Sitting of 12 April 1821

PETITION FROM LYME REGIS RESPECTING THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
Mr. Lambtonrose to present a petition relative to the state of the representation of the people in that House from the resident but non-represented freeholders of the borough of Lyme-Regis. The petitioners stated, that, from the 23rd of Edward 1st, to the 14th of George 1st, 1727 the elective franchise was exercised by all the resident freeholders in the borough; but at the latter period the right was disputed, and by a decision of that House, in 1780, the right of voting was declared to be vested in the mayor, burgesses, and freemen only; since which time the borough had been under the patronage and disposition of a peer of the realm, who by his sole influence returned members to parliament for a series of years, generally his own personal friends or relations. It was perfectly well known who the peer here alluded to was; but as his name was not mentioned in the petition, he did not

171
think it proper to state it. The petitioners went on to state, that the resident freeholders amounted to 100, while the resident free-burgesses were in number only 30, all of whom were the dependants or friends of the peer alluded to, many of them receiving pensions from, or holding places under, government. They conceived that this system was an enormous grievance, and concluded by praying for a restoration of those rights and privileges that had been exercised by their ancestors.—The petition was then read. On the motion, that it do lie on the table.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that with all deference to his hon. friend, he did not think it the right course that the petition should merely be laid on the table; for if the petitioners had stated that which they could make out by evidence, when they said that a peer of parliament had habitually interfered in the election of members, he thought it impossible that they could suffer a practice to go on in defiance of their declared privileges—and constantly repeated votes, and of the law of the land, without taking notice of it. That the petition should lie on the table would be a very inadequate measure, and he should therefore move to refer it to a committee of privileges. Whatever opinions might prevail in the House as to a sweeping parliamentary reform, there could be no doubt as to the principle that the constitution disallowed the interference of peers in elections. It was provided so early as the reign of Edward 1st by the first statute of Westminster, that no peer or great man should interfere in elections, either by force of arms or malice—which malice meant (according to lord Coke's interpretation at least) the malice of money. In the reign of Elizabeth, the evil of patronage had got to some height; for they heard of a dame Dorothy Packington, who returned two members to the House. Of its height in modern times they had proof in a petition which had been presented to the House from the "Friends of the people" on the 6th of May, 1793, in which the petitioners stated and offered to prove at the bar, that a majority of the House at that day was returned by the nomination or influence of 154 patrons. So late as 1813, a petition had been presented to the House, staing that two seats in the House had been bequeathed by the will of the late sir John Johnstone, and the codicil was
172
offered to be produced. The reformers had been generally met in the House by a challenge to point out a specific abuse. Here was a distinct breach of privilege; and the question was, whether they would refuse to remove this opprobrium? There had been a petition presented to the House of Commons, December 9, 1790, by Mr. Horne Tooke, in which it was stated that by the accident of proceedings in the court of chancery, the average price of a perpetual seat in the House of Commons had been ascertained, and that seats in that House were as notoriously rented and bought as the standings for cattle at a fair. On that very petition a committee was founded. No gentleman rose to say that these words were not true, and that therefore the petition ought not to be received. Let the House, when such an occasion as this presented itself, endeavour to do a little. Those who were opposed to the reformers in that House, always said, "Don't come with your sweeping plans; point out some particular grievance." Here, however, was a specific charge against a peer of parliament, and, that it might be investigated, he would move as an amendment, "That this petition be referred to the committee of privileges."
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the case of the electors of Lyme Regis, in which borough there had been more litigation than in any other part of the kingdom, had long since been decided. It was not proper to make a complaint at this time relative to the right of enjoying the elective franchise. That could only be done by a petition against the returning officer immediately after an election. With respect to the allegation against a peer of the realm, how could the complaint be entertained when no name was mentioned and no act specified? He believed a great number of gentlemen who sat opposite could be pointed out as being returned to parliament by peers, or the relations of peers, for close boroughs. This, however was not a close borough. The electors consisted of a certain number of freemen and burgesses, who were not the dependants of any peer. He knew some of them who, he would venture to say, were as respectable as any men in the kingdom.
Mr. Hurstsaid, that as this petition did not complain of a particular election, it could not be the subject of an election committee. But as the, Petitioners complained that, for a long course of years,

173
they had been deprived of their elective rights, they where bound ex debito justitiœ to attend to it.
Lord Lowthersaid, that the right of election which was claimed by the petitioners, had been frequently decided against.
Mr. Lambtonsaid, this was not an election petition, as it did not complain of an election, but complained that for many years the franchise had been taken away from them. The statement of the hon. baronet that he saw many members who were nominated by peers, was certainly a bad answer to the complaint of the petition. He rather wondered that the hon. baronet had not been called to order. But it seemed now a too generally admitted fact, to affect any squeam-ishness about, that members were nominated by peers. The question now was, whether the House would take any particular notice of this petition? Certainly it would be more consistent with its ordinary usage to admit the facts alleged, and to let the petition go forth to the world uncontradicted. However, as his own opinion was, that the subject was fit to be discussed in a committee, he should agree to the amendment.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he would withdraw his amendment on the understanding that he should propose it as a substantive motion.
The Speakersaid, that could not be done on the same day that the petition was laid on the table.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he should then press his amendment.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, the petition was confined to the statement of a general evil, coupled with a complaint of the decision of the House as to the right of voting for the borough. No particular election was complained of, and no specific ground was laid for the interference of the House. The subject of the petition might be very proper for reference, upon a motion respecting the general state of the representation; but he did not think it a case to justify a reference to a committee of privileges.
Lord Althorpsaid, the present was not a general complaint; for it alluded to an individual instance, and an individual peer, though he was not mentioned by name; and it also stated, that that peer influenced the election. He considered this a direct breach of privilege, and highly fit to be considered in a committee.
Mr. Moncksaid, if there was any thing more clear than another it was that the interference of a peer in an election was a breach of privilege. If the complaint had referred to a particular election it would have been only cognizable by an election committee, but. as the abuse was alleged to be of long continuance, it formed a fit subject for a special examination. If the House suffered it to pass over without notice, it would not increase the confidence of the people out of doors.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that as it was distinctly stated by the petitioners, that a peer of the realm had for some years interfered in the election of members, the petition ought to be forthwith referred to the committee of privileges.
Mr. J. H. Smythwas of opinion, after having read the petition, that it did not contain such a complaint as the House was bound to refer to the committee of privileges. After alluding to the right of exercising the elective franchise, the petitioners went on to complain, that a peer of the realm had used his influence in the election of members for this borough. This was a grave charge. But he was not prepared to say that influence arising from title, property, rank, distinction, was the same thing as interference. The House only condemned a corrupt and improper influence.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that this was a petition which the House could not refer to a committee of privileges. The charges were of a vague and general nature; no peer was specified as having interfered; and therefore if the petition were referred the committee would have to ascertain what peer the allegation was directed against. But if this influence were proved, what punishment could they enforce? Except the peer happened to be the lord lieutenant of a county, or held an office under the Crown, from which he might be removed, by addressing his majesty, he feared that the House could inflict no punishment, A complaint of this kind had been formerly made against the duke of Bolton; but the committee found they could not bring it to a useful conclusion; and, after examining some witnesses, adjourned for four months. If bribery or some undue influence, which might be made the subject of a prosecution, were not proved, the House had no means of inflicting punishment.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that if the position of the hon. member was correct, the

175
sooner the House rescinded its resolution upon the subject the better. It was well known that at the beginning of every session the House came to a resolution declaring the interference of a peer in the election of a member of parliament to be a breach of privilege; but if such a resolution could not be enforced, the voting it was a mere farce.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," being put, the House divided: Ayes, 82. Noes, 33. The original question was then put and agreed to.

