Sitting of 2 February 1821

PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.
Sir Robert Wilsonpresented a petition from the Coopers of London, praying for the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy. It was signed, he said, by 1,300 persons. They prayed also, that inquiry might be made into the Milan commission, and that ministers might be dismissed. With respect to the Milan commission, he looked upon it as an illegal establishment, a sort of agency-board for carrying on the business of a conspiracy against her majesty. This appeared evident from the the witnesses they procured, who were utterly unworthy of credit, and whose evidence was improbable, or rather impossible. They appeared never to have made any inquiry as to the credibility of the witnesses, or the truth of their statements, but shewed the utmost remissness in this and every other respect. Their only object seemed to have been to collect what evidence they could against her majesty, whether true or false. He had it upon the honour of the Austrian ambassador to the court of Naples, that every thing stated by the witnesses respecting her majesty's conduct at the court of Naples was wholly false. If there was no charge against the commissioners, it would be only fair, on the part of ministers, to give them an opportunity of defending themselves, by allowing some inquiry to be gone into. He condemned, in severe terms, the manner in which her majesty was treated by many hon. gentlemen in that House, who used such language as left her no alternative but to demand another trial, for the purpose of vindicating herself against those aspersions.
Lord Seftonpresented a similar petition from Liverpool. It was signed, he said, by 10,000 inhabitants. He could vouch for the respectability of many of the names. They prayed, that the question concerning the Queen should be agitated no longer, that she might be restored to all her rights and dignities, that inquiry should be made into the outrages at Manchester, the taxes diminished, and the people admitted to a larger share in the legislature than they at present enjoyed.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that he was ready-to give his support to every part of the petition. The first thing the petitioners prayed for was, that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy. Upon a former occasion, before the inquiry had been gone into, he supported, upon grounds of justice and policy, the propriety of restoring her majesty's name. If it was important then, it was much more important now, when the exclusion amounted in fact to punishment, for a crime of which she had been acquitted, livery man was interested in opposing the species of law laid down by the noble lord opposite, who maintained, that as the bill of Pains and Penalties had undergone a third reading, and had then been only withdrawn, her majesty was in fact morally convicted, and only technically acquitted. This was a strange kind of law, which it was the interest and duty of every man in the country to oppose. If a third reading was sufficient to prove guilt, why should not a second, or even a first reading, have the same effect?—It would be much better not to carry it to a third reading; for then all the filth, the trouble, and expense of the evidence would have been spared. This new law of the noble lord's was the old story of "Acquitted Felons," a phrase of which he believed his late friend Mr. Windham was the author. The conduct pursued towards the Queen was worse. "Acquitted felons" supposed a trial; but her majesty's name was erased from the Liturgy without trial or inquiry; and though acquitted, they still heard, night after night, the most gross aspersions thrown upon her in that House. This would be unfair and unjust, even towards a female of the lowest class in society, who had been once acquitted. This country knew of no such law as that of the noble lord. The law here was, guilty or not guilty—by the finding of a jury. Her majesty was attacked for refusing to accept any provision till her name was restored to the Liturgy. How was it possible, that she could agree to accept it under such circumstances? She acted in this as became a person determined to support her honour, and character. He trusted, that in this generous; nation there would be found spirit enough to protect the unfortunate and illustrious lady, if she should persist in her refusal, from suffering the pain and degradation of indigence. If ministers should continue in their resolu-
326
tion of not restoring her name to the Liturgy, he felt confident, that the country, which had hitherto supported her majesty, would protect her against the distresses of pecuniary embarrassment.—Some inquiry into the outrages at Manchester was the second object of the petitioners. Though it was long since that disgraceful event took place, it was quite natural, on the part of his townsmen of Liverpool to wish, that it should be inquired into. That man must have a mind singularly constructed indeed, who, when a defenceless crowd of men, women, and children had been broken-in upon, trampled down and butchered by the military, when those magistrates by whose direction it was done had received the grateful thanks of the Crown, upon their own exparte statement of the facts; his mind must be singularly constructed, who thought, that such an outrage could be forgotten. Even now, though late, every inquiry should be made into that memorable and shocking event—The third prayer of the petitioners was, that the taxes might be reduced. It gave him much pleasure, that the people of Liverpool were the first to petition on this subject. He hoped soon to see similar petitions poured in from all parts of the country. It was quite a mockery to hold out expectation of relief, until such time as many of the existing tuxes were taken off. This might be done, if the House performed its duty zealously, by inquiry into all the sources of expenditure, and introducing economy into every branch of it. By taking a view of circumstances in the year 1792, when corn was at the same price as now, by comparing the amount of taxes then with that of the present day, it would appear utterly impossible that they could be borne.—The last prayer of the petition was, that some reform might be introduced in the present system of representation in that House. He felt certain, notwithstanding what the most stubborn anti-reformer might think, that the present system never received such a shock as it did by the vote of Friday last, which, he contended, was completely in opposition to the sense of the people, and even to the opinions of many who voted against the motion. There was a peculiar circumstance in the case of the petitioners, that justified them in their application for some reform. There were 100,000 inhabitants in Liverpool and only 2,500 or

327
2,600 voters. The representation was by no means a popular one. The right of freedom could be acquired only by apprenticeship, so that any person coming to reside there, however great his wealth or respectability might be, had no franchise. Besides, the influence of the corporation, who had the control and direction of 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. a-year, was all powerful over the freemen. They could command, out of the whole number, 700 or 800 votes. It was needless to mention how great the influence of the Crown must be in a town where there were so many profitable places to be disposed of. If the representation was more popular, the influence of the Crown and corporation would not, of course, be so dangerous as at present.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the freemen of Liverpool were more numerous than the hon. gentleman represented. They exceeded 5000, and no such influence as that alluded to existed in the corporation. Their influence was pretty much the same us that of other gentlemen in the town of wealth and respectability. The corporation, he believed, discharged their duties most conscientiously. All the business under their direction was done by contract; which must have the effect of lessening their influence at elections, if they should be disposed to employ it. He was not personally acquainted with many of those whose names were signed to the petition. He was not inclined to dispute the character and respectability of some; but then he must say that he had opportunities of knowing the sentiments entertained by many gentlemen and merchants of Liverpool of great wealth mid character who did not approve of this petition, but approved of the measures of government. Much was said of the hole-and-corner addresses agreed upon by some gentlemen; but, under the circumstances there was perhaps no other way of expressing their opinion. The party from whom this petition proceeded, applied to the principal magistrate to call a meeting, which was accordingly done. A proposition was made for an address of loyalty to the Crown, but those who were willing to support it, were put down by clamour.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that in 1812, when he was a candidate for Liverpool, not more than 2,400 had polled. If the circumstances attending the meeting were properly represented to him, the hon.
