Sitting of 13 April 1821

BANK CASH PAYMENTS BILL.
On the motion, that the bill be read a third time,
Mr. Ellicewished to draw the attention of the chancellor of the exchequer to one provision, which appeared to have escaped his observation; but which a number of persons who were very much interested in the effects of this bill considered of great importance. By the law as it now stood, the Bank was not compelled to give small notes in exchange for large ones. Now, as some inconvenience might arise to the public, in consequence of the alteration proposed by this bill, and as country banks might be placed in a certain degree of difficulty, if they could not procure small notes to meet any casual run upon them, under peculiar circumstances, he thought a clause might be added, as a rider to the bill, compelling the Bank to give, in exchange for their larger notes, either legal gold coin of the realm, or bank of England one-pound notes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not see the necessity of adding such a clause to the bill. There would, he was sure be no objection, at the Bank, to exchange those large notes for current gold coin of the realm, or for one-pound notes. An hon. director had distinctly stated, that the Bank was prepared in any possible event, either to give small notes or the current coin of the realm, in exchange for notes of a large amount.
Mr. Elliceobserved, that if he understood the right hon. gentleman, he stated that the Bank were now bound by law to exchange large for small notes or the current coin of the realm. If this were so, then certainly the clause he proposed was unnecessary. He did not wish to press the clause against the consent of the right hon. gentleman; but if he withdrew it, it was on a distinct understanding that the Bank were now compelled by law, to give either 1l. notes, or current coin of the realm, in exchange for large notes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that rather than be responsible for any mistake, with respect to the existing law, he would agree to the clause.
Mr. Grenfellbelieved that the Bank neither was nor would be bound by law to pay its large notes in smaller notes or in cash, until 1823. Having this impression, he hoped his hon. friend would press his proposition.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, before the late bill passed, the Bank were precluded from paying in cash at all. A new discretion would be given to them by the present bill; but there was no law that he knew of, which rendered it imperative on them to pay their large notes in small ones.
Mr. Littletonwas confident that if the clause proposed were not enacted, great mischief would be the consequence. He could assure the House that the subject was one on which the country bankers felt much anxiety. It would inspire them with great confidence, if the clause were added to the bill.
Mr. Bankeswas convinced that to withdraw the small notes from circulation would serve to aggravate the distress of the country. The Bank should be obliged to supply the country with one pound notes for the accommodation of the public. If, indeed, small notes were withdrawn while gold was issued at its sterling value, he could not conceive it possible to prevent the export of gold. Small bank-notes should be circulated in conjunction with gold; and so long as that was the case, he had no doubt that the former would be generally preferred, as notes were so much more convenient to carry than gold, and formed a great protection against robbery, thieves very naturally feeling it dangerous to deal in articles so likely to lead to detection. In order to guard against the export of our gold coin, it would, in his opinion, be expedient that it should rather be a token than a representative of value. This was the only country in Europe which did not charge seignorage; and that was a disadvantage to us which might be as fairly met by issuing gold, and silver also, as tokens above their real value, as that the banknote should be the standard of value. Such a plan appeared to him the only one that could be devised to prevent our gold coin from being exported. For instance, he would have the sovereign pass for a guinea, and the crown, as well as other denominations of coin, for something more than their real value.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he should prefer a very great degree of public inconvenience to the numerous and dreadful evils which