USURY LAWS.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowrose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to the subject of the laws for regulating or restraining the interest of money. He alluded to those laws which had been passed for the avowed purpose of preventing usury. When he, in the year 1816, brought them under consideration, it was admitted by the chancellor of the exchequer, that they were in principle indefensible, but that the state of the public mind was at that time such as to render the agitation of the question dangerous. The right hon. gentleman added, that a time would no doubt arrive when the discussion might be safely entered on. He had afterwards consented to a second postponement of the subject, in consequence of representations made to him by the solicitors of the Bank. The committee to whom the question had been referred, had gone with the greatest attention into every branch of the inquiry, and had received very important evidence both from persons favourable and persons hostile to an alteration of the existing law. Amongst other witnesses, the hon. member for Portarlington (Mr. Ricardo) had been examined, Mr. Kaye the solicitor to the Bank, some of the first representatives of the monied interest in the city, and a name never to be mentioned without veneration, the late sir S. Romilly. The concurrent opinion of these last mentioned individuals was, that the usury laws answered no good purpose whatever. He would now state the substance of the resolutions to which the committee, on a full review of the evidence, had finally agreed. The first was, that the laws in question were continually evaded with success: that of late years they had been converted into a means of greatly increasing the expense to borrowers; and that
176
they led to the injurious practice of raising money by annuities upon lives. They not only subjected the borrower to enormous charges, but frequently to the necessity of a disadvantageous sale of his estate. The effect of the second resolution was, that as applicable to commerce these laws produced a great uncertainty of interest, and engendered perpetual doubts and litigation. The third resolution imported, that whenever the market rate of interest should be below the legal rate, that would be a proper time for entering into a full consideration of this subject, without any injury to public credit. Many hon. gentlemen must be aware that 10, 12, and 13 per cent had been given for money by annuities for life; and not only for one life, but sometimes for two, three, and he had even known a case where the annuity was granted and secured for five lives. The evidence of the different secretaries to the insurance offices all agreed in representing this to be a common practice. The testimony of Mr. Wakefield, and of various respectable solicitors, concurred in the statement that the uniform effect of the present laws on landed proprietors was, to subject them to enormous charges in raising money. He had himself met with instances of landed property sold most disadvantageous, and in one case a loss of 70,000 l. incurred, by annuities running over the whole estate. It was an error to suppose that any application to the court of Chancery was necessary, in order to enable a mortgagee to foreclose. With regard to the second resolution, and the extent to which these laws affected our commercial interests, he could appeal to the solicitor general, whether they were not productive of continual difficulty and doubt. Here the hon. and learned gentleman took a brief and rapid review of the history of the laws for regulating the rate of interest. Every writer of eminence or authority had, he said, disapproved of them, and an hon. and learned friend of his now filling a high judicial office in Scotland (sir S. Shepherd) had confessed, that his opinions on the subject had been entirely changed, by the perusal of Mr. Bentham's celebrated work. Under these impressions, he should now move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the Laws which prohibit the taking of interest for money, or limit the rate thereof."
Mr. Davenportsaid, that the measure

177
would be dangerous to the yeomanry of the country, who could scarcely go on paying only five per cent. He feared it would drive many persons to the sale of their estates, and he trusted the learned serjeant would on consideration withdraw his motion.
Sir Robert Herondid not mean to oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, but was at the same time desirous of expressing his decided opinion that it was the most mischievous ever proposed for the adoption of that House. It would if it should pass, have the effect of introducing uncertainty into all mortgages; nor would any parties be disposed to lend until they conceived that they had obtained the highest possible interest. At present all money borrowed upon annuity must by law be registered, and this was a very operative check on that ruinous mode of raising money. By the proposed measure, this necessity would be removed. If unhappily it should receive the sanction of the House, he should move for an alteration of its title, and that it be called "a bill for more speedily ruining the young nobility and gentry of the country."
Lord Althorpcould not conceive how a bill of this nature was likely to operate injuriously towards the landed interest. On other points of legislation, the House was called upon to consider principles, but in the present case it was enabled to decide from practice. It was known that when the legal interest upon money was so much as eight per cent, money was at that rate invested in mortgage, and although eleven per cent could be obtained upon annuities with liberty to insure the life of the borrower, money was not transferred from mortgages to annuities. Why thon should the apprehension of such transfer be entertained in the present case, or that enabling men to sell the use of money at the market price would operate against the landed interest?
Mr. Philipsthought that those who calculated upon any disadvantage to the landed interest from the measure, had never read the evidence taken before the committee upon this subject. From that evidence it appeared, that a measure of this nature was peculiarly calculated to serve the landed as well as the commercial interests. He could not see why money should not be an article as free in the market as land or goods. From the state of the laws referred to in the motion, many men in trade were often obliged,
178
for the relief of temporary necessities, to have secret recourse to extortioners and unprincipled brokers; whereas, if the legal restraints of interest were removed, they would be at liberty to deal upon the best terms with open traders in money.
Mr. R. Gordondeprecated the theory which this proposition had in view, cautioning the House to beware of theories from the sad experience of the measure for the resumption of cash payments. This, however, was the age of theories, and nothing was heard of but a recourse to first principles. He must, notwithstanding this cry, sanctioned as it was by authority, deprecate the proposed change in the laws against usury, as well as other changes, which he deemed wild and visionary speculations.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that his hon. friend who spoke last seemed to him to have mistaken both the disease and the remedy. The distress which existed arose from theory, and from the preposterous theory of a legislative interference with money dealings, which was not applied to any other branch of commerce. Some persons had been of opinion, that the same principle ought to be introduced into the manufacture and sale of bread; but in practice it would always be found most advantageous to leave the seller and purchaser, the lender and borrower, to make their own contracts according to their several necessities. It was by this course that they would ensure the best supply at the cheapest rate.
Mr. Calcraftconfessed, that his prejudices were strong against the proposed alteration, and were founded in reflection upon what the country had suffered at former periods from an unlimited rate of interest. With regard to the sale of bread, there had been a maximum fixed by assize; and when that was repealed, great advantages, none of which had been realized, were anticipated to the consumer. The country, it should not be forgotten, had risen under the existing laws to an unrivalled degree of commercial prosperity, and trade had flowed into every channel where capital was found. He greatly feared that the measure was calculated to unsettle mortgages, and to persuade lenders that they ought to have obtained better terms.
Mr. Ricardothought the House and the public were very much indebted to the learned gentleman, for the measure which he had proposed; and expressed