328
gentleman and his friends attended there for the purpose of defeating its object and for that purpose filled the hall with their partisans. The mayor considered them as having acted with great violence, and therefore another meeting was called by him in a larger place; but the hon. gentleman and his friends did not dare to go there.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, it was a mistake to say, that the late meeting was called by the mayor, it was brought about by a number of individuals, who assembled for the purpose, and placed a Mr. Fletcher in the chair. The persons with whom he (Mr. G.) acted, withdrew when they saw with whom the measure originated.
Mr. John Smithsaid, he held in his hand a petition, to which he begged to call the most serious attention of the House. It was the petition of the merchants, bankers and traders of the city of London, and was signed by 5,000 persons. He did not mean to say, that the petitioners were, from the accident of possessing property, entitled to more consideration than persons who were poor. But, inasmuch as property gave an opportunity of education and the exercise of talent, he felt himself authorised to say, that there never had been presented, at any period, a petition from a class of persons superior to those by whom that petition had been voted. The first prayer of the petitioners was one to which the House must most readily lend its ears. They prayed, that parliament would, in its wisdom, adopt the necessary measures to allay the agitation which prevailed in the public mind. There were three or four points in this petition, upon which he would offer a few observations. The petitioners said, and said truly, that they entertained the strongest feelings of attachment to the Crown and to the constitution; and further, that even at this period of distress and agitation, they knew the great body of the people to be actuated by the strongest feelings of loyalty. They felt also, that no violence or disaffection existed, against which the present laws did not provide a sufficient remedy. They, at the same time, expressed their regret, that the late proceedings against the Queen had been instituted; proceedings which the House itself had declared to be derogatory from the dignity of the Crown, and injurious to the best interests of the country. He fully concurred in the reasons urged by

329
the petitioners against those proceedings. They felt, that her majesty had been prosecuted without any adequate political necessity; that the charge brought against her had been supported, or attempted to be supported, by evidence of the most horrible, disgusting, and detestable nature that had ever been brought into a court of justice. If the succession of the Crown had been endangered, then the people would have been content to pay the penalty of enduring the evils of such a measure, in order to secure the future peace of the country. The proceedings against her majesty, as had been well observed by an hon. relative of his (Mr. Wilberforce), were calculated to injure the morals of the country. Ministers had many great and arduous duties to perform; but he knew of no greater duty which devolved on them, than that of preserving the morals of the country. Many complaints had been made by ministers of immorality in a certain quarter, but they themselves were the greater sinners. He was aware, that some loyal and independent gentlemen, men of high character, bad, without any public notice, met in a tavern for the purpose of presenting a loyal address to the throne. To that address he had no objection to offer. He would have willingly signed it; but he felt, in common with the petitioners, that the present state of the country required something more to be said. Of the loyalty of the petitioners, no man could doubt; nor did he mean to cast any imputation upon the loyalty of the gentlemen who got up the loyal address. The petitioners felt it their duty, in consequence, to call a meeting of the merchants, bankers, and traders of London, which, by the kindness of the Lord Mayor, took place in a large hall in the Mansion-house. At that meeting, he (Mr. Smith) had the honour to move certain resolutions, on which the petition was founded. Although anxious not to increase irritation or ill-blood on that occasion, he was bound to speak the truth. The meeting was composed of the largest assembly of well-dressed persons that perhaps ever were brought together in London. The proceedings commenced quietly enough; but when it came to his lot to move the third resolution, a clamour arose such as he had never before heard; and which, for the time, put an end to all discussion. He was compelled to say, that he had reason to believe, that this clamour was alto-
330
gether preconcerted, and that the individuals by whom it was so preconcerted, were determined to prevent any discussion. Having contended, that public meetings were productive only of confusion, they created confusion for the purpose of proving their own argument. He begged to be distinctly understood however, as not meaning to apply this observation to the larger part of the more respectable portion of the class of individuals to whom he alluded. He was the more disposed to consider the tumult intentional, because it began the moment her majesty's name was mentioned. Now, though there might be shades of difference of opinion on the subject, there was not a man in the city of London who did not deplore the introduction of it as a national calamity, and who was not of opinion, that the prosecution was most inexpedient, because he well knew, that whatever might be the case elsewhere, there could not be the most distant hope, that in that House, under all the circumstances of the case, and without the power of administering an oath, a subject so large and complicated could ever be brought to a successful issue. The inhabitants of the city of London therefore thought, that the proceeding which had taken place was calculated merely to throw an unfair imputation on the unfortunate and illustrious lady in question. As that was the universal sentiment of the city of London, he must think, that the clamour which took place, was occasioned only by the wish to prevent discussion. In vain did the chief magistrate of the city exert himself in every possible way to keep order. He (Mr. S.) had heard of a protest in the papers signed by a gentleman whom he did not know, declaring, that it was not understood that the resolutions were put, and that if that had been understood, a great majority would have shown itself against them. As that protest was signed only by an individual, and as the hon. baronet opposite allowed, that there was a majority in favour of the resolutions, he did not think it would be considered as entitled to great weight. The hon. baronet, with his usual good humour, admitted, that the question was carried against him. So much, then, for this part of the subject; but he must solicit the indulgence of the House whilst he offered a few words on the subject of the disturbance. It had given him considerable pain, because it bore the aspect of an approach to that sort of intolerance

331
which must produce ill effects when introduced into political discussion. In that House, the most marked diversity of opinion created no sentiment of malevolence, but, on the contrary, was often found to be compatible with perfect friendship. When, therefore, he saw people of education, evincing a spirit of this kind, he could not help viewing it as a prelude to something worse. He hoped, however, that two good consequences would result from this occurrence; first, that there would be no more clandestine meetings, and, secondly, that if there should be large and public meetings, they would be conducted with order and propriety.