205
attended the circulation of one-pound notes. He hailed with satisfaction the announcement of that new system which the Bank was about to adopt, as one of the greatest benefits that could be conferred on the country. The existing practice appeared to him in no other light than as a bounty on the commission of crime; and he must regard the whole subject as second to none whatever in importance. Every gentleman who would take the trouble to go through the list of prosecutions for the forgery of banknotes, would see the alarming increase in the number of offences, generated by a departure from the sound principles of our ancient currency. Not only had great evils been produced, but he apprehended that a foundation had been laid for their continuance. He had drawn up a comparative statement of offences tried and punished during 14 years previous to 1797, when the suspension of cash payments took place, and the same term of years which had immediately followed. The inference from this statement was, that the act of 1797 had given birth to a new crime to which a punishment was annexed inferior in severity to that of murder only; and, notwithstanding this, that the number of offences had been tripled throughout the country generally, and in London had increased seven-fold. The hon. gentleman here stated various accounts, specifying the number of convictions and executions at different periods. The loss sustained felt chiefly on the smaller shopkeepers; and it appeared that from the year 1812 to 1818 there were presented to the Bank 154,465 forged notes, of which 128,800 were 1l. notes and 18,562 were 2l. notes. All this information went to establish one point, which was, that the severity of punishment had not served to correct or prevent the crime. From the year 1805 to 1818, the number of persons convicted of forgery was 501 of whom 207 had been executed, being a far greater proportion than had suffered capital punishment for any other offence except murder. Nevertheless, as he had before stated, the crime was tripled in the country, and had increased sevenfold in London. These facts were sufficient to deter any government from again embarking in so dangerous a career—a career which had proved beneficial to no parties except the Bank itself, whose proprietors, and he mentioned it not in the way of re-
206
proach, had been enabled by it to divide 25,000,000 l. amongst themselves.
Mr. Crippsexpressed his opinion, that the wants of the community could not be adequately supplied by a cash circulation. If any-alarm should arise, and a run upon the banks take place in consequence, the gold would be immediately exported. He could not agree, however, with the suggestion, that it would be more advantageous to circulate the gold in the shape of tokens rather than as coin. With regard to the increased number of forgeries, it was to be attributed, partly to the increase of population, and partly to the general substitution of paper for coin. He believed that a reference to the late assizes would show, that offences of every other kind had also multiplied.
Mr. Pearseobserved, that there seemed to be but one opinion with regard to the propriety of passing this bill. He really did not see any reason for the alarm that was represented to have taken possession of the country banks. The Bank of England had alway been solicitous to consult the interest and convenience of the public, and to afford all the accommodation in their power. In confirmation of this, he might allude to the respectable authority of the late Mr. Horner in 1810. Here the hon. director read an extract from the bullion report. The Bank had, in the judgment of the committee, exercised a very great degree of forbearance and discretion, in not converting to their own profit the means placed at their disposal, and had fully justified the confidence reposed in them by the public. He was not aware that any thing had subsequently occurred which ought to change this opinion of their conduct.
Mr. Grenfellsaid, that the hon. gentleman was never more mistaken than when he represented him as differing in opinion from his late lamented friend Mr. Horner. On the contrary, there was no one step which he had not taken in perfect concurrence with that learned gentleman. The hon. member adverted to a speech of Mr. Horner, in which he characterised the transactions between the government and the Bank, as a scene of rapacity on the part of the directors, and of extravagance and profligacy on the part of the chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr. Monckbegged to call to the recollection of the House, what had been the extent of the great forbearance of the Bank of winch so much had been said.

