiency should be made good by parliament. In these two statutes of William 3rd and George 2nd, although so contrary in some of their provisions, gentlemen would see the heads of the hereditary revenue, and might easily comprehend the difference between that and the casual revenues of the Crown. Upon the accession of the late king, the first act of his reign involved a surrender of all the hereditary revenues, in lieu of a settled allowance for the civil list, his majesty still retaining what are called the casual revenues. But previous to this surrender, the hereditary revenues were deemed the private property of the Crown, the utter alienation of any part of which
208
was provided against by a specific act of parliament. By the act of the 22nd of the late king, which was commonly called Mr. Burke's act, a classification of the civil list was arranged, and in this state it remained until 1816, when that change took place in the system which it was now proposed to continue. In 1816, certain charges were transferred from the civil list, over which it was impossible for the House to exercise any degree of control; therefore these charges could not be properly continued in that list. For instance, the payment for printing and stationary for that House. The expense under this head was, at the commencement of his majesty's reign, not more than from two to 3,000 l. a year; whereas, within the last war the expense of printing alone amounted to no less than 100,000 l. Now, he would ask any man if it were possible for the Crown to contemplate such a contingent expense out of the civil list as this? He had already stated, that to a fixed income, which was granted to the late king at the beginning of his reign, there was applicable an infinite variety of expenses, over which the Crown possessed no control. To prevent this had been the object of an arrangement entered into for the purpose of putting the Crown in possession of certain funds for the defraying of certain expenses. But, as the case stood before, it was impossible, as he had shown in the article of printing, that the Crown could ever contemplate such a charge upon the civil list, because it could not be that out of a certain fixed income the Crown could provide for it. In short, the whole attention of the committee of 1816 was directed to this point—to remove from the civil list every charge which was of an uncertain, fluctuating, or varying nature. The third class which had been alluded to was the charge for foreign ambassadors; but this he should contend was a very proper charge to be provided for by a fixed sum. So far from wishing to see it removed, he thought that if parliament ventured every year to specify what should be the allowance for these ambassadors, many things connected with the subject might escape its notice, and the present amount would swell to a much larger size. To prevent this inconvenience the allowance was fixed. As to what the noble lord had said about the large expenses of fetes or festivals, honourable gentlemen must know there could be nothing of that sort charged, without coming

209
under the consideration of parliament. He thought the arrangement of 1816, one which was calculated to allow all those proper expenses which were necessary to support the becoming splendor and dignity of the Crown, subject only to the advice and suggestions of its responsible advisers. The benefit of this system had been seen from this circumstance—that, during the four years for which it had now existed, not one single shilling of debt had accrued—a circumstance before unknown and unheard of in the history of the civil list. The arrangement, therefore, of 1816, went to this—to establish a proper civil list, and to regulate its expenditure. Now, this office had been, in some degree, before vested in the lords of the Treasury; but to put this matter under the observation of an officer, who might have it always under his direction, was, for the first time, however desirable, effected by that arrangement. This was achieving that object which parliament had ever had in view, namely, that of confining the expenses of the civil list within those limits which the liberality, not less than the prudence of parliament, had considered necessary. He should maintain that here a great object had been effected. It now remained for the honourable gentlemen opposite to show in what particular these expenses were excessive, or in what particular the sum granted by parliament to the regency, for the due support of the splendor of the throne, had been too much, taking into account the increased expenses which had at that time devolved upon it. It was upon those grounds which he had endeavoured to make out that he should oppose the motion of the noble lord. He felt satisfied that there was no head of those expenses, to which the noble lord's speech had alluded, which parliament was now fairly called upon to re-model.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he was really sorry at that hour to detain the House, and perhaps owed some apology for again claiming its attention; but he thought proper to offer a few words in explanation of some observations of his, which had been greatly misunderstood by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He was most unwilling to allow the House, or even the right hon. gentleman himself (who, he trusted, was the only person who, hearing what be had said, had so misunderstood him), to go away under an impression so wide of his real meaning as
210
that which the right hon. gentleman himself seemed to labour under. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think, that in mentioning the particulars of those seven heads, to which he had called the attention of the House on Friday last, he meant to complain of the expenses under such heads, or to propose the abolition of the offices themselves. Now, nothing could be wider from his real intention, or more foreign to the application of that very argument, for the purpose of which he had cited these heads. But the right hon. gentleman said—"Oh, if you did not mean to propose their abolition, you have now an opportunity of saying so." No such thing: why should he be called upon to unsay that on Monday which he had not said on Friday? There was no ambiguity, he conceived, in what he then did say; and the fact was, that his statement was the very reverse of that commentary, that gloss which had been just given to it by the right hon. gentleman. He had stated those instances only in support of an argument to procure the separation of those heads from the civil list. Among others they would find those of the vicar of the Tower, the keeper of the lions, and the rat-killer. Not that he thought these offices useless or ridiculous; far from it. No doubt the rats were as likely to exist there as those more noble and more lordly animals, the lions; their existence could be as little a matter of doubt as that of a much graver and more serious character—the worthy vicar—or as that even of the keeper of the lions himself. Not that he for a moment proposed to abolish that noble office, of whose dignified utility they were by that paper perpetually reminded, turn their eyes which way they would. Not that he objected to that officer's moderate salary of only 15 l. 10 s. per annum, whether he considered the smallness of the compensation, or the great quantity of vermin, which, without question, he must destroy, or the general obnoxiousness of that vile race of rats. Far from all this; he never meant to insinuate any thing of the sort. And he would now mention, much more gravely and seriously, another office, which he only spoke of for the purpose of showing the infinite variety and discordancy of offices for which the civil list was at present chargeable; he meant that of astronomer royal—an office which the House would remember he had before particularly mentioned;