Sir W. Curtisexpressed his full concurrence with the hon. gentleman in many of his observations, and agreed also in the correctness of some parts of the statement which he had made, relative to what took place at the meeting from which this petition proceeded. The meeting had been very properly called on a requisition most honourably signed, containing the names of men of the highest character, as well as of the greatest property. He was, however, compelled to differ from his hon. friend in one respect. His honourable friend had said, that the declaration agreed to at the London Tavern could only be regarded as that of the individuals by whom it was subscribed, and that it did not record the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London. Now, although he was disposed to allow the respectability and opulence of those who called the public meeting, he would assert, that the declaration was signed by persons of as much property and honour, to the fullest extent. He did not know why, because one party thought fit to hold a public meeting, it should quarrel with another, that adopted a different mode of declaring its opinions. The declaration of the latter was certainly mild and moderate enough; no loyal man could dissent from it; it was indeed but a-milk and-water kind of production. No other mode, however, was presented of testifying his attachment to the throne, and be thought, it was a time, when that attachment, and a determination to support the throne, ought to be declared. He denied, that he ever did any thing in a hole or corner: whatever he did, he wished the world to know. The declaration originated in a peaceable and quiet meeting, and he for one, thought it might serve to cheer up his majesty, if at such a time they passed a resolution
332
approving of the conduct of his ministers. He did not think his hon. friend was quite correct in his account of what happened at the Mansion-house. His hon. friend was extremely well heard for a considerable time, although symptoms of disapprobation at last broke out. This was not surprising, where the subject was one with regard to which as much difference of opinion prevailed out of the house as within it, and as to which he believed a still greater majority of thinking people out of the House than in it were of an opinion different from that of his hon. friend. He certainly lamented the late inquiry; he wished it could have been wisely avoided; and he wished now, that the subject could be forgotten. To come back, however, to the meeting—his hon. friend had obtained as good a hearing as he could have expected, and the first resolution was put and carried. As several others remained, he (Sir W. Curtis) offered himself to the attention of the assembly, which was certainly composed of an immense number of well-dressed and good-looking people. A large party immediately opposed him, and would not hear a single word that he had to offer. But what did all this prove. That it was impossible in a populous city, where the minds of men were much agitated and at variance on any subject, to draw any conclusion from the proceedings of such a meeting. It required great strength to be able to maintain a place in such a meeting. He knew several hale young men who had been present, and who declared, that they would never go to such a meeting again. He was surprised to find the name of an hon. member on the opposite side, who had himself been a party not two years ago to a private meeting such as that from which the late declaration emanated, to the requisition for the meeting at the Mansion-house. This appeared to him to be somewhat inconsistent. As to the way in which the question had been put, as he had retired from his place at the time, he could not speak to it; but he believed it was generally understood, that the motion on which the show of hands took place was, that the question should not be put.
Mr. Astellbegged to defend himself from the charge of inconsistency. When a-year and; a-half ago he had assisted at a private meeting of the merchants and bankers of London, the country was then in a different state. If new lights

333
had since that time broken in upon him, why was he not to attend a public meeting1? The object of that private meeting was, to consider the expediency of certain bills which had been brought into parliament, and which he had unequivocally upheld. The very circumstance of the passing of those bills rendered private meetings less necessary; because, at present, no improper persons could break ill upon a public meeting of the merchants and bankers of London, ft was his decided opinion, that there would have been no tumult in the Egyptian Hall, but for the hon. baronet's friends. The declaration of the merchants who met at the City of London Tavern, was put forth as the declaration of the merchants of the City of London, which it was not; nor had the persons who signed that petition any claim to exclusive loyalty. That those who signed the petition, were as loyal and as well disposed to preserve the public peace, and to maintain the constitution, would be evident to any one who looked at their names, and their property and rank in life. It was, however, their duty to tell the House of Commons what their opinion was; and he hoped and trusted, that the good sense contained in their petition, and the general feeling of the country, would succeed in effecting the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, from which it had been illegally removed.
Lord Miltonwas sure, that the House had heard, with the greatest regret from the hon. baronet, that henceforth it would be in vain to expect to ascertain the sentiments of the merchants and bankers of London, from any public meeting at which they were assembled. This was the more painful, as the sentiments of such a body were in themselves highly important; and as it was always of importance, that the House should have an opportunity of knowing the sentiments of their constituents. The hon. baronet had said, that he had signed the declaration, although he thought it did not go far enough, and because he thought, his majesty ought to be cheered up. When, however, the hon. baronet coupled with that sentiment an approbation of the measures of ministers, he expressed two opinions completely distinct from each other; because, if there was any one proposition more evident than another, it was, that the measures which had been adopted by his majesty's
334
ministers were very far from being beneficial to the Crown.