207
In 1797, their issues of paper amounted to 8,000,000 l.; and in 1817 they were 30,000,000 l. This increase formed a pretty accurate gage and admeasurement of their forbearance! With respect to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman, he begged to observe, that he had never pretended to state the precise amount of the reduction in the issues of the country banks. He had only stated, that a very great reduction had taken place. He denied that the fall in the price of bullion within the last two years was any measure of the depreciation of other commodities. So far was this from being the case, that, while bullion was not depreciated more than four or five per cent, all other commodities had fallen as much as 25 per cent. With repect to the Ricardo system, which substituted payments in bullion for the ancient currency, it was, in his opinion, neither more nor less than a cheat and a fraud upon the public creditor. It was a violation of the public faith, in so far as it was a departure from established usage. It was one thing, when the value of the precious metals was kept down by intrinsic causes—over which we had no control, and another when it was affected by artificial tricks and contrivances, by innovations on the laws which regulated the currency, and by forcible legislative enactments. The Ricardo system might protect the Bank against the effects of any sudden run, it might facilitate the collection of the revenue; but the great objection to it was, that it was a violation of the public faith, and that it operated as a bar to a return to cash payments, and tended to perpetuate the paper system, with all the evils, moral and political, which were inseparable from an artificial currency,
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that hon. gentlemen had argued as if the Bank restriction act was a measure asked for by the Bank, whereas it was forced upon them by the government, and by the political occurrences of the day. It should be recollected that the Bank was the representative of a large body of persons, whose interests they were bound to protect. He saw nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the Bank; on the contrary, his opinion had always been, that their conduct reflected the highest, credit upon them as trustees of the body for whom they acted.
Mr. Wilsonsaid, that when the hon. member spoke of the increased issues of
208
the Bank, he ought to have considered what was the cause of that increase. He ought to have remembered, that the peculiar occurrences of the times had drained the country of its specie, and that it became absolutely necessary, that another currency should be substituted in its place. He thought the charges which the hon. member had made against the Bank, were neither founded on fact nor reason. As an individual, he considered every acknowledgement due to the directors for the high honour and integrity which had marked the whole of their proceedings.
Mr. Alderman Heygateexpressed his doubt as to the efficacy of the bill. He wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether the Bank had a sufficient quantity of specie to replace, not only the whole of their own small notes, but those also of the country banks, which must be drawn out of circulation. He made this inquiry because it was not unlikely that the country bankers would withdraw their one pound notes as soon as this measure came into operation. The issue of those notes, by country bankers, was the least profitable, but most troublesome part of their business; and they had some time since an intention of withdrawing their small notes, which was not carried into effect, purely out of a consideration for the inconvenience it would produce to the country. If the Bank had been forced into their situation by the government, it was not fair to blame them for the effects which that situation had produced.
Mr. Ricardosaid, he should not have blamed the Bank if they had only increased their issues to an amount sufficient to replace the gold coin that had been removed from the country; but they had extended their issues far beyond what was necessary for that purpose, and to this increase of circulation he ascribed all the depreciation which had followed.
The bill was read a third time. After which, Mr. Ellice brought up a clause for compelling the Bank to give in exchange for their large notes either 1l. notes, or legal coin of the realm. The bill was then passed.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and parliament moved, "That 14,474 l. 15 s. 5d. be granted for defraying the charge of the allowance to the Com-

209
mander in chief and his personal staff, his secretaries, their assistants and clerks, &c. for the year 1821."
Mr. Humesaid, he rose to move a reduction of 2000 l. and would state the grounds. In 1807, the allowance to the commander-in-chief was nine guineas a day; but in 1815, it was raised to l6guineas a day. He thought it would be proper to reduce it to what it was in 1807, which would make a reduction of somewhat more than 2000 l. That sum, however, he would have reduced on the whole department, leaving it to the head of the department to apportion the allowances provided for by the remaining 12,000 l. There was a military secretary, who had 2,000 l. He did not intend to meddle with the principle of increasing allowances with the increase of duties, but would state the facts. In 1803, the salary was but 900 l.; it was increased when the important duties which general Gordon had to perform made some augmentation necessary; but it was never intended that such increase should be permanent. Then there was another secretary, and an assistant secretary, one of 600 l. the other at 365 l. He thought that the 600 l. might be saved to the country. He then proceeded to observe upon the increase which had taken place in the allowance to the other officers of the department, and which, he contended, ought to be diminished. In 1807, the first clerk had 300 l. now it was double; the established clerks had 190 l. 160 l. and 120 l. each; now they had 450 l. The minor clerks were 80. and SOL now they had 200 l. each. If the reduction brought the establishment down to what it was in 1807, it would not be too great a reduction. The establishment then altogether, along with its contigencies, was about 12,000 l. now it was increased to 14,474 l. He knew it was the opinion of some who wished for reduction, that it should not fall on the commander-in-chief. He did not wish to fix it upon any one; but would leave the head of the department, as he before stated, to apportion the reduction among the officers as he saw proper. He thought also, that a chaplain to the commander-in-chief was unnecessary, as there were four chaplains to the forces, besides several others who could perform the service. He concluded by moving as an amendment, that the sum proposed should be reduced by 2,000 l.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that in the refer-
210
ence which the lion, member made to the establishment of 1807, acccording to which he proposed to reduce the present one, he did not understand whether the hon. member intended that the pay of the commander-in-chief should be reduced or not; but whether he did mean that or not, there was no good ground laid for his amendment. The duties of the commander-in-chief were not paid higher than their importance required. Was it of little moment that the commander-in-chief had to dispose of the patronage of the whole army [Cheers from the Opposition]? He said this advisedly. The more high and delicate patronage was, the greater the responsibility of the office, and the more necessary that the salary should be an adequate one. Supposing there was a possibility of abuse, and he said this only in the abstract, the salary ought to be such as to give an additional security against such an abuse, by removing the chances of temptation. Then, as to the civil part of the establishment; the hon. member had not given any sufficient ground for reducing it. The expense of that branch in 1807, including two secretaries, was 7,560 l. and now it was only 7,666 l., making only and increase of 106 l. There was therefore no ground for a reduction of 2,000 l. He then proceeded to show, that the military secretary was not too highly paid, on account of the numerous and laborious duties which he had to perform. Those duties occupied him eight hours a day, sometimes including Sundays. The military secretary had interviews with officers to the number of 50 and 60 a day, who had statements to make; and he had likewise to conduct the correspondence. The assistant secretary had also very laborious duties to perform; he had to manage the details of correspondence, on which the military secretary decided; 600 l. a year was not too much for this service. As to the chaplain, it was an appointment belonging to the chaplain-general, and the salary was fixed by the act of 1817. He repeated, that there was no room for reduction, as there was only 100 l. difference between the allowances for the civil department of 1807 and the present time.
Mr. Bernalcontended, that the country had a right to look for some reductions in the sixth year of peace. He objected to the practice of making an augmentation once allowed perpetual. The argument against reduction upon this

