Sitting of 17 February 1823

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—LONDON PETITION.—
The Sheriffs of London presented at the bar the petition of the corporation for a Reform of Parliament.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the petition was well deserving of attention. He was sorry not to see any of his majesty's ministers in the House, as he was desirous of hearing what support the petition was to receive from them, and what answer they could make to its statements. The petition complained of their conduct as the cause of much suffering. It set forth, that almost all of which it complained arose from the line of conduct pursued by ministers, and from the want of a proper representative system. It was not too much for him to say, that it emanated from as respectable a set of men as any in England. The members of the corporation amounted to 262; and they had all, with the exception of about 12, agreed to this petition. Many of them had been annually returned for fifty consecutive years; and whatever gentlemen might think of the city parliament, the elections were made in the different wards without riot and confusion. He would not then make all the use he might of this fact, in support of the principle of annual elections; but he would say, that when men were annually re-elected to offices of trust by those to whom they
126
were well known, and among whom they constantly resided, it was as strong a proof as could be given that they were very respectable. Their petition expressed sympathy with the distresses of the agriculturists; but the distress of which the petition complained, was not confined to them: it was also true of all the traders in London; profits were now so much reduced, that it was scarcely possible to bear up against the heavy taxation. The petition referred all the evils of the country to a want of a proper representation in parliament; and it prayed for economy in the public expenditure.
The petition being read,
Mr. Alderman Woodapologised for again troubling the House; but he now saw some of his majesty's ministers in their places, and should be glad to hear them express their opinions on the petition.
Mr. Secretary Canningdisclaimed any intention of not doing full honour to the worthy alderman and to the city; but he could not conceive any necessity for him to listen to the petition, as he had read it in all the newspapers some months ago.
Mr. Creeveythought, that one of the most important features in the petition was the statement applying to the population of England. It appeared, that between the year 1700 and the present time, our population had increased from five to twelve millions; and yet, during this increase of the population, the industry, and the wealth of the country, the elective franchise (as regarded the number of persons enjoying it) had been stationary, if not abating. For instance, 1,900 men in the county of Cornwall elected more members among them than were elected by one half the other counties in England; and this while new towns of immense consideration had sprung up, which were kept without any elective franchise at all. If these new towns, with populations of three or four hundred thousands—towns which contributed largely to the income, to the power, to the security of the state—if the inhabitants of these towns were totally shut out from the elective franchise, while 1,900 (he believed he might say) of the most worthless individuals in the country enjoyed an enormous, monopoly of it, surely all this called for something like revision. That part of the petition which complained of the

127
distribution of the elective franchise might have gone on to show the manner in which those privileges had been conferred. It was nonsense to talk of the immunities of these boroughs standing upon rights ancient and immutable—upon grants coeval with the existence of parliaments. This was all fable. In one period of 115 years, from Henry 8th to James 1st, no fewer than 190 members had been added to the House of Commons. Surely there was nothing sacred in privileges so given. In the reign of Elizabeth such great delicacy had not been observed, for a committee of the House had been appointed expressly to inquire, why certain members returned for a borough had been so returned. Why, six or seven boroughs in this very county of Cornwall owed their elective privilege to Edward 6th, who had begun to reign at nine years old, and died at fifteen. Surely the House which he was addressing was as well able to dispose of the elective franchise as Edward 6th could have been. He was decidedly of opinion, that, before the House discussed the question of reform, it ought to have upon the table an account, from the returning officers, of all the boroughs in England, containing the date of each borough's charter, the number of its electors, and the circumstances under which it first received the right of sending members to parliament. A committee appointed for the purpose would have no difficulty in obtaining such a return; and he believed that a noble friend of his would move for it.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, he would be in his place at every discussion of reform, and would give his opinion to the best of his ability.
Lord John Russellsaid, he saw so little objection to the proposal of Mr. Creevey, that he would move for the committee in question to-morrow. It gave him infinite satisfaction to see the growing interest which all classes were taking in the question of reform.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—
The order of the day was read, for going into a Committee of Supply. On the motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Creeveyrose to express his surprise at the mode in which ministers now-a-days called upon the House for supplies. He believed there was scarcely a difference of opinion upon the state of the country;
128
scarcely a denial that persons were every day falling from respectability, nay, from opulence, into absolute beggary; and yet the officers of the crown carne forward for supplies as a matter of course. He must really trespass shortly upon the time of the House, to compare the course which had been usual in days gone by—in days, however, when the royal prerogative had been by no means so well defined as at present, and when the burdens borne by the people had been considerably lighter;—he must compare the course adopted in those times with that taken in our days by the ministers of the crown. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, when sir E. Coke was speaker of the House, and when such men as lord Bacon and sir Walter Raleigh took part in the debates; in that day, sir Walter Midway, chancellor of the exchequer, on asking the house for a supply, expressed himself in the following terms:—"But, least that peradventure some may judge that the contribution granted by us now five years past, both frankly and dutifully, might suffice for many years without any new, I dare assure you, for the acquaintance that I have (though I be unworthy) with those her majesty's affairs, that the same hath not been sufficient to answer the extraordinary charges, happened since then, especially those of Ireland, by the one-half; but her majesty hath supplied the rest out of her own revenues, sparing from herself to serve the necessity of the realm, and shunning thereby loans upon interest, as a most pestilential canker, that is able to devour even the states of princes." The generosity of the queen in that instance was not less than the wisdom of the minister. But now, although we had a pestilential canker of eight hundred millions devouring us, ministers came down for money as though nothing were the matter. But, to give the House a second instance of the state in which such matters were formerly conducted, in the 38th of Elizabeth, upon a question of money, sir Robert Cecil brought forward the motion for supply; and sir John Fortescue, chanceller of the exchequer, in supporting the motion, after stating all the queen had done at home and abroad in defending her neighbours and her kingdom against the power of Spain, said—"Besides, when her majesty came to the crown, she found it four millions indebted; her navy, when she came to