Mr. Wellsobserved, that he had signed the declaration, because he thought it a proper occasion for expressing Ins loyal and dutiful attachment to the Crown. He believed it would be seen, from the signatures attached to it, that this was the persuasion of many most respectable and honourable men. The declaration which had been so much commented on was fairly and openly agreed to, and was publicly signed. There was nothing in the character of the meeting at which the declaration was proposed, that could authorize the hon. member who presented the petition to call it a clandestine transaction. The declaration was intended to express the sentiments of the gentlemen whose names were affixed to it, and did not profess to speak the opinion of any others. The doors of the House in which the meeting was held were open to every one. No porter was stationed at them to challenge the entrance of any individual. With respect to the other meeting, it was called for twelve o'clock. He went to the place appointed before that hour, and found that it was impossible to get in. The lives of individuals appeared to him to be in danger; and, from his advanced age, he did not think it advisable to attempt to procure a situation in the body of the hall. Under these circumstances, he considered the last meeting as the truly exclusive meeting, and was convinced, that the petition did not express the sentiments and feelings of the merchants and bankers of London.
Mr. Alderman Woodcould assure the House, that the presence of the hon. baronet had been the only cause of the tumult in question. Half an hour before the business began, the hon. baronet took a foremost seat on the hustings, and showed himself off in great style, bowing to all his friends, and telling them he wa6 very glad to see them. In all city meetings there was a little noise; but the hon. baronet had himself allowed, that the resolutions had been carried by a majority of three to one. The petition was read by the Lord Mayor himself, and in putting the question he did all in his power to be heard in so large an assembly, by holding up the petition and calling out, "This is the petition." He would venture to assert, that the majority) in favour of the petition was five to one. The hon. member who had just sat down

335
had talked of the great difficulty of getting on the hustings. He would ask that hon. gentleman, whether or not he was one of a body of two or three hundred persons who came to the hull with a view to take possession of the hustings? In the excellent dispositions of the Lord Mayor to accommodate both sides of the question, he allowed a party of those who had signed the declaration to be admitted into a parlour, into which were also admitted the requisitionists of the public meeting; and from which parlour there was easy access to the hustings. He appealed to the House, whether there could be a fairer proceeding. As to the tumult, it arose immediately after the speech of Mr. Bosanquet, who had been patiently heard throughout.
Mr. Baringsaid, that having been present at this meeting, he felt himself called on to state to the House his impression of the facts as they occurred; and he must say, that a more unworthy combination never existed any where, for the purpose of preventing individuals from being heard, than he witnessed on that occasion—that combination, too, being formed by some of the most respectable persons in the city of London. The only way in which their conduct could be accounted for, had been let out by the hon. baronet in the course of his speech; namely, that public meetings were to be treated as a mere farce. He had learned from many persons, that the business of the meeting was obstructed by those very friends who, in the excess of their zeal, even prevented the hon. baronet himself from being heard. They had sent regular circulars to every part of the city, in order to collect together persons who would disturb the meeting; and every possible means was resorted to for the purpose of preventing the merchants and bankers from assembling publicly to speak their sentiments. He totally disagreed from the hon. baronet as to the general conduct that was observable at meetings of the merchants of London. No meetings were ever held, at which a greater degree of decorum prevailed. The hon. baronet might have seen some instances of a different kind, but they very rarely occurred. But for the combination, or conspiracy, to which he had adverted—this last meeting would like others, have passed off quietly and decorously. The hon. baronet asked, "what was the harm of this loyal decla-
336
ration? why should it excite opposition or jealousy?" In the first place, it was called "The declaration of the merchants and bankers of the city of London," which it was not. He knew that the declaration itself purported to speak the sentiments of "the undersigned merchants and bankers," but the placards announcing it gave it a different designation. Until those who got up the declaration found, that this was considered a very important point, they had not changed the terms of the placard, but within these few days they had found it necessary to make an alteration. The hon. bait, said, "Why should not the merchants, bankers, and traders agree to a resolution of this kind?" He did not mean to say a word about the loyalty of the persons who signed the declaration. No person could doubt it; and the whole question was, whether the present was a proper occasion for putting forth such a declaration? The declaration also stated, that sedition and blasphemy abounded in the country; with a view of making an impression, that the agitation which the measures of his majesty's ministers had caused was occasioned by sedition and blasphemy. The petitioners thought otherwise; and they thought it their duty to state what in their opinion was the real cause of the present state of the country;—namely, the proceedings which had been instituted against her majesty. They preferred drawing out a petition to the House to framing any counter-address to the throne; because, they felt the propriety of avoiding, except on the occurrence of a great necessity, any step that might be considered personally offensive to his majesty. The loyal declaration had evidently been got up to serve as a kind of counterbalance to the numerous petitions which were pouring in from every part of the country. Like others of a similar character, it had originated at the Treasury; and was milk-and-water, because no one would venture to administer any thing stronger. There was no foundation for the assertion which it contained, of the prevalence of sedition and blasphemy. If any part of the empire could more than another effectually contradict the aspersion, that the great mass of the people were disaffected to the existing institutions, it was the city of London; for no one could have witnessed the meetings at Spa-fields and elsewhere, without feeling how contemptible, both

337
in character and in numbers, were the persons who wore called radicals. He could not agree, therefore, that there was any want of loyalty in the country. The loyalty of Englishmen was a rational feeling, and was never in greater jeopardy than when ministers dragged his majesty and the royal family through the mud, as they had lately done; and then pretended to hold them up as objects of respect and admiration. It was no small matter, that ministers had brought his majesty into such a condition, that the hon. baronet should think he wanted a little "cheering up." He perfectly believed, that the hon. baronet was correct in supposing that such was the the case, when he saw, that his majesty could hardly change post horses in any town in England, where the conduct of his ministers had not created a feeling which rendered it difficult for him to pass through with decency. As to the question of loyalty, the feelings manifested by all classes of the people on the death of his late majesty, and on the death of the princess Charlotte, proved it to be the basest calumny to say, that the present feelings of the country were produced by any other cause than by the manner in which his majesty and. the royal family had been dragged through the dirt by the noble lord and his colleagues.