211
ground would be equally strong in the twelth year of peace as at present; so that the country was not to expect any diminution of those war establishments, whatever, might be the duration of tranquillity.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the argument of the hon. member was not correct. The charge for this establishment was not of a fixed nature, but varied according to circumstances. The estimates were always made out with a view to the necessity of the current year.
Colonel Davies,though he agreed that the commander-in-chief was not overpaid, considered it absurd that the present reduced number of clerks in the office should receive an equally large amount of salary as when they were eight more in number. He had the strongest objection to the continuance of the chaplaincy, which might very well be dispensed with.
Mr. Sykessaid, there was always an ingenious excuse offered for any increase of public expense. The noble lord had argued, that large patronage justified large salary; but if this were correct, the commander-in-chief ought to have had three times his present salary during the war. He confessed that he looked at the situation of the country with dismay; especially as he saw no disposition on the part of the House to economize. The salaries had been raised on account of the unfavourable change in the currency, and as that currency had now arrived at a more favourable state, those salaries ought to be proportionably reduced.
General Gascoynebore testimony to the severe duties of the military secretary to the commander-in-chief. The present holder of that important office had been there so early as the year 1793; and surely the same principle of remuneration which prevailed in every other public office, might reasonably be applied to the office of the commander-in-chief. When the duke of York was first appointed commander-in-chief, his salary and allowances were lower, than at present, because his own rank was then lower. When the duke of Wellington was made field-marshal he had insisted upon his full pay for the situation as well as for his rank.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that so far from the duke of Wellington having insisted upon his full pay for his situation and his rank, that arrangement was made without my previous communication with his grace.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that if the 2,000 l. proposed to be reduced were left to be a scramble, perhaps the reduction would fall upon those who could least afford to become the objects of its operation. He would rather that it should be effected on the salaries and emoluments of those noble persons who were better qualified to sustain such a reduction.
Lord Miltoncould not consent to give the same salaries now as in former years. The situation of the country was much altered from what it had been, when those salaries were granted. It behoved parliament to look into the different statutes by which increased allowances had been made to the royal family, the salaries of the judges, and so on; and into all the other acts passed at a time when the state of the currency and the rise of prices made such previsions necessary. He called upon the landed gentlemen not to lose sight of this important duty. They could not collect their rents; the farmer could not dispose of his produce; and almost every class had to deplore the same overwhelming depreciation. He saw no reason why persons in public offices, and annuitants upon the public, should be alone exempted from any decrease of means or fluctuation of property.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that such an argument, if it were good for any thing, was equally applicable to the stockholder and public annuitant—a doctrine which was too absurd to require refutation.
Mr. Abercrombysuggested the expediency of a review, by government, of the situation of all the clerks of all the public departments, with a view of making every possible reduction.
Mr. Monckcontended, that the time had arrived when every possible reduction ought to be effected.
Sir H. Parnellobserved, that when in 1804 Mr. Pitt proposed an increase of salaries to various public officers, it was on the ground of the depreciation of the currency. That depreciation no longer existing, the salaries ought to be reduced to their original amount.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the highest offices ought to sacrifice a part of their salaries, and then they might fairly call upon the subordinates to do the same.
Mr. Humeexpressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the worthy alderman. The commander-in-chief should begin the reduction, and not the minor clerks.
The committee divided on Mr. Hume's amendment, that 2,000 l. be deducted from the salary of the commander-in-chief: Ayes 23; Noes 94.