179
his astonishment at the apprehensions of members, that its adoption would operate to the prejudice of the landed gentry, by raising the rate of interest; for the fact was, that the lenders of money would not have more power to raise the rate of interest than the lenders would have to keep it down; and the competition between both would serve to bring it to a reasonable standard. As to the allusion of his hon. friend to the assize of bread, that case had no analogy to the present question, because the maximum upon bread was merely meant to keep the price of that article in due relation to the price of corn. An hon. friend had taken occasion, in referring to the resumption of cash payments, to reprobate what he called that theory. But his hon. friend should consider that the restriction upon cash payments was a departure from the old and established theory of the country, to the sound currency and wholesome practice of which it was now proposed to return. His hon. friend had deprecated change in such a strain, as would really form an argument against any improvement. He had had great experience in the money market, and could state the usury laws to have always been felt as a dead weight on those wishing to raise money. With respect to those concerned in the money market itself, the laws had always been inoperative; and during the war indirect means had been found of obtaining seven, eight, ten, and fifteen per cent interest. The laws therefore occasioned inconvenience, but did no good.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the measure would be of the greatest benefit to the country, and came before the House at the most safe and seasonable period. When introduced about six years ago, it might perhaps have created that alarm and derangement which some hon. members supposed it calculated to produce; because the war rate of interest was at that time above five per cent; but at present, when the rate of interest in the money market was below 5 per cent, there was no reason to apprehend such an inconvenience. He conceived that the measure would not be attended with so much benefit to the mercantile interests and moneyed men as to the landed interest.
Mr. Monckspoke strongly in support of the measure under discussion, which proposed to remove one of the remnants of the old and irrational system of assize, the servants of the Ordnance department We had had, in ancient times, an assize
180
upon cloth, leather, beer, and bread. We had got rid of these, and he hoped this fragment was about to be removed. The repeal be removed. The repeal of the assize upon bread was known to have produced the best effect, by procuring better bread, and upon cheaper terms than were ever known under the existence of the excise. He anticipated a good result also from the repeal of the usury laws, and especially to the landed interest, who could not hope to obtain any loan of money while government, which was not restrained by the usury laws, would give more than 5 per cent interest. But, when dealing in money became a free trade, those who wanted to borrow might openly treat with those disposed to lend, and the money lenders would be considered as respectable as any other class of people in trade.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

CIVIL OFFICES IN THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
Mr. Hume,in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice, regretted that a question of so great constitutional importance had not fallen into the hands of some member more competent to do it justice. There were two points of view in which he wished to represent the subject to the House: first, as a constitutional question involving the consideration how far individuals under the influence of the Crown ought to be allowed to vote for members of parliament; and next, how far that influence was likely to lead to extravagance in keeping up offices and appointments not necessary for the public service. His attention had been more especially directed to this subject, in consequence of the inquiries which he had made into the state of the brought of Queenborough; and it would be in the recollection of the House that some weeks ago he had called their attention to various mal-practices, peculations, and abuses on the part of certain individuals in Sheerness, belonging to the borough of Queenborough, and connected with the Ordnance department. In almost every department of the Ordnance there were to be found individuals from the borough of Queenborough. Not only had new situations been created for freemen of that borough, but some most meritorious individuals had been turned out to make way for them. The object of his present motion was, to disqualify from voting at elections, in the same man-

181
ner as the civil servants of various other departments were disqualified.
In order to make himself intelligible to the House, it would be necessary to refer to the several disqualifying statutes, which were of three descriptions; first, those which disqualified persons from being elected members of parliament; secondly, those which enacted, who should not vote for members of parliament; and thirdly, those which enacted, who should not meddle or interfere with the electors. The principle upon which all these statutes proceeded, was to guard as much as possible against the improper influence of the Crown. If, therefore, he succeeded in showing that a number of individuals, under the direct influence and control of the Crown, returned members to that House, he should then, he submitted, have made out a case to induce the House to place the civil servants of the Ordnance on the same footing as other servants of the Crown, who were now excluded. The hon. member then referred to the statute of 22nd Geo. 3rd chap. 41, which enacted, that no commissioners or collectors of customs or excise, distributors of stamps, or any individuals holding situations at pleasure under any officer of the Crown, should be entitled to vote for any member of parliament. The same statute also disqualified the postmaster-general, his deputy or deputies, and all clerks employed under him or them. The commissioners of the land-tax, who received no salaries, were excepted; and the very exception proved the principle upon which the legislature proceeded, which was, to guard against the undue influence of the Crown. He should, perhaps, be asked whether he wished to deprive Englishmen of that freedom of suffrage which had been handed down to them from their ancestors? He contended, however, that this would be no deprivation of a right; it was merely a condition annexed to the acceptance, or retention of an office. It was no more than saying to persons accepting situations under the Ordnance department, that if they chose to accept such situations, from which they were liable to be dismissed at the pleasure of the Crown, they must do so upon the condition of not being entitled, to exercise the elective franchise. The statute to which he had referred, passed its second reading by a majority of 87 to 12, *
* See New Parliamentary History, Vol. 22, p. 1388,
182
so that there were only 12 persons opposed to the principle of the bill, and he could not see, therefore, why the House should now refuse to allow him to bring in this bill, and carry it through all the succeeding stages. By the 43rd Geo. 3rd chap. 25 all the enactments of that act were extended to Ireland, and the measure passed, he believed, without any opposition. By the 5th William and Mary, chap. 20, "No collector of taxes or excise shall influence, directly or indirectly, any person in his vote for a member of parliament." By the 12th and 13th William 3rd this was extended to the customs. A subsequent act carried this law all through the post-office. The 11th queen Anne extended it farther, to the whole of the stamp department. The 12th of Anne carried the same principle to every person engaged in the collection of duties on salt, vellum, stuffs, &c. The solicitor-general appeared to think that he (Mr. Hume) was now mistaking the reason and intent of these statutes: but, he contended, that the principle of exclusion, as applied to all those who might be improperly influenced by the tenure of office under the Crown, was in all these acts the same. In his present motion he did not call on the House to adopt any new principle, but to apply it only to a third and additional class of men, equally liable to government influence as those who had been the objects of the preceding statutes. It was true, that the 5th Will. 3rd, chap. 7, made certain exceptions in favour of the commissioners of the Treasury, and others: but these exceptions, so clear, so express, so expedient, only proved the truth, and the recognition on the part of the legislature, of the great principle he was now desirous to enforce. The 11th and 12th of William 3rd, more particularly chap. 7, sect. 151, after recapitulating certain offices, expressly said, that if the owners thereof wished to exercise the elective franchise, they must vacate their seats. Nothing could be more fair. It was a balance of interests, equitable, politic, and just. Then there was the 12th and 13th Will. 3rd, and the 6th queen Anne (the latter a statute which ought to be more attended to in that House than it had been of late) still went on to lay down the same position—that all those influenced, in any way, by the public money—cither its receipt or its collection—should be incapable to ex-