Mr. Wilsoncould not exactly agree either with the hon. baronet or with the hon. member for Taunton. He denied the declaration of the former, that the hon. mover of the resolution was distinctly heard. He denied the assertion of the latter, that the tumult was the result of any combination or conspiracy. He did not believe one word of such a charge, and was convinced that it was utterly unfounded. The Declaration had not been put forth as the declaration of the merchants and bankers of the city of London, but only as the "undersigned" merchants, &c. He admitted, that in the earlier placards that distinction had by mistake not been made; but the error was unintentional, and was corrected as soon as it was discovered. He wondered, that those honourable gentlemen who had charged the individuals signing the declaration with being influenced by any but the most open and honourable motives, had not, on reading their names, felt a kind ness and respect which would have in-
338
duced them to treat those individuals in a spirit of greater charity, and to believe, that they were as unlikely as themselves to do any such thing. The hustings were capable of containing 250 persons. Notwithstanding an application made the day before, only 20 of the gentlemen who had signed the declaration were permitted to go on the hustings. This he did not consider very liberal, especially when the crowded state of the body of the hall was considered.
Mr. G. Philipsdeclared, that he had never witnessed more disorderly and disgraceful conduct than on the occasion in question. The exclusive loyalists and lovers of order were shouting, hissing, and adopting every other means of creating a tumult. He heard the conversation of some of those who were near him, and it ran on the impossibility of deliberation at a public meeting, and on the probability that that would be the last public meeting of the kind in the metropolis, and on similar topics. There was every appearance of a combination to create disorder. The hon. baronet's appearance was a signal for disorder; and he was not heard himself, in consequence of the noise which his friends made. He was surprised to hear the hon. baronet express a doubt whether the resolutions were carried. He was quite satisfied, that they were carried, by a majority of three to two. Ordered to lie on the table to be printed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT OF AN ADDRESS PUBLISHED IN THE LONDON GAZETTE.
The debate was resumed on the motion, "That the paper, intituled, the dutiful and loyal address of the Presbytery of Langholme, in the county of Dumfries, which was published in the London Gazette of the 2nd January last, contains passages in manifest breach of the essential privileges of this House of Parliament." The motion was agreed to, nem. con. After which, sir John Newport moved, "That a communication having been officially made to this House, that the insertion in the London Gazette of the aforementioned address from the Presbytery of Langholme proceeded from inadvertence to the reprehensible and offensive expressions justly complained of, this House does not feel itself called upon to take further notice of the same." The said resolution was agreed to.

SUPPLY—BANK OF IRELAND.
On the motion for going into a committeee of Supply,
Mr. Grenfellwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the Secretary for Ireland, whether he was prepared to give any information as to the conduct of the Bank of Ireland, who, he understood, had refused to receive the coin of the realm as deposits? He was at a loss to comprehend on what grounds the Bank of Ireland did this. In local districts, bankers might do it with a view to discountenance the circulation of any thing but their own notes. Whatever the ground might be, it was necessary for the Government of the country to take some notice of it, as it contravened the intention of the government of the country with respect to the currency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was not enabled to give any information on this subject. The hon. member would be aware, that no one could refuse to receive the coin of the realm in payment. He did not know what difference there could be between payments and deposits. He was rather surprised at the statement, as bankers never refused money.
Sir J. Newportsaid, there was all the difference in the world between payment, which was the discharge of a legal obligation, and deposit, which was the intrusting of money voluntarily received, to be accounted for. Of course, the Bank of Ireland could not refuse money in payment, but in deposit they might. Since the union of the Treasuries of the two countries, it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not of the Secretary for Ireland, to be prepared with information on these subjects. It was the more important, that this separation should be attended to, as there was nothing more mischievous to the finances of Ireland than the interference of the castle government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was no part of his official duty to take cognizance of the internal concerns, either of the Bank of Ireland or that of England. Those bodies were responsible to the laws, not to a minister. He had of course often occasion to correspond with both those banks.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, the Bank of Ireland had not the power to refuse payment in sovereigns, but they refused to discount for those merchants who paid their bills in
340
sovereigns, and they discountenanced the importers of gold coin. As the Bank of Ireland enjoyed a monopoly, they should be the last to interfere with the intentions, of parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to speak of the Bank of Ireland as of a private banking company. But, as it was a bank of deposit for the government, and enjoyed a monopoly by charter, it was impossible to submit to that doctrine, The bank had, during the late general distress, refused to make issues at the suggestion of the Secretary for Ireland, The general opinion in Ireland was, that the conduct of the bank had not been what it should be; and he was so far impressed with it, that he should probably bring the subject before the House. His opinion was, that it would be better for Ireland that the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland should be taken away, as there would be established in its stead numerous chartered banks or banking companies as in Scotland.