211
and sure he was, that no person who heard him in that House, nor any one out of it who knew his veneration for that noble science, or his respect for the individual by whom the important office was filled, could for a moment mistake his meaning upon this subject. He would not for a moment propose to diminish one pound of that gentleman's salary, which was so nobly and at the same time so hardly earned. But he was justified in instancing the office as one out of this extraordinary mixture of appointments; for it came under the same head as those of the famous vicar of the Tower, the keeper of the lions, and the rat-killer. All that he had to say, therefore, was, that it was hard he should be misunderstood as proposing that these offices should be abolished, or paid out of no funds at all, since he had only suggested that they might be paid out of the consolidated fund; neither did he consider that it would be any greater degradation to the Crown for these offices to be paid, together with itself, out of the consolidated fund, than it was for the Crown at present to defray the expenses of many such offices as were charged under the different heads he had mentioned.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that this discussion came on under circumstances of a nature perfectly unparalleled. It regarded the appropriation of a sum of 850,000 l. at a period of public distress entirely unprecedented. It had appeared, in the course of that evening's debate upon another question, that the agricultural interest of the country was in a state of great depression, and that it was not probable at present that the evil would decrease. Of our commercial affairs there was but one opinion. They had heard from his hon. friend what was the state of our commercial relations, and he had announced to them that the depression experienced in them was not likely to be removed. He was addressing the House at a period when distress, he regretted to say, had broken out into acts of violence in several parts of the country. He was addressing them at a time immediately following a general election—when, whatever had been the differences of political opinions Which had prevailed from one end of the empire to the other, upon whatever topic, among whatever descriptions of men, there had been but one general cry, in which all parties had joined—a demand for the ex-
212
ercise of a most rigid economy. Addressing an assembly like that which he had then to address, under such circumstances, no apology he conceived, was due from him, if he at once declared that he could not agree in the principle of the proposition stated by the right hon. gentleman. His objection to the motion of the noble lord, amounted, in fact, to this-—that inquiry on this subject was without precedent, and consequently that there was something indelicate in refusing to vote this money without investigation. This was the end and scope of the right hon. gentleman's objection; but in another part of his speech, which was not quite consonant with that which he had just mentioned, the right hon. gentleman had said, that no inquiry should be gone into, because the present arrangement was the result of previous investigation. The right hon. gentleman had also said, that because there had been no excess upon the civil list since its arrangement in 1816, it was therefore an arrangement which ought to be permanent. With respect to the latter observation, it seemed to him (Mr. Tierney) that it would have been much better to have voted, in the first instance, 2,000,000 l. instead of 1,000,000 l., because, if the original proposition was extravagant, but was to be supported as no excess had accrued, the larger sum upon that principle would have been still less liable, both to the excess and to the objection. That arrangement was the result of a committee appointed in 1815. The bill was brought in in 1816; and therefore he was to take it for granted that this establishment of the civil list was the result of that inquiry. He believed it would be in the recollection of hon. gentlemen, that he did object to the arrangement proposed by the noble lord, and that at the time he gave his reasons for so doing. He had stated on that occasion, that he cared little for any estimate which was to be framed by the officers of the Crown, and which was not to be sifted by public inquiry. He did state then, that that was absolute mockery which was to produce nothing more than certain papers, which they who were to present had an interest in preparing. It was nothing to say that those papers furnished ah estimate, because for the lord chamberlain so many thousands were charged, for the lord Steward so many more; this formed nothing more than a mere list of prices, and amounted to just nothing, if no op-