183
ercise the elective franchise. The 1st of Geo. 1, chap. 56, in the operation of the exclusive principle to which he had referred, took in even the commissioners of army accounts, and of the Sick and Wounded and Transport department. Now it would be difficult almost to imagine what possible influence or control, arising from any thing like a disposition of the public money, these hitter officers could be supposed to exercise. So, however, the case was; and it furnished a striking example of the laudable jealousy which parliament had for so many years manifested by repeated statutes, of an influence on the part of the government which might affect the character and constitution of parliament.
As he must come now to the case of the borough of Queenborough, it was necessary for him to mention that of the two last contested elections which had been sustained for it: the first was in the year 1802, when the hon. member for Coventry (who now sat near him) and Mr. Prinsep were the candidates. The number of votes polled on that occasion was 76 and 75. He thought that he saw the Master of the Mint smiling, as if he would say, that this was furnishing an example in which the Treasury had been beaten. But he had a weighty reason for mentioning the circumstance, which was this: —at that period there was not one seventh of individuals belonging to this borough employed by the Ordnance-office, compared with the number now employed by it. There was a return-perhaps not a very correct one, indeed —of these numbers, printed in a book called Oldham's History of Parliament. [Cheers from the Treasury-bench.] If the hon. gentlemen opposite did not like this authority, let them take it in another way. At the period he spoke of, the number of such men so employed by the Ordnance-office was 17 only. A subsequent contested election took place, in which Mr. Hunt and Mr. Villiers were the candidates. They received between them 160 votes, and colonel Chichester had 60. The total of votes, therefore, was 220, If all the voters of this borourgh, however, as he was informed were put together, there would be about 250 freeholders. The place contained only 200 houses. The sons of freemen, if they were born in Queenborough, became also freemen—a very important privilege, and no doubt the reason why the wives of the freeholders
184
were sent from all parts of the county to lie-in in Queenborough, of these young freemen. He had divided the freeholders of this borough, for the better information of the House, into three classes, and he had three lists; the first being a list of the offices, salaries, and pensions of 147 freeholders, holding offices and salaries to the annual amount of 14,766 l. [Hear, hear!], exclusively of thirty-two houses rent free, apartments, servants, and perquisites. The second was a list of eleven freemen's sons who had been so unfortunate as to be born at Portsmouth or Plymouth, or any where else but Queenborough, and who held offices under the Ordnance or other government department to the amount of 2,629 l. per annum. Another of his lists, was a list of freemen holding situations in the Customs and the preventive service, 32 in number, making altogether 190 out of the 220 odd freemen, having situations under government.
The corporation of this borough consisted of one mayor, four jurats, and two bailiffs; being a body of seven individuals; and the particulars of their situations and emoluments he should next proceed to notice, to show how far the influence of the Ordnance department extended. The first was Mr. Greystock, of the Tower. He was the mayor, and had become barge-master of the Ordnance. His salary was only 60 l. a year; but he had enjoyed it for eleven years, and the post was a perfect sinecure. He understood that this gentleman, in addition to his public capacity, was an oyster-salesman. He was, too, the mayor of Queenborough. A gallant general smiled at this account; but considering that for eight months in the year this individual was at Billingsgate, selling his oysters, and for the other four months, getting them in France, he must look upon this office as a great sinecure, be the salary what it might. Mr. Greet was the next in succession; and no individual, certainly, had derived more benefit from the liberal patronage of the Ordnance-office than he had. Of no person had so many vessels been hired for the transport of stores, and so forth. He got as much as he could get himself in the way of employment, and by way of his own influence -r for he had procured his brother to be appointed deputy barge-master. He held the situation, which altogether was worth nearly 500 l. a year; he

185
had 250 l. salary, his coals, candles, and so forth; besides which, his brother had the command of a cutter. They had heard of a manager in that House; this gentleman seemed to be the manager for the Ordnance, in this particular department of it. The next person is Henry Ligonier; he had a salary of 108 l. a year, perquisites, &c, lived in Upnor-castle; besides this, he had the command of a vessel, which was employed by the Ordnance-office, and which no doubt afforded him very nice pickings. James Bowton, of Sheerness, also a jurat, part owner of a vessel; his allowance was 108 l. a year, besides 20 l. for house-rent. He commanded the Lord Howe powder vessel, of 35 tons as it had been returned, though it very probably was of a much larger burden. He (Mr. Hume), while he was collecting information respecting this vessel, was placed in a very awkward situation, for he had been told by the clerk of the Ordnance-office that, if he thought any person on board her was giving an iota of that information, he would have him immediately turned away. Now, if any person, even if he were purity itself, refused to submit to that sort of inspection which if all were right he would willingly, do such a conduct must excite suspicion, and therefore he suspected, that the Ordnance department was afraid to have the thing known. This Mr. Bowton was the father of a clerk in the Ordnance office in London. James Hollely, of Sheerness, another of these jurats, was master of the Johanna gun-hoy. His salary was 108 l., besides an allowance of 20 l. a year for house-rent. He was also land-bailiff, the duties of which place, he, being a sea officer, must have admirable opportunities of properly performing. His father and his brother, were both in the employ of government. But, this system of relationship, by which so many persons of one family were all retained and employed together in a way which made it so difficult for them ever to be got rid of or shaken off, was principally exemplified in the instance of John Marshall, of Queenborough. He was also a jurat, and the individuals of his family were disposed of in this way; he had two brothers, one brother-in-law, and one son in the Ordnance department, that received altogether 950 l. per annum, exclusively of other perquisites, and his (Marshall's) proportion of the 1,271 l. per annum shared by seven freemen of
186
this borough for other offices. After noticing the cases of James Thomson, John Saffery, — gunner, and several others, the hon. gentleman particularly dwelt upon that of Francis Pellat, who was himself a clerk at 150 l. with a gratuity of 150 l., and an allowance for coals and candles, and nine or ten of whose family held different offices under government. He should like to be informed in what way such men could properly exercise the elective franchise. The director of the board, at his mere will, could turn out any of them, though of 20 or 30 years service; they depended upon him, and upon him only, for their means of living, and could not pretend to exercise an unbiassed judgment. All the public servants at Sheerness, excepting one, were allowed houses, which they let for their own emolument, and lived at Queenborough. Against Matt. Dodd, clerk of survey at Sheerness, he had brought some charges which occasioned a commission to inquire; and for the report of those commissioners he should take an opportunity of moving; for, if the House were ever called upon to institute an inquiry into any department, it should be into the conduct of that of Sheerness. We understood the hon. gentleman to add, that certain officers, who had been dismissed in consequence of complaints against them of a most serious nature, had been restored through the influence of the Queenborough connexion. He then went on to state the particulars relating to persons of the names of J. Farr, T. Pennal, J. Bachelor, W. Naylor, R. H. Tayler, and several others. He observed that a person of the name of John May had received his appointment since the reduction took place. The cases of H. Langley, R. Hall, and G. Pitt, were equally gross; but none of them exceeded that of W. Akid, who had been superannuated on 500 l. a year; of all gross cases this was the grossest. He had been a storekeeper at Sheerness, and was superannuated in September, 1818, at the age of 72 years. He was succeeded in his office by a man of the name of Kennor, who possessed a large private property, and who was not less than 74 years old. Perhaps this appointment had been made with a view also to Kennor's superannuation. The case, too, was by no means solitary; if the hon. secretary of the Ordnance would allow him to go through his de-

187
partment, affording facilities of information, and undertaking not to dismiss those who supplied it, he would undertake to bring forward many similar instances of corruption. Nothing could exceed the dereliction of duty, the for-getfulness of the claims of the people, or the wanton waste of public money in that department [Hear!]. The whole 147 freemen, by the papers he possessed, he could show, receiving no less than 14,766 l. 6s. besides houses, servants, and other allowances.
Having thus concluded his first list, Mr. Hume proceeded to his second, which was a return of the relatives of freemen of Queenborough, holding situations in the Ordnance. He read it; and it appeared from it, that 11 persons received 2,629 l. 6s. 3d. per annum. He would not go through his third list in detail, lest lie should fatigue the House. He, however, read several of the names, employments and salaries; the total of which he stated to be 3,735 l. 10 s. The following he introduced as a correct Abstract of the whole information he had procured:—

ABSTRACT.