List of the Minority.

Beaumont, T. W.

Milton, lord

Bennet, hon. G. H.

Monck, J. B.

Benyon, B.

Nugent, lord

Bernal, R.

Ord, W.

Carter, J.

Parnell, sir H.

Denman, T.

Pryse, P.

Gordon, R.

Ricardo, D.

Grattan, J.

Sykes, D.

Guise, sir W.

Wood, ald.

Harbord, hon. E.

Wyvill, M.

Hurst, R.

TELLER.

Johnson, col.

Hume, J.

The committee again divided on an amendment, to reduce the vote to 2,474 l. 15 s. 5d. Ayes 27; Noes 90. A third division took place, on an amendment to reduce the vote to 13,474 l. 15 s. 5d. Ayes 40; Noes 125. The original resolution was then agreed to. Lord Palmerston then moved, "That 650 l. be granted for the allowance to the deputy judge advocate in North Britain."
Colonel Daviesobjected to this vote, on the ground that there were not above two courts-martial in the course of a year requiring the attention of such an officer.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the judge advocate had been called upon to attend six courts-martial last year.
Mr. Bennetdid not think the arduous duty of attending six courts-martial out of 3,000 men, sufficient to justify the payment of so large a sum.
Mr. O'Gradythought, that any field officer might discharge the duty of a judge advocate.
Mr. Humewished to know whether if 2000 men were about to be sent to a foreign station, the noble lord would think it necessary to appoint a deputy judge advocate to attend them. If not, he did not see how he could defend the appointment for the same number in Scotland.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, it would be beneficial to the service in general if such appointments were made, although in pursuance of that system of economy which had been adopted in the military departments, many foreign deputy judge advocates general had been reduced.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that ministers heretofore were put to their shifts; but now they had not a rag to cover them.
Mr. W. Dundascontended, that the office was an ancient Scotch office.
Mr. Elliceobserved, that the reason stated by the hon. gentleman for preserving the office, was precisely the reason why he would wish to abolish it, namely, that it was an old Scotch office.
Mr. Bennetconsidered the office nothing but a Scotch job.
Sir R. Fergussonconsidered the office as altogether unnecessary.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: Ayes 111; Noes 74. majority 37.
On the resolution, "That 12,642 l. 10 s. be granted, for defraying the charge of the allowance to the Comptrollers of the accounts of the army,"
Colonel Daviesobjected to the item. He said, that in 1797, when the army extraordinaries amounted to upwards of six millions, the expences of the comptrollers did not amount to more than 4,475 l. In 1821, when the extraordinaries did not exceed a million, the expences of the Comptrollers amounted to three times the expence in 1797. He would move, that the sum of 8,642 l. should be substituted in place of 12,642 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, there was no parity between the duties of army comptrollers in 1797 and the present period. The nature of the duties was almost wholly changed since 1806. In point of fact, their business was increased four-fold. Besides, they were not only comptrollers but auditors.
Mr. Bernalsupported the amendment.
Mr. Bankesthought that an inconsiderable saving ought not be put in competition with the perfect auditing of accounts.
Mr. Creeveyobserved, that as on a former evening he had said he should like to see one of those clerks who had 1,400 l. a year called to the bar to make good his claim to that sum, so on the present occasion he should like to see one of the comptrollers of army accounts make good his claim to 2,000 l. a year: and then be should be glad to compare that claim with that of some brave officer who, having purchased his commission in the first instance, had fought his way to honour and promotion, and having at length for his service been called to the peerage, received only 2,000 l. a year, as compensation for his services and to support his dignity as a peer. What comparison