213
portunity were afforded of seeing upon what ground they were stated. Nor was it any thing to say, here is so much charged for wine, or so much for any other article; for such charges the House would have no other security than the simple unqualified word of the framer of the estimate, subject to no check whatsoever. The answer which had been made to him at that time was, that there never had been an instance of imposing such instructions as he wished upon such a committee: and since then his predictions had been but too soon and too completely verified. With respect to the Board of Works, it was soon found impossible to go on at all without inquiry, and a fresh board was established, in order to supervise and examine the accounts of the other. As to the household, a certain gentleman was indeed appointed, with a salary of 1,500 l. a year; but, notwithstanding all that the right hon. gentleman had said of the merit of this appointment—not withstanding the opportunity of regulating the quantity and price of eggs and butter supplied to the royal household—no remarkable effect had followed, no great reductions had been made; but with respect to the Windsor establishment, there the case was different; there reductions were soon recommended; there the household of a dying king was considered as a fit and immediate object of retrenchment. Having examined colonel Stephenson, a report was speedily drawn up, and reductions were recommended under a great variety of heads. Well, then, here was a precedent for the right hon. gentleman for going into a committee to institute an inquiry. It had been asked by the right hon. gentleman, whether, in the event of such inquiry, it was proposed to assign this or that sum for this or that charge? He (Mr. Tierney) had said nothing of the kind; nor had he expressed himself upon this head, whatever might have been passing in his mind. He did, indeed, think it incumbent upon a committee to settle what would be the proper sum for the regulation of all those expenses; but he had not pledged himself at all upon the subject. He did not know but that the result of an inquiry might be to establish the charge of the civil list at what it was; neither did he know but what it might he to show, that it should amount to less than what it was by several thousand pounds; but this he knew, that if a saving of only one thousand
214
pounds could be effected, it should be adopted. It would prove to the country their real desire to observe a strict economy. It would show that they had a feeling for the distresses of the country, and the country itself would willingly pay the charge of 849,000 l., if it could be shown that the result of such an inquiry had been to save a charge of one thousand pounds. Now he begged not to be understood as at all stating that such a saving could or could not be made. That was to appear by the report of such a committee as he wished to see appointed.—He should next beg to call the attention of the House to that famous report, in which the whole principle of the arrangement of 1816 was to be found. That report contained all the numerous details which had been alluded to by the right hon. gentleman. After the right hon. gentleman had seemed to consider that the matters which that report treated of were not matters now to be entered into by a committee, he (Mr. Tierney) would mention an instance of their competency who drew up the report. They had recommended, they had made a proposition to the House, that an additional officer upon the household, with a salary of 1,448 l. per annum should be appointed; and by a mercy, or rather by an act of folly on his (Mr. Tierney's) part, the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer was permitted to postpone the consideration of the subject to the next year—and then what happened? That ministers were ashamed of the proposition, and the matter was dropped. "But," said the right hon. gentleman, "this all arose from the noble lord's considering the alteration of prices, and the difference in the value of money; this and other reductions were made upon that principle." No such thing. No less than 139,000 l. per annum less than the estimate was the deduction made from the civil list, without any thing intervening, and in a very short space of time; and by whom? By the right hon. gentleman himself. He would ask the right hon. gentleman whether the noble lord made this reduction by reason of the altered value of money, and the difference of prices? If he answered in the affirmative, how happened it that under the third class, the noble lord had made an immediate reduction of 20,000 l. per annum? Add to this, 10,000 l., the charge for gardens, and here was a deduction altogether of 30,000 l., exclusive of other