NO.

1.

147

Freeman

14,766

32 houses and apartments, and 9 servants found; officers at public expense.

2.

11

Freemen's sons or relatives

2,629

three houses and three servants.

3

Estimated profits arising from craft employed by the Ordnance, belonging to freemen of Queenbrought

1,642

£19,037

total 25 houses and 12 servants.

4,

32

Freemen,—28 belonging to Customs and preventive service, ineligible to vote; the other 4; eligible to vote

3,735

exclusively of provisions, which several have found them by government.

190

£22,772

to which the expense of houses and servants in the Ordnance, and provisions

188

in the Customs, makes it 25,000 l. per annum.

Having gone so much in detail into the subject, he had only one point further to submit, though that was one of the highest importance, viz. the manner in which the Board of Ordnance exercised its power over its dependants. On this question he was furnished with a list of no less than 16 persons who, after long and meritorious services, had been dismissed, to make way for freemen of Queenborough. One of the most remarkable was that of John Kennedy, who had been a freeman for 10 years, and a labourer for 8 years; he had a wife and 5 children, and was dismissed in February, 1818, on the ground that his services were no longer wanted; and James Robinson, a freeman aged 48 years, was appointed to succeed him. Though the regulation of the board was, that no man above 45 should be appointed, yet Robinson was selected, his recommendation being, that he was a freeman of Queenborough, and Kennedy's defect being that he was not. To prove this case, the hon. gentleman read part of Kennedy's memorial to the board. In the same manner H. Smith had made way for George May, 55 years old; J. Lee, for Joseph Kemp, 53 years old; and W. Aultand, for James Bachelor, 60 years old. R. Allan was removed after 15 years service for H. Pennall, who had never seen a day's service. The last case he should mention was that of J. Savory, who had been superseded by J. Eagle, a superannuated carpenter in the navy, with a pension of 40 l. a year; he was no less than 77 years of age, and was soon afterwards again superannuated with an additional allowance of 16 l. per annum. Having gone through these facts, the hon. member recapitulated some of the principal grounds on which he rested his motion. If the House rejected it, he should be perfectly ready to support a bill to enable the board, master-general of the Ordnance, or the Lords of the Treasury, to appoint the members for Queenborough, instead of going through the mockery of an election. By this means, if these useless officers, only retained for their votes, were dismissed, the public would save the important sum of 25,000 l. a year. He concluded by moving "That leave be given to bring in a bill to disqualify persons holding civil offices in the Ordnance department from voting in elections of members to serve in parliament,"
Mr. Bernalsaid, he felt very considerable pleasure in seconding the motion, not on the mere principle of economy alone, but on the general principle of protecting the purity of election. He did not look upon it as affecting any particular administration. He would support it under any. At the same time, he was far from denying that every administration ought to have its fair influence in the country. Such fair influence he was not disposed to curb; but he did not wish to see it overflow its proper bounds, and carry every thing by power alone, without leaving any thing to depend on the mere character of an administration. He had listened with attention to the many cases cited by his hon. friend, in which, in his opinion, the influence of the government had been unduly exercised: but it was not on the strength of any of those cases, or all of them, that he should vote; for if all of them could be satisfactorily explained, still the principle of his vote would remain unaltered. He thought, however, that even by those cases that principle was strengthened; and he hoped his hon. friend would extend his diligent labours to other branches of the civil government. He did not mean by this, that the great officers of the Crown should be excluded from seats in that House; on the contrary, he wished that they should be in parliament; but he did not wish that they whose support depended entirely on the patronage of ministers in several public departments should be allowed to vote so long as they held such situations.
Mr. Robert Wardsaid, that in rising to answer the hon. mover, and to state his opposition to the bill in every part, he had some difficulty, whether to commence with the conclusion of the hon. member's statement, or to go back to those with which he commenced. Notwithstanding the impression which the hon. member might have made on the House by his latter statements, he thought it would be better to take up the question and go on with it, as the hon. member had done; as he was confident, that he was enabled to give a satisfactory answer to every part of his speech. But first he begged to say of the proposed bill, that if it were of that vast importance which the hon. gentleman attached to it; if it went to create such a great change in the constitution of that House, he would put it to the hon. member, whether it would not have been bet-
190
ter if he had complied with the request made by the hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and have put off the discussion until his noble friend (lord Castlereagh), who represented the government in that House, should be enabled to attend in his place, and particularly under the circumstances of that noble lord's absence. The hon. member, however, was the best judge of his own conduct, and he would proceed to state the grounds of his opposition, to the motion. The hon. member by way of simplifying the motion, said he would confine himself to the Ordnance only. He had left out the navy; but there might, perhaps, be another ground for this "simplifying of the question." The officers of the Ordnance were generally found in opposition to the hon. gentleman and his friends, while many officers in the navy were known to give them their warm support. On this ground it was that the hon. member so simplified his motion as to leave them out. Of the bill as it was proposed to be brought in, he would say in limine, that it had his most decided opposition. He would oppose it, as unjust, and greatly injurious to very meritorious class of men, by charging them directly with being influence by corrupt motives—a charge which, he must say, was wholly undeserved on their part.—The bill was unjust, because it went to establish that which the constitution had never recognised—that placemen had not a right to the elective franchise, or that they were prevented from sitting in that House. In support of his argument, the hon. gentleman had adverted to a number of acts of parliament, by which placemen of various descriptions had been disabled from voting for members of that House. Those acts, however were insulated in their character, and related to particular cases. They were never founded on any great and acknowledged constitutional principle. If they were, or if the hon. gentleman's present proposition was founded on a great and acknowledged constitutional principle, he was bound not to stop at the Ordnance, but to go through all the departments of the state. If this were to be done, he would ask all who knew any thing of the constitution, if that balance of power so essential to the preservation of the constitution, would not be altogether destroyed? The question was indeed a most important one. It was no less than this—whether there should be a