215
could be made between the services of the two individuals?
Sir R. Fergussoncould not avoid complaining of the conduct of government to general officers of a particular class. By a former regulation, an allowance was made to general officers without regiments. This allowance was now withdrawn, and thereby the public faith had been broken with those officers. At the close of the war it was determined that only a certain number of general officers should be kept up: and those who were reduced had only a claim to the half-pay of that rank which they had held in the army before their promotion as general officers. This, he conceived, was a great injustice to very many meritorious general officers, some of whom had spent 30 years in the service. Many general officers, who, before the termination of the war, and before their promotion, might have made a considerable sum by the sale of their commissions, were now living upon their half pay as majors. This he considered as not just treatment to so deserving a class of men. Major-generals were deprived of all pay, except the half-pay which they had before they had been promoted.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that if the system of the gentlemen opposite were acted upon, instead of producing regularity and uniformity it would produce the utmost confusion. He was confident that by adopting the wild theories laid down, the whole affairs of the country would be thrown into disorder.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he wished it was in the power of the government to reward military officers to a greater extent: but nothing could be more unjust than to charge government with illiberality.
The committee divided: For the amendment 45. For the resolution, 105. After which, the chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

SMUGGLING PREVENTION ACTS.
Mr. Lushington Mr. Lushington moved, that the House should resolve itself into a conmmittee on the Smuggling Prevention acts.
Mr. Bernaldeprecated the continuance of laws which were attended with such fatal consequence to the peace of the country. Skirmishes and battles were stated to have taken place between the people and the troops, which had been attended with the loss of lives. He hoped
216
that the House would, if not repeal the present Excise laws, at least endeavour to prevent any more bills from being sanctioned which were to support such a> system.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the whole of the coast of Sussex was in a state of irritation and alarm, which had been aggravated by a recent melancholy occurrence. A fisherman had been, as was well known, killed under very suspicious circumstances; two juries had declared that the seaman of the preventive service who killed him was guilty of wilful murder. The judge had thought fit to recommend the man to mercy, on which recommendation the government had acted. The alarm was now such that all the fishermen at Hastings had drawn up their boats, and the whole population were in fear of the recurrence of these dreadful atrocities. Within the last eighteen months, some dozen of persons had been put to death on that coast. It could never be maintained that these murders should be committed (for some of them undoubtedly were murders) to prevent gin or lace from being now and then landed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that a judge who conceived that a prisoner was innocent of a crime of which he was found guilty by the prejudices of a jury, and yet did not recommend him to mercy, would be unworthy of his station. To a recommendation in such a case, the government could not do otherwise than attend. With regard to the feelings on the coast, they unhappily shewed that a great portion of the population was disposed to smuggling, and that, that disposition could only be repressed by moderate, yet efficacious measures. Conflicts similar to those now complained of had formerly taken place, when the state of the revenue was very different front what it now was.
Mr. R. Gordondeprecated the existing state of the revenue laws, and assured the House that the const of Dorsetshire and Devonshire were in a state quite as disturbed as the coast of Sussex.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, there were no grounds for the alarm which prevailed on the coast. He lamented what had recently occurred as much as any man. The person who was accused of murder on going into a boat to search, had been in the first instance thrown out of it. This led to that struggle which had occurred, and which grew out of the resistance offered

217
to him in the discharge of his duly. He (sir G. C.) had desired to be informed if it were not possible to dispense with the searching of fishing boats? In answer to this he had received from the officer on that station a list of 52 fishing boats that were engaged in smuggling. It was common for smugglers, when prevented from landing, to sink near the shore tin cases, filled with lace, and hermetically sealed so as to prevent the accession of salt-water; and those cases were afterwards taken up at leisure by the nets or grapples of the fishermen. Every means had been tried to render the examination as little troublesome to the fishermen as possible; but nothing would satisfy them short of the liberty of smuggling.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he had no doubt the men on the preventive service behaved with moderation. It was the system he complained of. If, instead of prohibiting those goods which formed the objects of smuggling, the principles of free trade were admitted, and moderate duties imposed, this evil would be put an end to. As to Ireland, no place in the world, with the exception of La Vendee during the revolution, had been treated as the North of Ireland had been under the distillation laws. He could not consent to extend to that country the other detestable securities against smuggling with which this country was cursed.
Mr. F. Palmersaid, that if, after all the expence of Martello towers and preventive service, smuggling was not repressed, it must be done by other means than violence.
Mr. Robinsonagreed as to the expediency of taking away many of the restrictions on the importation of French goods, which now existed.
The House went into the committee.