215
occasional payments; but with respect to the saving to be made upon those occasional payments, no man could know what was the amount of them. It was said, that these were to be taken out of the civil-list now, and accounted for hereafter. But did any man know what they would be? Was it meant to throw on the House the necessity of going through all those details which were before it, in order to get at the precise sum which could be so saved? He therefore knew of no other means, but by a committee of inquiry, of coming at the fact of what had been the savings of last year. The estimate which had been brought forward by Mr. Pitt, in 1804, had been alluded to; that estimate contemplated the amount of the probable expenses of the civil list for the next seven years ending in 1811, and upon this the arrangement of 1816, had, in part proceeded. It went on with the two years and three quarters next following 1811, and then made the estimate as upon that period collectively. Now those two years and three-quarters he threw out of the estimate altogether. They were two years and three-quarters marked by very particular circumstances, about which much unpleasant discussion had arisen, and which he did not now wish to revive. There was also another report made in 1812, which took for its basis a period ending in the year 1811. But honourable gentlemen on the other side had made this extraordinary assumption, that the estimate of 1804 was one which Mr. Pitt never intended to carry into effect—one never meant to have operation—in short, a mere random-shot. For his part, he never, in all his life, was any great Pittite, but he would not see Mr. Pitt treated in this way. They said they could not find out upon what grounds this estimate was made. Why not? All the gentlemen who made it, except Mr. Pitt and Mr. Rose, were, he believed, still alive. Here, then, was the estimate of Mr. Pitt; but, instead of adopting it; instead of considering it—they said, "Let us put every thing aside; Mr. Pitt never meant to carry this into effect, and therefore let us say no more about it." "In 1804, Mr. Pitt's object," said the right hon. gentleman, "was, to make the civil list 940,000 l." giving, as his reason for this assertion, that from the estimate which he had made he had deducted 82,000 l. out of one charge alone of 135,000 l. He (Mr. Tierney)gave Mr. Pitt credit for an intention to make a farther reduction than this
216
in the civil list, judging from the estimate of former years. Taking an average of the three preceding years he would have effected a saving of 47,000 l. per annum in those three years; and what was there surprising in Mr. Pitt supposing that he could keep the civil list within the bounds prescribed by parliament? The years 1782, 1783, and 1784, were those upon which he founded his proposition as regarded the saving of 47,000 l. a year; but it had been argued, that the seven years ending in 1811 were those which constituted the true criterion upon which the estimate of 1816 had been framed. That position he distinctly denied; and he begged of the House, at least of those hon. members who had had an opportunity of seeing the details, to consider what had been the sums charged for the last seven years, which he might call the expenses of his late majesty. He would beg them to consider, that his late majesty was liable to very heavy demands, by reason of his large family. He would beg them to consider the charges of the board of works, and what had been the cost, not for repairs, but for the improvements of that stupendous pile, Windsor castle: next, for the decoration, furnishing, &c. of apartments in the palaces for the princesses, and of the apartments in Kensington-palace for the princess of Wales. He would beg them to consider the heavy expenses of removing the princesses to and from Windsor, stated at 20,000 l.; and farther the removals of the royal family to Weymouth; and, putting all these very heavy costs together, were they to be told that the last seven years were the proper criterion upon which the estimate for the expenses of the civil list at the present day were to be framed? Then, with respect to the value of money in 1816, great and general distress was prevailing at that time, but it was denied, repeatedly denied, in that House. The pressure was said to be temporary, and they had been told the same thing in speeches from the throne, and directed not to be alarmed. The chancellor of the exchequer had even indulged himself and the House with promises and anticipations of saving to the country three millions and a half of taxes, because;—prices were going to fall. But the right hon. gentleman had made a great mistake. It was very true that that right horn gentleman did then, as he was very apt to do upon the least rise of the 3 per cents, hold up his head, and talk loudly and cheer