191
legislative act to take away the elective franchise from British subjects. He trusted the House would not allow the privileges of British subjects to be thus wantonly invaded. The hon. member exhibited great inconsistency. He ran counter to the wishes of his friends the reformers. He the advocate of universal suffrage, proposed by a single measure to destroy the elective franchise of 2,000 meritorious individuals. The motion in question was founded on the erroneous supposition that the parties were under the immediate influence of government. He must say that it was erroneous to assert, that the Navy or Ordnance was under the direct influence of government; and he could name cases where, by the influence and exertions of persons in the navy, individuals most hostile to the general measures of government were returned to parliament. He would name Great Yarmouth and Ipswich, from whence, by the support of members from the dockyards, gentlemen who were known to be in opposition to government were returned to parliament. But he would not dwell further upon those cases, as no doubt they would be more fully entered into by other gentlemen, who would lend their assistance on this occasion. If he could show that in the Ordnance department no intimidation had been used, no influence exercised, to interfere with the elective franchises of those who served in that department, then the whole of the hon. member's arguments roust fall to the ground. In his own office there was but one individual who, to his knowledge, had a vote. He was allowed to go three times to Maidstone to exercise his franchise, and that too in favour of a gentleman who was not one of the supporters of government. The only question that he had asked respecting him was, whether he was a good clerk, and being aswered in the affirmative, he gave not the slightest objection to the exercise of his franchise in what way he chose, though, for aught that depended on that vote, its effect might be to turn him (Mr. Ward) out of office. Then, he repeated that, unless the hon. member could show that a direct interference had taken place with those who served in the department, respecting their votes, his motion was without foundation. There was—and he hoped the House would bear it in mind—a decided difference between influence and interference. To suck an audience it would be unne-
192
cessary for him to point out the distinction between the two. Influence belonged almost inseparably to rank, character, wealth, and to official power. All these had their various degrees of influence on the mind, whether it was that of respect, or hope, or fear; and it was impossible that they should not; but this was not interference. If any of these operated on others to produce a certain effect without being directly put into action, that would be fair influence; but if they were exercised to produce that certain effect, then it would be interference, and it would be illegal as far as it applied to the elective franchise. But, suppose for a moment that every freeman in Queenborough held employments under government, was that a fair ground for disfranchising every man, in whatsoever place he happened to be stationed, who held a situation in the Ordnance department? Suppose the duke of Bedford's tenants were many of them, as might naturally be expected, to vote for the friends of his grace, that would be a very natural and fair influence; but would any one be so absurd as to propose that because they so voted they ought to be disqualified? The hon. member felt himself justified in this measure, because, forty years ago, Mr. Crewe's bill respecting persons serving in another department had obtained a majority in that House. Four years after that, a measure was proposed respecting the Ordnance department. It was proposed by Mr. Marsham* who had been an unsuccessful candidate in Kent. Lord Melville, then a young man, got up in his place in that House, and said he did not know whether he ought to view with more of contempt or indignation, a proposition by which the hon. gentleman sought to disfranchise men for voting against him. This had its due weight with the House, and the measure was rejected. Mr. Pitt, who had supported Mr. Crewe's measure, opposed that of Mr. Marsham; and, having been charged with inconsistency in the two votes, defended himself by stating that he voted for the former proposition, because the House had, a short time before that, come to a resolution, that the influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. The influence was diminished by Mr. Crewe's bill;
* Afterwards earl of Romney. For the debate on Mr. Marsham's Bill, See New Purl. Hist. v. 25, p. 1323.

193
but the proposition of Mr. Marsham would tend to take away all influence from the government. That the great offices of the Crown had an influence could not be denied; nor ought it to be complained of, unless it was unfairly exercised. He would quote an authority on this subject, which would not be disputed on the other side—that of lord St. Vincent, who said, that if an election were going on he would telegraph ships at sea, in order to let them send those men who had votes on shore to exercise them. Now, he did not complain of this as unfair influence; and yet it was more than what the hon. member would allow in the present instance. But the employment of freemen in Queenborough was not new; and yet, with all this government influence which the hon. member complained of—with all the corruption he assumed, it was wrested from the official candidates, in 1802, by Mr. Princep and the hon. member for Coventry. Sir S. Romilly, than whom no man had stood higher for character and talents, represented that borough twice—once with the interest of government, and another time against that interest. No person would have accused that highly respectable individual of improper interference, or of exciting unjust influence, if he had applied to the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Calcraft), who was, on one of those occasions, in office in the Ordnance department, for his interest when he became a candidate. But he had mentioned that in 1802 it was wrested from the official candidates. Now, one of them on that occasion was no other than Mr. Sargeant, the secretary to the Treasury. He, however, did not succeed, notwithstanding that it was this corrupt borough the hon. member had described, and where the influence of government was so powerful. In 1806, there was a change of government, and the new administration succeeded for their friends, where lord Sidmouth's administration had failed before. But it was in the very nature of boroughs that there should be a great influence over them in some quarter, and no human wisdom could prevent it. The hon. member's calculation was this—that out of 200 freemen in Queenborough, 146 were provided with situations under government. Now, admitting that to be as he described it, was it a ground for carrying his Utopian scheme of disfranchising upwards of 2,000 individuals who held situations
194
under government?—But the proposition went further than the hon. member intended, for it went in effect to all the offices of the state. Besides those objections which he held to be fatal to the measure, there was another in which it was inconsistent with itself. It allowed those officers and others of the Ordnance department to be eligible to seats in parliament, though it did not admit them to vote at elections; but surely it must be evident, that if they were capable of being corrupted as electors, they would be liable to the same objection as members. In 1802, many had voted against government, but none had been dismissed on that account. The hon. gentleman ought to have given cases of interference, and not of influence. Personally, he (Mr. Ward) knew no more of Queenborough than he did of Aberdeen, but he was informed that the whole number of freemen was 292. Of those, 118 were constantly, and seven occasionally employed by the Ordnance. There were also four persons who received small pensions, to which their length of service justly entitled them. Thus it appeared, that 129 persons were employed, or might be supposed to be under the influence of government; while there were 163 unemployed, who, if they chose to do so, might produce a majority of 34 against the Ordnance. Here, then, the hon. gentleman's premises failed him. He would deny that any places had been created for the purpose of employing and influencing freemen. The hon. gentleman ought to have given notice of the cases to which he referred. Kensley had been employed 10 years, and when the magazine of which he had been foreman was put down he was noted to be appointed to the first freeman's place that should fall vacant, and he was still so noted. Savory was discharged when the reductions took place in 1817, but was continued as a labourer. When Eagle was superannuated Savory had not applied, and the board could not know by name every labourer at 2s. 4d. a day whom they employed. They had never heard more of Savory. Samuel Smith had been sent to Tipner, near Portsmouth, because there was no room for him at Sheerness; and there he still was. Though the rule was, that none should, be employed above the age of 45, there were exceptions where previous services or other considerations required. He denied that he had ever said he would discharge