129
view it, she found greatly decayed; yet all this she has discharged, and, thanks to God, is nothing indebted: and now she is able to match any prince in Europe, which the Spaniards found when they came to invade us. Yea, she hath with her ships compassed the whole world, whereby this land is made famous throughout all places. As for her own private expenses, they have been little in building; she hath consumed little or nothing in her pleasures; as for her apparel, it is royal and princely, beseeming her calling, but not sumptuous nor excessive; the charges of her house small; yea, never less in any king's time, and shortly, by God's grace, she will free her subjects from that trouble which hath come by the means of purveyors. Wherefore she trusteth that every good subject will assist her majesty with his purse, seeing it concerns his own good and the preservation of his estate, and for these subsidies which are granted, now they are less by half than they were in Henry 8th's time."—Now, all this took place just after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and at a time, therefore, when the people would probably have granted the queen any thing she could have asked. Why, when the ministers of the present day came to ask for supply, did they not come in the same tone, and with something like the same assurances; with statements of economy carried into practice, and promises of the abolition of grievances? When the agriculturists were involved in ruin—when they were suffering from the change in the state of the currency,—would it not be reasonable that at least every official salary which had been raised during the depreciation should be reduced to its original level? Was the landed interest, in addition to its other miseries, resulting from the sudden and unjustifiable recourse which was had to a metallic currency, to bear also the burden of salaries which had been increased on account of the former depreciation of that currency? Ought they not to be reduced, now that the currency had so far increased in value? This applied to persons of all descriptions who held places, from the highest to the lowest. These sinecures had been tolerated long enough. It was the duty of ministers to abolish them forthwith; and this they ought especially to have done, before they came to ask the House to vote fresh supplies. If the ministers of Elizabeth
130
thought it their duty to preface their motion for supplies, with a communication that the grievance of purveyances had been abated, so much the more were we now entitled to relief, from the no less burdensome grievance of sinecures—that immense load, which, for the enjoyment of the privileged orders, was laid upon the other members of the community. It would have been far more consistent with their duty, if ministers had recommended the crown to sacrifice a part of its revenue to the wants of the people. No man living could tell what might be the result of the country's situation. No man could say whether the present distresses might not end in a conflict for the possession of property. Let any one look at the temper displayed at the county meetings which were daily taking place: let them look at the heart-burnings which existed between persons having opposite interests, and different descriptions of property. He knew of only one thing which could prevent a fatal termination to this state of things, and that was economy—strict and universal economy. If the crown would give up part of the civil list, he had no doubt that so noble an example would be followed by the most beneficial consequences. He was naturally led to ask the reason of the difference between the mode of granting supplies now, and at the period to which he had alluded. In the time of Elizabeth, the supplies had been considered as sacrifices on the part of the subject, which were to be appropriated to public purposes. The members, and those whom they represented, had one common object. The House of Commons had not then invented or discovered the means of applying the supplies to their own private benefit and emolument. A perfect revolution had been effected in this respect in the House and in the country. Eight hundred millions of debt, conquests in every quarter of the globe, with corresponding establishments, had placed the administration of the country in such a condition as could not have been imagined in the time of queen Elizabeth. The ministers of the crown had introduced the patronage derived from all these sources into the House of Commons. He did not state this invidiously; but it was the fact. It was known that ministers possessed the power of giving away all offices; and members very naturally thought their sons, their relations, or their friends, were