217
ingly, which he had continued to do till within the last three or four months.—Under all these circumstances, he still persisted that those years were not a fair criterion of calculation. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to observe, that without such a committee of inquiry as had been proposed it was impossible to know what saving could or could not be effected in the civil list. The difference between a state of war and a state of peace must have effected a very material change, not only in the principles upon which different estimates had been framed, but also in the savings to be effected. The right hon. gentleman opposite had opposed inquiry; and one ground of his opposition was, that the former estimate had been agreed to without inquiry, and that, therefore, a committee was improper. Now he begged the House to look at these two items of charges—850,000 l. for England, and 200,000 l. for Ireland. He should be glad to know who inquired about the Irish estimates? It was by no means clear that the English estimates had been inquired into; but as to the Irish, he believed nobody at all had taken that trouble. Before the arrangement of 1816, there had been an increase on the civil list of 127,000 l. beyond the sum established by parliament; yet the noble lord talked of reductions made to the extent of 250,000 l. Was it meant that, because of the former excess of 127,000 l. they were to vote for the permanent institution of the civil list as it now stood, in order to avoid such an excess for the future? Another item, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, was the privy purse; and this he termed a royal fund. The House was well aware, that it was established at 60,000 l. per annum. An attempt had been made to induce the House to simplify the whole of these matters, by putting this also upon the consolidated fund. This, however, was vehemently objected to, upon the score of its former settlement upon his majesty. The kings of England were accustomed to be considered the fathers of their country. Sums of money were vested in them in the gross, in order to be afterwards distributed by them as the supreme magistrates. These had been since taken away, and not a single farthing of them was left, excepting only this allowance for the privy purse; and what was still more extraordinary, her majesty herself could not find a place upon the civil list, la a bill to provide for the regulation
218
and maintenance of the royal household, her majesty was altogether excluded. The grounds upon which this exclusion had been made, they might some day have an opportunity of discussing; but he must consider it as most extraordinary that her majesty was thus situated. The grounds of such her condition were beyond all human comprehension. She was to be considered, and had been recognized, as queen of England by the lord chancellor, and by one or two other eminent individuals, and, happily for herself, was represented by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham). It was, indeed, extraordinary that there should be this omission. He must say, that he never expected to be called upon to vote for a bill to provide for the maintenance of the royal family and household, out of which the queen of England herself was to be excluded, after being recognized by the lord high chancellor. He would let this pass; but he could not help observing, that either her majesty was very hardly used, or else his majesty was very hardly used.—The right hon. gentleman here took an opportunity of again impressing upon the House the necessity of going into a committee, and observed, that it behoved ministers, before they called on him to vote a sum of 60,000 l. per annum for the privy purse, to show how much besides was placed at the disposal of his majesty. It was material, he continued, for the House to know what funds his majesty had of his own; and here he would ask, if any proof were yet wanting of the necessity of inquiry, whether any man who heard him knew—excepting, indeed, it was some one connected with the revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The former, he believed, to be about 10,000 l., the latter 15,000 l. per annum, or 25,000 l. a year jointly. This would make the yearly amount of the privy purse 85,000 l. But then there was the sum of 385,000 l., an excess of its income paid out of other funds during the last sixty years, and this sum of 385,000 l. would average upon the whole reign about 6,000 l. per annum, to be added to the 85,000 l.; making therefore, so far as he could calculate it, a total yearly allowance to the privy purse of 91,000 l. He had given notice of a motion for to-morrow respecting the sum of 385,000 l. which appeared to have been paid into the privy purse; but as the discussion of this night had very much embraced that subject, he

219
was willing to forego it, provided the committee now moved embraced that question in its investigations. He begged the House to look at the mischief that might arise from empowering ministers, from time to time, to grant out of the casual revenues of the Crown, for the privy purse, such sums as they might think necessary; and it would not be forgotten that the moment those sums were actually in the privy purse, no man living had a right to ask a question about them. This was a point which the House and the country ought to view with the utmost possible jealousy. Of what particulars did this large sum of 385,000 l. consist? Suppose it were represented by lord Liverpool, or the chancellor of the exchequer, that his majesty wished to add to his property at Brighton a considerable extent of land, and that it was fit that the sum of 20,000 l. should be paid into the privy purse for that purpose, who, after it was so paid, could be called upon to account for the appropriation of the money? Did the House think it right that such a power of making direct presents to his majesty should exist? He did not mean to charge the present government with any endeavour by a circuitous mode to obtain the money themselves, because such was not the fashion of the times, and he sincerely believed that they were incapable of it; but was clear that they always possessed the means of currying the royal favour and tampering with the royal feelings in this way. Suppose any one of the ministers had given offence to the sovereign, and wished to make it up by a little money paid into the privy purse; according to the present arrangement he could do it, although, of course, he did not suspect that it could have the desired effect. He knew nothing from authority, but it was a common proverb that what everybody said must be true to a certain extent; and would any man deny that his late majesty died worth a great deal of property? This property must have been saved out of the civil list; and was the country to be saddled with a heavy civil list, in order to enable the king to make savings? True it was, that his late majesty had a large family to provide for, but no such motive existed in the present case. At this moment, every farthing saved to the nation was of importance; and what pretence was there for granting one single sixpence beyond what was necessary? Then, why not inquire what was necessary? and
220
surely the enormous sum of 385,000 l. was of itself a sufficient reason for a minute investigation.—I state all this, God knows (continued Mr. Tierney), with a great deal of pain to myself, because I am well aware that it is liable to misconstruction. There are many rumours abroad which may or may not be well-founded, and if I listened to them I should think it a very bad time indeed for any gentleman on this side of the House to do any thing that might possibly wound the feelings of his majesty. What may be the consequences of the part I have taken I neither know nor care; but this I know, that if public confidence be of any value, no man ought to hope for the confidence of the country who does not endeavour to deserve it by fearlessly stating his sentiments in this House. When we are talking of economy and retrenchment, I cannot come down here to take away the salaries of some petty clerks, or to reduce the pensions of a few poor-half-pay officers, and shut my eyes to this proceeding, by which such enormous sums are to be voted to his majesty without inquiry. I know I am doing my duty; and if I am at all acquainted with the character of the king, I am sure that he will rather thank me than blame me for the part that I am taking [Cheers]. What is it we wish on this side of the House? Nothing more than that the Crown should stand well with the country; and, in times like these, can there be any thing more important than that the people should feel a firm assurance that his majesty requires no farther sacrifice from them than is absolutely necessary to support the character and dignity of the throne? An opportunity like the present may never, perhaps, again occur; for there never was a moment so favourable for obtaining popularity on the part of the Crown. I am as confident of this as I am of my existence, that if his majesty had not been surrounded by those who gave him this bad advice, he would have stood in a very different position before his people to that which he now occupies. Every man must be aware that the country looks with great anxiety to the deliberations of the House on this question; not merely because it is agitated at the commencement of a new reign, but because it will take the decision as an; earnest of the intentions of ministers for the future I say, and I say it without the fear of contradiction, that there are large sums,