195
any persons for giving information to the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman had said to him, "I have sent to measure the ship, and to ascertain whether it is 56 tons, as you say, or 36 tons." "If you have, and those on board admit any persons without the orders of their superiors, they shall be dismissed." He expected that the hon. gentleman would contradict this, and say it was only 36, when he (Mr. W.) was prepared to show that it was 56 tons. The Harmony was the name; but the hon. gentleman would now have it to be the Lord Howe. The hon. member had likewise stated that Mr. Breeze, who lived at Waltham-abbey, possessed a salary of 250 l. a year, and certain fees by way of gratuity, amounting to 250 l. a year more. Now, he could wish the hon. member would state figures as he found them, which, he was sorry to to say, he was not in the habit of doing. In the papers before the House the salary of Mr. Breeze was rated at 200 l. a year, and he could assure it, that even with the gratuities, the salary did not amount to 400 l. a year.—The hon. member then proceeded to give a positive denial to some, and an explanation of others, of the facts to which Mr. Hume had alluded in defence of his position, that the persons in the employ of the Ordnance had let the houses found them by government at Sheerness, and had gone to reside at Queenborough. He likewise denied that officers of the Ordnance, employed at Portsmouth, had been discharged from the service for such malversation as had been overlooked in those employed at Queenborough. He then proceeded to notice the accusations which Mr. Hume had thrown out against all the officers of Ordnance at Sheerness. He had charged them with stealing coals which belonged to the government, and with converting wood that was public property to their Own purposes. That there was no foundation for any such charges, he could now inform the House in consequence of an investigation which had recently been concluded. [Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.] He could assure the hon. member that he (Mr. H.) had formed no part in the drama which had recently been acted. The board of Ordnance had not sent down the commission of inquiry in consequence of his speech; they had acted upon information transmitted to them subsequently to the time at which that speech had been made. The com-
196
missioners sat a week: they advertised, as it were, for complaints, Savory, who had put his case into the hon. member's hands, and who had kept a book containing an account of all the occurrences in the yard, in consequence of the disappointment which he had experienced— Savory was examined before them, and chose to say, that certain of the officers had pilfered coals from the public stores. The charge was of course examined into; and it was then found that the officers had lent a quantity of coals to the public, which they had afterwards taken back to themselves from the public stores, by the leave and with the knowledge of the contractor. The officers thus accused were declared perfectly guiltless; and he deemed it requisite to state that fact publicly, as the reputation of respectable men was at stake, who had been accused by the hon. member merely because he had the power of accusing them. Certain officers had been suspended during the inquiry; but all of them had been restored at the conclusion of it, as not even a shadow of guilt attached to their characters. It was, however, the intention of government to place them upon half pay, as soon as the removal of the stores to which they belonged could be accomplished.—Mr. Ward next alluded to the statements of Mr. Hume relative to the situations and pensions of the storekeepers at Queenborough and Dover; and said that he was surprised that the hon. member should again bring them forward, contradicted as they had been on the very evening when he first produced them refuted as they had been a second time when he dared to commit them to the newspapers, and re-j refuted as they had been on a third occasion, when he had presumed to hazard them once more in the presence; of parliament.—He then proceeded to comment upon the case of Mr. Dakins, who had been superannuated at the age of 72—a case which, though it contained nothing extraordinary, had been stated in such a manner by the hon. member for Aberdeen, that every hand was raised in the House against the unprecedented corruption which it had displayed. He had talked of the profligacy of placing a man aged 73 in the office previously occupied by another aged 70, who had been superannuated on full pay; and had endeavoured to prove that he was only placed in it in order to entitle him to the same superannuation. Now he begged leave

197
to set the House right with regard to this case. Mr. Dakins was the storekeeper at Sheerness, and, being grievously afflicted with the stone, asked leave to retire. Permission was granted him to do so; and, as he had been 56 years in the service, he was superannuated with full pay. He trusted that the House would not find fault with the act of justice—he would not call it generosity—which had been exercised towards this individual: sure he was, that it was not in violation of any existing law. The person appointed to succeed him, was a strong hale man, of 73, who had been 46 years in the service, who was the next in succession, and who had made application for the office in question. Now, under such circumstances, what just grounds could there be for refusing him the appointment? The right hon. gentleman concluded by expressing his hope, that he had said enough to convince the House that there was no necessity for the proposed Bill.
Colonel Daviessupported the motion, which he contended was founded on the best and the most ancient principles of the constitution.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that upon this question he could not give a silent vote, lest his conduct should be exposed to misrepresentation. In deciding upon the vote which he meant to give on the present occasion, he entirely threw out of his view the general charges brought by his lion, friend against the Ordnance department, as well as the reply made to them by the right hon. gentleman. He did not know, indeed, how he could come to a safe vote upon these charges, without having the benefit of a previous investigation of them through the labours of a committee. Throwing these out of view, the point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was, that upon which he was inclined to support the proposition of his hon. friend. He was bound to show that in acceding to this motion, he was adopting no novel proceeding—that he was pursuing no new theory; but on the contrary acting remedially, and in the spirit of the existing law. As the law stood, it prevented numerous classes from voting at elections. In 1782, a law was passed to prevent public officers in the Excise and Customs from voting at elections. That law was found so salutary, the advantages of it were so universally felt, that twenty years afterwards, on the union with Ireland, the provisions of the
198
statute were extended to that country. He certainly felt unwilling to disfranchise any part of his fellow subjects; but he sat there not to consider the interests of a part, but the general advantage of the whole people; and nothing, in his mind, was so likely to promote that advantage as to preserve the purity of the representation. The upshot of what had passed during the debate amounted to this, that the government had a decided influence in the election of members for Queen-borough. Out of 280 electors, 129 were attached to the Ordnance department. It was therefore impossible that the majority of the voters should not be in the interest of government. It was for the House to consider whether, in point of fact, the borough of Queenborough did not belong to the administration of the day. The right hon. gentleman opposite had made a distinction between influence and interference. He had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman would not exert his influence in an illiberal manner; yet he might, perhaps, express some surprise if a gentleman in his department asked permission to vote at Queenborough for a popular candidate, against the government. 129 persons, holding good places-some grateful for past favours—some expecting future rewards, were likely, at every election, to support the government candidate; it was not, then, too much to say, that the borough belonged to the Ordnance department. The law for disfranchising officers in the Excise and Customs was made, because it was apprehended that small boroughs (of which there were too many) would become entirely under the control of the minister of the day, if revenue officers were allowed to vote. Indeed he was convinced, that if it were not for that salutary law, the revenue officers, in some places, would become the prevailing party. If the government, for a number of years, acted on a steady but pernicious principle, they would (had not that law been passed) have acquired an influence in elections which he was sure no gentleman in that House would wish. He was not for disfranchising any man unnecessarily—he would wish to confine the bill to the borough of Queenborough. He would not wish to exclude officers of the Ordnance throughout the kingdom from voting, because they were in most places, mixed up with the rest of his majesty's subjects, and nothing formidable was to be appre-

199
hended from them, save in the borough of Queenborough. There might perhaps be one or two other places, where the influence of those officers might become dangerous; if so he would have the principle of the bill extended to such places. He had no objection to extend the provisions of the act of 1782, which disfranchised revenue officers, to officers in the Ordnance department, where the same danger was to be apprehended from the exercise of their franchise, as that which was so wisely guarded against in the instance of officers in the Excise and Customs. He was unwilling to mix up with this particular motion the grand question of parliamentary reform, as in the course of a few days gentlemen would have an opportunity of delivering their sentiments at length upon that important measure. He would vote for bringing in the bill, with this understanding, that it was intended as a remedy to be applied to a particular disease—that it was to have reference merely to the borough of Queenborough.
Mr. Bathurstcontended, that the principle of the bill, were it entertained by the House, could not be confined to Queenborough nor to the Ordnance department; it would extend a great deal further, and would be applied in the next instance to the navy and to others. It was impossible to separate the present question from the general subject of parliamentary reform. He could not approve of a measure which went to disfranchise, without adequate cause, a number of his majesty's subjects.
Mr. Humereplied to the statement of the right hon. clerk of the Ordnance. He had understood the right hon. member to say that Savory had not applied to the board for employment: upon that point he would lay proof positive before the House, for he held in his hand a document no less decisive than the answer of Mr. Crewe to Savory's application, stating, that his request had been laid before the board, and that no situation could be found for him. The hon. member then went on to charge undue partiality upon the arrangements of the Ordnance department, and the grant of especial advantage to those servants of that department who chanced to be freemen of Queenborough. The voters of that borough took, he said, annually from government a sum of not Jess than 25,000 l. and it was impossible to expect, under such circumstances,
200
an unbiassed exercise of the elective franchise: 147 freemen of Queenborough were employed in the Ordnance service, and their united salaries amounted to nearly 15,000 l. per annum. Could those persons, holding their situations at the pleasure of government, and feeling that their advancement depended entirely upon the good will of their superiors, be taken as uninfluenced? He did not seek to abridge the right of any English subject. He only sought to place the civil branch of the Ordnance service in the same situation with the Customs, the Excise, the Post-office, and other public departments; and to bring its practice within those principles which formed the basis of every act touching the regulation of the elective franchise, from the reign of William and Mary down to the present period.
The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 118;—Majority against the motion, 58.