Mr. Irvingsaid, the report, that the Bank of Ireland bad refused the current coin of the realm as deposit had excited his surprise. The present situation of Ireland was, that there was no circulation but that supplied by the Bank of Ireland. He could easily believe, that it might be inconsistent with the private interests of the Bank of Ireland to issue their notes upon deposits of gold; but he thought the bank, when it considered the situation, of Ireland, were bound to take a more enlarged view of the question. He certainly disapproved of the conduct which had been pursued by the Bank of Ireland towards those who imported and paid in gold coin. He would take that opportunity of putting a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the issues of Exchequer bills under the late act. If he was rightly informed, the commissioner under that act felt so restrained by the terms of the enactment, that, great as was the pressure in Ireland, the country had been almost entirely shut out from the advantages intended by the legislature. In the drawing up of that bill there had been the most culpable neglect.
Mr. Baringcontended, that government were bound to watch over the proceedings of the Bank of Ireland. The right hon. gentleman had indeed said, that it was a private corporation, over which the law, not the government, had

341
alone control; but the bank had been incorporated for public purposes, and if it failed to promote the objects intended, then its incorporation should be reviewed. Private banks might refuse to take deposits, but neither the banks of Ireland nor England could properly decline receiving them, The latter were bound to carry on the public business of the country. The real business of the bank ought to be to receive as much coin as it could, and issue as many notes. If however, the Bank of Ireland took a different course, and meant to set their face against the metallic circulation of the country, then the legislature was bound to interfere, and prevent the intention of parliament from being frustrated. With respect to the return to cash payments, upon which so much stress had been laid, he did not attach so much importance to it as others did. His desire was rather to see the paper currency of the country regulated upon the standard of paying large sums in bullion, according to the plan of his hon. friend (Mr. Ricardo). That course he thought better calculated than any other to relieve a part of the pressure which was so sensibly felt throughout the country. When he gave this opinion, he begged not to be understood as having a wish to thwart the return to payments in coin, although he feared that some of the present evils were attributable to the preliminary arrangements for that purpose. His only reason for not proposing something for the consideration of the House with reference to his view of the subject, was, that he awaited the result of the measures now in progress for preventing bank forgeries.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he would take an early opportunity to communicate with the Bank of Ireland. It was difficult to conceive on what principle that bank could have refused to accept of gold coin. With a view to preparing for cash payments, nothing could be more acceptable than deposits in gold, for which the bank might issue their paper. The extent of issues by the commissioners under the late act, had certainly fallen short of the intention of the legislature, and did not exceed 100,000 l.
Mr. Ricardoobserved, that paper in Ireland having become at a premium above the price of gold coin, persons had been under the necessity of incurring the expense of conveying gold coin to
342
Ireland, to remedy an evil arising out of the deficiency of circulation from the failures in the south. If the Bank of Ireland had filled the void so occasioned, as it was their duty to have done, the evil would have been avoided. He was still of opinion, that the system established with regard to the Bank of England, two or three years ago, ought to be perpetuated. If the Bank contemplated paying in gold coin in 1823, as they were now by law required, they must purchase a quantity of gold for that purpose; and to this cause was to be attributed the present disproportion between the price of gold and silver. He hoped, that his right hon. friend would be of opinion, that the system now existing ought to be permanent, and that he would take an early opportunity of bringing forward a measure for that purpose.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Sir George Warrenderaddressed the committee on the subject of the supplies for the Navy for the present year. He stated, that a considerable diminution in the naval expenditure had taken place, partly in consequence of the reduction of 1,000 seamen, and partly owing to the diminished price of provisions. This diminution, however, was not intended to affect the exertions which were making in the cause of humanity and of science in this branch of the administration of public affairs. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That 22,000 men be employed for the Sea Service, for 13 lunar months, from 1st. Jan. 1821, including 8,000 royal marines."
Mr. Creeveysaid, it was his intention to oppose the vote proposed by the hon. baronet, as it was his fixed determination not to vote for a single farthing of the public money, before the estimates of the service for which it was to be employed, were laid upon the table.
Sir. G. Warrendersaid, that the hon. member, had mistaken the nature of his motion. It was not at all connected with the general estimates of the navy, which were always in the hands of members at least a fortnight before the resolutions founded on them were moved. The votes proposed in the early part of the session always related to the fleet afloat, and had no connection with either the raising or reducing the existing strength of the navy. The votes which he held in his hand related

343
solely to the fleet afloat. It never was the custom to present any estimates of them. They were made in consequence of an order in council, enabling the king to maintain the fleet afloat; and, unless the hon. member meant to depart from all parliamentary usage from time immemorial, he would not object to his motion.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that this having been the practice of the House from time immemorial was the reason of all their distresses. It was time, that they should change their manners. He then moved, that the committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again. In this manner he should treat every resolution proposed in any Committee of Supply in which the estimates of the money were not before the House.
Mr. Humestated, the great objections he entertained to the reduction of the naval force of the country, and the augmentation of the military. The increase of the corps of marines to the amount of 8,000 never could obtain his consent at a time when our military establishment was so great as it was. Still less could he countenance the reduction of our whole naval force down to the number of 14,000 seamen only. What means could they employ to man a fleet of any magnitude in case of emergency, if they went on annually decreasing this valuable body of men? It was most injurious to the interests of the navy. He would never consent to vote any money for this service, until he saw a disposition to reduce the useless and extravagant civil establishments. Before he voted any money, he must see if it was intended to reduce the number of commissioners of dock-yards and other place3 where they were equally unnecessary.
Sir G. Warrendertrusted the House would not be led away by the opinion of the hon. gentleman on the subject of the increase of marines, when they knew, that it was the opinion of all persons connected with the navy, and he believed of all the gentlemen on the other side, except the hon. member himself, that it was of the greatest advantage to the public service to increase the corps of Royal Marines.