221
which, if a proper inquiry were set on foot, might be saved to the country. I say, too, that all ranks are bound to make sacrifices; and, by going into this committee, the House will at once set an example that its great object is economy and public relief, without sparing any quarter, whether high or low. Let it do its duty honestly, fairly, and impartially. I have done mine, and I repeat, that I have not done it without great pain to myself. I implore the House to listen to the complaints out of doors, to entertain the proposition; and I entreat honourable gentlemen, before they decide against all inquiry, to consider what they owe to those who sent them here, as well as what they owe to the national tranquillity and the security of the monarchy. The right hon. gentleman sat down amid the cheers of the House, which lasted for some time.
Mr. Canningsaid, that all the points urged in the course of the debate were resolvable into a few plain, simple, propositions. The House was now called upon to do what had been done at the commencement of every former reign, namely, to vote a civil list for the support of the civil government and household of the sovereign. Under such circumstances the first step to he taken was, to examine the precedents of good times—he meant such as were regarded by all men with satisfaction. Going back to the Revolution, it was found that the vote of the civil list from the reign of king William to George 3rd, had been carried in this House in the first instance without minute investigation; and the only inference he wished to draw from this fact was, not that the House was bound to follow implicitly the course of precedents, but that those who proposed a deviation were bound to show the special circumstances that rendered it advisable. If it could be shown that in the course of the last reign there had been no examination into these matters, or that from the lapse of time it was possible that abuses had crept in, it might form some ground for the present proposal. If, on the other hand, it could be proved, that although an investigation, both minute and recent, had taken place, yet that since that date there had been great exceedings on the part of the Crown, a manifest want of economy, or an application for an increase, then some ground would perhaps be laid for a deviation from the ordinary precedent. But when these things had
222
not occurred; when both points made in favour of that course which ministers had thought it their duty to recommend, and which had always been pursued; when minute investigation had been recently made, and when no excess had occurred since the last arrangement when it was clear that there had been no want of economy; and when it was found that that had been effected which was never accomplished before, namely, that the provision for the civil list had been made efficient;—then he thought a primâ facie case was made out, that it was not necessary to do any thing new, and that no reasons existed why they should not pursue the accustomed course. The right hon. gentleman had stated most fairly the grounds of his objections to that which his majesty's ministers had proposed. He had dwelt on the situations to which the sovereign had been left with respect to the revenues that were at his uncontrolled disposal. He had said that when a sum was handed over to the privy purse, no one had a right to inquire in what way it was disbursed. This was true, and this he took to be the very nature of the privy purse, and was no favour claimed for the present sovereign, as this had been common ever since the existence of a privy purse had been first recognized by parliament. But the right hon. gentleman had said, "you ought to recollect that his majesty has other funds at his disposal." It was true that he had, and so had the late king. He, in the early part of his reign, had received the revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall exactly as the present king did. He admitted that after the majority of the Prince of Wales, the income of one of them went from his majesty, but the income of the other he had enjoyed throughout his reign, and the present king had succeeded him in it. On this head he saw nothing to alarm the constitutional jealousy of the House. But the right hon. gentleman tried to excite (he did not say improperly) a feeling of jealousy on another subject, by speaking of the riches supposed to be left by the late king. He believed that he spoke correctly, when he stated all or nearly all the property left by the late king to have consisted of the sums that had accumulated during his majesty's indisposition. By far the largest part of the wealth which he had left to his successor was the produce of such accumulation. This would not surprise any one who reflected that there was no