List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.

MAJORITY.

A'Court, E. H.

Cust, E.

Bankes, G.

Cust, P.

Bankes, H.

Dent, J.

Bathurst, C.

Dobson, J.

Beckett, J. R.

Domville, sir C.

Beresford, sir J. P.

Dowdeswell, J. E.

Bernard, vise.

Drummond, J.

Brandling, C. J.

Elliot, hon. W.

Brogden, J.

Ellis, C. R.

Browne, J.

Estcourt, T. G.

Browne, D.

Finch,G.

Browne, P.

Fleming, J.

Bruce, R.

Forbes, C.

Brydges, ald.

Gladstone, J.

Buchanan,

Gordon, R.

Burgh, sir U.

Grant, A. C.

Calthorpe, F. G.

Graves, lord

Calvert, J.

Grosett, J. R.

Canning, G.

Hardinge, sir H.

Cheere, E. M.

Hare, hon. R.

Cholmeley, sir M.

Hart, W.

Clements, J.

Hill, sir G.

Clerk, sir G.

Holford, G.

Clive, H.

Holmes, W.

Cockburn, sir G.

Hotham, lord

Collett, E.

Huskisson, W.

Congreve, sir W.

Innes, sir H.

Cooper, B.

Irving, J.

Cooper, E. S.

Lester, B.

Copley, sir J.

Lewis, W.

Corbett, P.

Lockhart, E.

Courtenay, T. P.

Long, sir C.

Courtenay, W.

Lushington, S. R.

Cranborne, lord

Luttrell, H.

Cumming, G.

Macnaughten, E. A.

Cust, W,

Marryat, J.

201

Martin, sir B.

Russell, J. W.

Martin, R. (Galway)

Scott, H. J.

Metcalfe, H.J.

Shaw, R.

Money, W. T.

Shiffner, sir G.

Monteith, H. G.

Sneyd, N.

Musgrave, sir J.

Somerset, lord G.

Nolan, M.

Sotheron, F.

Nightingale, sir M.

Stewart, W.

Onslow, A.

Strutt, J. G.

Osborne,lord

Suttie, sir J.

Paget, B.

Townshend,—

Palmerston, lord

Twiss, H.

Pearse, J.

Vansittart, rt. hon. N.

Penruddock, J.

Walker, J.

Percy, hon. H.

Wallace, T.

Phipps, hon. E.

Walpole, lord

Pitt, W.

Ward, J. W.

Pitt, J.

Wemyss, J.

Pole, rt. hon. W.

Wetherell, C.

Prendergast, W. G.

Wyndham, W.

Rae, sir W.

Yarmouth, lord

Ricketts, C.

TELLERS.

Robinson, F.

Goulburn, H.

Rocksavage, lord

Ward, R.

MINORITY.

Allan, J. H.

Lennard, T. B.

Althorp, visc.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Barratt, S. M.

Marjoribanks, S.

Benett, J.

Martin, J:

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Monck, J. B.

Birch, J.

Moore, P.

Bright, H.

Palmer, C. F.

Bury, vise.

Pares, T.

Cavendish, H.

Parnell, sir H.

Chetwynd, G.

Ramsden, J. C.

Colburne, N. R.

Ricardo, D.

Crespigny, sir W. D.

Rickford, W.

Davies, T. H.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Denman, T.

Robarts, A.

Duncannon, vise.

Roberts, G.

Ellice, E.

Rumbold, C.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Scarlett, J.

Gordon, R.

Smith, hon. R.

Graham, S.

Smith, W.

Grant, J. P.

Smith, J.

Grattan, J.

Stewart, W.

Guise, sir W.

Stuart, lord J.

Haldimand, W.

Sykes, D.

Hamilton, lord A.

Taylor, M. A.

Heron, sir R.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Whitbread, W. H.

Hornby, E.

Whitbread, S. C.

Hurst, R.

Williams, W.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Wyvill, M.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Jervoise, G. P.

Bernal, R.

Johnson, col.

Hume, J.

Lambton, J. G.

SCOTCH MALT TAX.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "That the several petitions presented to this House during the last and present Sessions of parliament, complaining of the additional 4luty on malt in Scotland, or of its effects
202
in increasing illicit distillation, be referred to a select committee to examine the matter thereof; and to report their observations thereon to the House."
Mr. Monckopposed the motion, upon the ground that England and Scotland ought, as regarded the duty, to be upon an equality. He hoped, in a future session, to see the tax overcome by the united efforts of both countries.
Sir G. Clerkobserved, that the question as it regarded Scotch barley was very distinct from the general question of the malt tax. A motion respecting the additional duty exacted from Scotland had been brought forward by the noble member for Lanarkshire. On that occasion the chancellor of the exchequer had pledged himself to take the subject into consideration.
Sir R. Fergussonsaid, he knew the course he was about to take was unpopular; but, as he believed the committee was proposed, not with a reference to the merits of the measure itself, but as a boon to the Scotch members to vote with the minister, he would oppose the motion.
Mr. Mackenziedenied the assumption, that the present measure was intended to induce the Scots to vote with the administration. It was too much for gentlemen to oppose a committee on such an opinion as that. The leading object of the committee was, to enquire whether the statements of some of the Scots counties were correct. If their claims were not well grounded, he was sure the House would not listen to them.
Mr. J. P. Grantsupported the motion though he confessed it was brought forward under very suspicious appearances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had given his promise to accede to a committee so early as last session.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he would vote for the motion, if the chancellor of the exchequer would give a proof of his sincerity, by allowing the committee to consider the case of the growers of inferior barley in England also. In Northumberland they suffered as much under the tax as in any part of Scotland. The House divided: Ayes 56; Noes 17.

List of the Minority.

Allan, J. H.

Fergusson, sir R.

Althorp, lord

Graham, S.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Bright, H.

Hume, J.

Colborn, R,

Johnson col.

203

Palmer, F.

Smith, J.

Ricardo, D.

Taylor, M. A.

Ridley, sir M. W.

TELLERS.

Smith, hon. R.

Gordon, R.

Smith, W.

Monck, J.