Mr. Bennetwould not enter into the merits of the increase of marines. That would be a good question when the estimates came before the House. But he would not consent to vote a single shil-
344
ling of the public money unless the estimates were placed before him first. It was time, that the attention of the House and the public should be directed to what was going on in committees of supply. It was time that an end should be put to those farces; and in order to expedite that end, he would not consent to a single vote in the dark, if the consequence should be, that the session lasted till October. The country should no longer, with his consent, be pillaged in this manner.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his surprise at the course which hon. gentlemen opposite thought fit to take. There scarcely was an instance in which the course of public business was attempted to be obstructed by such means. Let gentlemen refer to the journals for years back, and they would find, that, from time immemorial, the practice of parliament had been, to grant these preliminary notes without the estimates.
Mr. Marryatsaid, that the question appeared to him to be, whether the naval forces of the country at present in actual employment were to be maintained or not. The supply now asked was for men actually in service. According to all former practice, of parliament they were bound to vote for the maintenance of the seamen in actual service.
Mr. Bennetexplained, that he would willingly consent to a vote for the maintenance of those seamen for a month. But it was demanded, in this vote, for a whole year, and it was to that he objected, before the House possessed the means of judging how far it might be expedient or necessary to keep up this force.
Sir G. Clerkcould not suppress the surprise which he had felt at the different arguments which had been advanced by those who were adverse to the original motion. The argument of the mover of the amendment had gone principally upon the ground of economy, and the non-production of the navy estimates; but the hon. member for Montrose, so far from proceeding on a similar ground, seemed disposed to complain, that a sufficient number of seamen were not voted and consequently, that a greater expense was not incurred. After the present vote was disposed of, the question would then come before the House as to the sum necessary for the provisions and the wages of that number of men. It would readily occur to them, that from the great

345
diminution in the price of provisions, a considerable reduction of expense would take place in that department.
Mr. Humecontended, that no difference existed between his own argument and those of his friends. The hon. gentleman near him had called for the production of the navy estimates; the hon. member for Shrewsbury had done the same, and he (Mr. Hume) had also pursued the same course of argument in wishing to see how far the reduction in the civil establishments corresponded with the one now proposed. When he was told, that the present motion should pass as a matter of course, he would tell the House, that that would be the case, if the supply required was to pay off the expenses of the last year. But the motion was an anticipating measure, and referred to the ensuing year. He contended that our sailors had been neglected. We had ships enough, and marines could easily be procured, but we had not seamen enough even to form the germ of an armament.
Admiral Harveyexpressed his opinion of the great use of a marine force. On that subject he concurred in what had been said by the hon. mover of the resolution, and he believed it to be true, that such was the opinion of most officers in the service, To prepare a proper corps of marines required great care and attention; for it was preposterous to suppose, that a marine could do his duty unless he had previously been accustomed to proper discipline. It would be well for the House to consider, that the navy had now arrived to a great extent, and that a corresponding increase of marine force ought of course to take place.
Sir G. Cockburnexpressed his regret, that more professional men were not present. Had they been present the House would be satisfied, that the number of marines voted was not larger than required. It ought to be considered, that sailors were provided by the commercial navy of the country. It was true, that a disinclination existed to serve in the navy when a merchant service was open; but still, when merchant vessels could not be obtained, sailors would readily enter into the navy. Now it had been found, that the service of 1,000 men could be dispensed with, and he, in common with his colleagues, had felt it his duty to recommend a measure by which the public expenditure had been, lessened. If the
346
House should resolve to keep them in the service merely for the sake of keeping them, they would of course come to that determination; but, as their services were useless in the navy, it was certainly the duty of those, under whose department the business came, to recommend their dismissal.
Sir F. Ommaneyentirely concurred in the propriety of keeping up an adequate corps of marines.
Mr. Tremaynewas anxious to take that opportunity, before the estimates were produced, of impressing upon government, the necessity of turning their attention to the civil establishments of the navy, which he thought were capable of great reduction.
Sir G. Warrenderwas happy to be able to state, that a considerable reduction was contemplated in the civil establishment. He could not suffer that occasion to pass without again referring to the misapprehension under which the hon. gentleman opposite laboured. He was well aware, that that gentleman had no intention to misrepresent facts, but he could not avoid complaining of his want of accuracy, because the unavoidable inference which would be drawn by the public would be, that the House neglected the interests of the navy. Every one knew, that our armaments were supplied from our commercial navy, and that at no former period was that source so plentiful. It was that reason to which the economy prevalent in that branch of the service was to be attributed. He believed, if any circumstances should occur to require extraordinary exertions, that in a very short time a fleet of 20 sail of the line might be manned chiefly from the source which he had mentioned. The case was different with respect to marines. All the naval officers in the House knew the use of that body of men, and they knew also, that an effective corps was not raised without much difficulty.
Mr. Hurstsaid, that the House had scarcely ever come to a vote on the subject, without a regret being expressed, that more marines were not raised. He thought them a most useful and necessary body. They had always distinguished themselves in every war; and he highly approved of the augmentation.
Mr. Forbescomplained of the reductions which had been made of the naval force of the country, and the comparative neglect with which that branch of the

347
service seemed to be treated. For his own part he would rather see a reduction of 5,000 men in the army than 1,000 in the navy. He had reason to know, that the commercial navy of the country was by no means so well supplied with seamen as had been represented that night; and, therefore, greater difficulty than was apprehended might be experienced in manning an armament, if that should become necessary. The seamen of the navy had been thrown ashore at the close of the late war, destitute of every means of subsistence, and had been compelled to stroll in want about the streets, or to banish themselves to America or any other foreign country that would afford them protection and employment.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, that so far from the sailors being thrown on the country at the peace, 35,000 of them were pensioned, and l,175 midshipmen had been promoted as a just reward for their services after a long war.