223
species of distress in the country that was not carried in petitions to the foot of the throne—he could not say to the foot of the throne, constitutionally speaking, but to the private palace of the sovereign. Known as he was to have great funds at his disposal, and being supposed to possess still greater, that he should be thus beset was not to be wondered at, and it would not excite surprise that there had not been a greater accumulation while he was able to disburse his funds. The character of his late majesty precluded the idea of his making any sordid accumulation of wealth that could at all excite the jealousy of parliament. With respect to the increase of landed property which had been alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, he would take upon himself to say, that it was so insignificant, that nine-tenths of the gentlemen that sat on either side of that House would not consider such an addition to their estates an object of material importance. With respect to the objections of the right hon. gentleman to the civil list, his arguments would apply as well to the smallest item in it as to the largest. He, however, believed that there was little cause for complaint, and that whatever might be the vices of the present age—whatever the plots formed against public men—there never was a period when public characters were so free from taint and imputation of a pecuniary kind. The right hon. gentleman proposed to go into a new inquiry on the subject of the civil list, and to sift over again what had been so recently sifted. But his purpose would not be answered if they did not go into an investigation of the privy purse; nor then as it should seem, unless guards such as had never been provided before, were supplied to prevent the misapplication of its funds. Though the right hon. gentleman might think the beginning of a new reign a fit period for entering upon such a subject, the House would bear in mind that such an inquiry could be instituted at any future period, and that such an inquiry was not usual at the beginning of a reign. In the time of the late king, it was not till the year 1782 that Mr. Burke brought forward his motion for the first inquiry into the arrangements of the civil list. Then it was that the whole system was altered; that parts of it were placed under responsibility which were never so placed before, and that that fabric of order was raised which at present existed, and which, though not perfect, greatly sur-
224
passed what had previously been known. This, it should be remembered, had been done, not while the reign was new, but when it was twenty years old. When the right hon. gentleman could produce any facts that went to prove inquiry desirable, when a want of economy should appear, or when the Crown should confess that the provision which had been made was not sufficient, then would be the time for entering into that investigation which had been unnecessarily called for on the present occasion. He admitted the real wealth of the Crown was not that which was obtained at the expense of public discontent. But the question now was, did any thing appear in the course that had been taken to provoke discontent? He did not believe that any thing of the kind could be discovered, and he believed that by confining the new civil list within the bounds previously fixed, they would do their sovereign right, and do justice to the country. He knew not on what principle any advice but that which had been offered could have been given. He knew there was a difference between a regent and a king—between a vicarious and an actual governor. There were some burthens which did not fall on a regent, which must be borne by a king. Supposing the country to have been in a prosperous state, these might have justified a call for an increase, but, adopting the policy acted upon four years ago, he thought they had taken the safe course, and had marked a proper feeling for the distresses of the people, which had however been brought to bear against them. The right hon. gentleman said,—"It is true there has been no excess on the civil list, but then it may be proper to inquire if the provision made for it is not too large." This appeared to him an ungracious and hazardous mode of proceeding—ungracious to turn round upon the economy of the Crown, and say, "As there is no excess, the provision made must be greater than was necessary;" and hazardous as it went to impress upon the sovereign the expediency of concealing the fact that he was abundantly provided for, and to invite to that excess which it was most important to avoid. This conduct on the part of the right hon. gentleman reminded him of that of one of the kings of France, who gave his two sons a purse of gold each. One of them, after a time, returned his purse empty, the other gave his back full.

225
The king upon this tied up the full purse and threw it into the street, at the same time saying to the son from whom he had received it, since you had not spirit to spend it, nor generosity to give it away, I will put it in the way of somebody else. The right hon. gentleman would visit economy with severity, when he was disposed to say, "If what you have is enough, it may be more than enough, and I must see if I cannot reclaim part of it." He believed it to be the sincere desire of his majesty, and of his advisers, to avoid any new exceeding, and to confine the civil list expenditure within the limits fixed by parliament; and doing this they considered that they were doing that which could excite no jealousy on the part of the House, which could create no discontent in the minds of the people. The effect of the vote that night would be the adoption of the provision made in 1816 for the regent as a suitable provision for the Crown, and the Crown therefore would retain but that splendor which was before thought necessary for the regency. The mention made by the right hon. gentleman of the 385,000 l. handed over to the privy purse in the late reign, gave him an opportunity of stating, that from that sum 110,000 l. had been paid in discharge of certain debts, and thus the annual 50,000 l. set apart for that purpose had been set at liberty two years sooner than would otherwise have been the case. The sum which remained would give on the average of the whole reign an increase of income of somewhat more than 4,000 l. per annum. Upon the whole, he could see no grounds for the proposed inquiry. He could wish this, the first parliamentary measure of the new reign, to be carried with unanimity; but whatever the result might be, he must say that ministers, in asking for nothing but what had been deliberately sanctioned by parliament four years ago, had approached that point at which it was hoped the House would be unanimous, and the country satisfied.
Mr. Tierneydenied that he had wished to examine into the mode in which the privy purse was expended. As he did not intend to trouble the House with his motion to-morrow, he might be allowed to add, though not within the strict limits of explanation, that, from the statement of the right hon. gentleman, it appeared that the 110,000 l. had been paid into the privy purse, and very likely most properly applied in diminution of debts. It, how-
226
ever, still formed a part of the 385,000 l. of which he had already spoken.
The question being put, that the word "now" stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 157.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Graham, J. R. G.