Mr. Gladstonewas able to state, as a ship-owner, that in his opinion there was at present no want of seamen. No rise had taken place in the rate of wages, and that he conceived to be the best test that there was no scarcity of sailors. He was decidedly of opinion, that our commercial navy was at present greater than it had been at any former period. The trade to the Brazils had opened a new avenue for commerce, and the private trade to India was greater than it had ever been before.
Dr. Lushingtonthought, that the committee had swerved widely from the question at issue. His hon. friend had objected to the vote on the ground that he had no estimate to direct his judgment, and in the propriety of that objection he fully concurred. The hon. baronet had said, that for many years it had been the practice to vote a sum for the expenses of a certain number of seamen on the word; of a lord of the Admiralty; and, if so, he thought it a practice "more honoured in the breach than the observance." It was certainly advisable, that some better mode should be adopted, and that the representatives of the people should be put in possession of a greater stock of knowledge before they came to a vote. There was another subject connected with the present vote which he could not pass over in silence. It was grievous to reflect, that the government, in the event of a war, would have to man the navy through the medium of impressment—would have
348
to take so large a number of men from their wives and families, and force them into the naval service. Nothing but an overruling necessity could warrant a practice so repugnant to humanity, and so incompatible with liberty. It should not be looked to as an established and constitutional usage; and he thought it the duty of the Admiralty to attempt to devise a plan by which this practice might be abolished, and some other, more humane and constitutional, might be substituted in its stead. He had himself known cases in which seamen returning from the East Indies, after an absence of two years, had been seized and sent off to the West Indies, without being allowed to see their families and settle their affairs. No consideration of money should weigh with a great and generous nation, to induce its acquiescence in such a horrid system. Protection was what the country wanted, in the employment of its navy, or any other warlike force, and any sum of money should be paid for that protection, in procuring men, rather than tolerate impressment. The system was, indeed, so odious to the House of Commons, upon its first proposition, by Sir George Wager, in 1731, that the clause respecting it was rejected. He was persuaded, that any lord of the Admiralty, who should set aside that system, or provide some substitute for it, would acquire immortal honour.
Sir. G. Cockburnsaid, that all were agreed as to the evils of impressment, and that it should not be resorted to but under the pressure of an overruling necessity. To reduce that necessity, the Admiralty had done all that was in its power; for, with the assistance of that House, pensions had been granted to 35,000 seamen upon the condition of their return to the service when called upon. But, if more men should be required, and the seamen engaged in the commercial service would not voluntarily enter into our ships of war, they must betaken; for, otherwise, what would become of our fleets? Those fleets were necessary for the protection of commerce, and therefore there was a pretty good understanding between commercial men and the Admiralty upon the subject. With regard to the allegation, that many seamen were seen nearly starving in the streets of London upon the termination of the war, he was convinced it would be more correct to say, that many were seen starving in seamen's jackets; for the fact

349
was, that out of a number received in the ships provided by the Admiralty for the relief of those persons, several were found never to have been in the navy.
Dr. Lushingtondisclaimed the intention of arraigning any set of men for acting upon an old practice. But he hoped, that as we were likely to have many years of peace, that an endeavour would be made to devise some plan for getting rid of a practice so abhorrent to humanity.
Mr. Creeveyreplied. He said, that the question before the committee was, to vote 22,000 men, including 8,000 marines, for the service of the current year. Now if that number was voted, it would be necessary to provide food and raiment for them. He therefore wished to do nothing in the dark, and asked for the papers which would explain the necessity of having so many men, and the mode in which the money to be granted would be expended. But, it was said, that this was a novel proceeding, and ought not to meet with the concurrence of the committee. New or old practice, it was one which, as the House of Commons distributed the public money, it ought to put into effect. If the hon. members opposite would not agree to his amendment, he should feel it his duty to divide the committee on every resolution proposed to it relative to the vote of seamen. Strangers were ordered to withdraw. Not less than five divisions took place on the separate resolutions for the vote of seamen; for victualling them; for clothing them; for the wear and tear of the ships, and to supply the necessary ordnance for their use. The number of members who voted on each division, was—For the amendment on each resolution, 11; Against it 41: Majority, 30.
The House having resumed,
Mr. Creeveysaid, he had remarked on a former occasion, that if a real farce were wanted, recommend him to a committee of supply! He had to inform the Speaker, that during his absence from the chair, the committee had, within the last 20 minutes, voted away sums to the amount of 1,900,000 l. Now there were 650 members of that House, trustees of the public money; 55 of whom only had been present during the time in which this money had been granted. There had been five divisions and the majorities by which it was voted amounted to 41, including the ministers. There was not one member who knew the purpose to which
350
the sums voted were to be applied. He himself, although there had been five motions, knew no more than the man in the moon what was the object of any one of them. He had made an effort to know what the money was voted for before it was granted, but he had been overpowered by numbers. It was his intention to take the first opportunity of introducing a measure, which would provide another and a different course of proceeding. If the people of England would look on and see their property disposed of as it was accustomed to be, they deserved any thing that might befal them. He trusted, however, that they would not, and that the table would be deluged with petitions and demands, until such a system was eradicated from the House.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that he had been at a loss, until that moment, to know upon what ground the hon. member had been occupying the time of the House for the last hour. The plan which he had adopted was not new, for about twenty years ago, two members of that House were in the constant practice of making similar motions.
Mr. Bennetthought it useless for the hon. member to speak when so few members were present, and therefore moved, that the House be counted.
The Speakercounted the House and the number of members present being only 26, the House adjourned.