Allen, J. H.

Grenfell, Pascoe

Althorp, visc.

Griffiths, J. W.

Anson, hon. G.

Guise, sir W.

Anson, sir G.

Gurney, R.

Aubrey, sir J.

Heygate, alderman

Boughey, sir John

Haldimand, W.

Bentinck, lord W.

Hamilton, lord A.

Benett, John

Harbord, hon. E.

Butterworth, Jos.

Harvey, D. W.

Barham, J. F. jun.

Heathcote, G.

Baring, sir Thos.

Heron, sir R.

Barnard, visc.

Hill, lord A.

Barrett, S. M.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Beaumont, T. P.

Hollywood, W. P.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hornby, E.

Benyon, Ben.

Howard, hon. W.

Bernal, Ralph

Hughes, W. L.

Birch, Jos.

Hughes, col.

Brougham, H.

Hurst, R.

Burdett, sir F.

Jervoise, G. P.

Bury, visc.

Kennedy, T. F.

Byng, George

Lethbridge, sir T. B.

Bright, H.

Langstone, T. H.

Crawley, Sam.

Lamb, hon. W.

Calvert, Nic.

Lambton, J. G.

Calcraft, John

Lemon, sir W.

Calcraft, John, jun.

Lloyd, J. M.

Calvert, C.

Lushington, S.

Campbell, hon. J.

Maberly, John

Chamberlayne, W.

Maberly, W. L.

Carter, John

Marryat, Jos.

Cavendish, lord G.

Macdonald, J.

Cavendish, Henry

Mackintosh, sir J.

Clifford, capt.

Martin, John

Clifton, visc.

Milbank, Mark

Coke, T. W.

Mildmay.P. St. J.

Colborne, N. R.

Milton, visc.

Concannon, L.

Monck, J. B.

Coussmaker, G.

Moore, Peter

Crompton, Sam.

Moore, A

De Crespigny, sir W.

Mostyn, sir T.

Davies, T. H.

Newman, R. W.

Denison, Wm.

Newport, sir J.

Denman, Thos.

Nugent, lord

Duncannon, visc.

Ord, W.

Dundas, Thos.

Osborne, lord F.

Dundas, C.

Ossulston, visc.

Evans, Wm.

Palmer, col.

Ellice, Edw.

Palmer, C. F.

Finlay, K.

Pares, Thos.

Farrand, R.

Parnell, sir H.

Fergusson, sir R.

Parnell, W.

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Folkestone, visc.

Philips, George

Frankland, R.

Philips, G. jun.

Gaskell, B.

Ponsonby, hon. F. C.

Gordon, Robert

Power, R.

Graham, S.

Powlett, hon. W.

227

Pym, Francis

Sykes, D.

Rickford, Wm,

Spurrier, C.

Ricardo, David

Townshend, lord C.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Tavistock, marquis

Robarts, Abr.

Taylor, M. A.

Robarts, George

Taylor, C,

Robinson, sir G.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Rowley, sir W.

Webbe, E.

Rumbold, C.

Western, C.

Russell, lord G. W.

Whitbread, W. H.

Russell, R. G.

Whitbread, S. C.

Sebright, sir John

Wilkins, Walter

Smith, George

Williams, sir R.

Smith, Samuel

Williams, T. P.

Smith, Wm.

Williams, W.

Smith, John

Wilson, sir Robert

Smith, Robert

Wood, alderman

Scarlett, James

Wyvill, M.

Scudamore, R.

TELLERS.

Sefton, earl of

Russell, lord John

Stuart, lord J.

Warre, J. Ashley.

The Resolutions were then read second time, and agreed to.