131
as fit to fill them as other persons. This it was that had created a revolution in the character of the House; and this he maintained to be the true solution of the difference between the manner of asking supplies now, and then. To ask for them now, was only to ask members to help themselves, and to supply their families and friends. It was known to every one, that in the report of the committee relative to the offices of receivers-general, it appeared that two or three members had been scrambling for the same place. In the time even of Edward 1st, and in various subsequent reigns, there was a constant clause in all subsidy bills, that no member of the House of Commons should be a collector, whereas now, as had been just observed, we had it in proof, that the collection of the land-tax had become the regular patronage and property of this House. The constitution was now no longer composed of that equal and wholesome division of power between the King, the Lords, and the Commons; but between the minister of the crown and this House, one of whom held the power, and the other the patronage, of the state. Much was said of the splendor of the crown; but if it were to be compared with that which was displayed by queen Elizabeth, it would be seen that it was now reduced to a mere raree show. We heard of the king being ill or well, and of his making occasional excursions; but we had no satisfactory, no intimate knowledge of him. He was, in fact, a mere splendid annuitant upon his ministers; but, as for the sympathy between the court and the people, which had distinguished the era to which he had so often been compelled to refer, there was not a vestige of it left. Not only had this revolution taken place; but officers of state had been introduced, whose names had never been heard of before. The manager of the House of Commons was now talked of as familiarly as the first lord of the Admiralty: he was a recognized officer, and such a one as never could have arisen but from the cause he had stated. He would beg permission to quote to the House a speech of lord Bacon, on this subject, who, in that very place, had treated as a chimera the attempt to manage the House of Commons. It was delivered in the first year of the reign of James 1st, who, when he came to the throne, was much more anxious to obtain money than the House was willing to grant it to
132
him. It was rumoured, that certain officious members had undertaken to get for the king the supplies he wanted. The debate was conducted with considerable heat, and the matter treated as a violation of the duty of the House. Lord Bacon, who was then the attorney-general, and sitting in parliament, made the following speech:—
"Mr. Speaker;—I have been hitherto silent in this matter of undertaking, wherein the House is much enwrapped first, because, to be plain with you, I did not well understand what it meant or what it was, and I do not love to offer at that that I do not thoroughly conceive—that private men should undertake for the Commons of England! Why, a man might as well undertake for the four elements. It is a thing so giddy and so vast, it cannot enter into the head of a sober man, and especially in a new parliament, when it was impossible to know who should be of the parliament; and when all men that know ever so little the constitution of this House, do know it to be so open to reason, as men do not know when they enter into these doors, what mind themselves will be of until they hear things argued and debated; much less can any man make a policy of assurance what ship shall come safe into the harbour in these seas. There were undertakers for the plantations of Derry and Coleraine, in Ireland, the better to command and bridle those pacts; but for the ancient parliament of England, which moves in a certain manner and sphere, to be undertaken, it passes my reach to conceive what it should be. Must there be some forts built in this House that may command and contain the rest? Mr. Speaker, I know but two forts in this House, which the king ever hath—the fort of affection, and the fort of reason: the one commands the hearts, and the other commands the heads; and others I know none. Then for the king, nothing can be more opposite to his ends and hopes than this, for you have heard him profess like a king, and like a gracious king—that he Both not so much respect his present supply as the demonstration, that the people's hearts are more knit to him than before. Now, then, if the issue shall be this, that whatsoever shall be done for him, shall be thought to be done but by a number of persons that shall be laboured and packed, this will be rather a sign of diffidence and alienation, than of a natural

133
benevolence and affection in his people at home; and rather matter of disreputation than of honour abroad. So that, to speak plainly, the king had better call for a new pair of cards than play upon these if they be packed; and then for the people, it is my manner ever to look as well beyond a parliament as upon a parliament; and if they abroad shall think themselves betrayed by those that are their deputies and attorneys here, it is true we may bind them and conclude them, but it will be with such murmur and insatisfaction as I would be loth to see. These things might be dissembled, and so things left to bleed inwardly; but that is not the way to cure them and therefore I have searched the sore, in hope that you will endeavour the medicine."—Now, that which lord Bacon had discussed as a mere chimera, had actually come to pass. The cards were now packed; that House was packed. His hon. friend, the member for Shrewsbury, had shown, by the report from that committee, which had been instituted upon his motion, that there were 79 members of the House who held offices to the amount in value of 180,000 l. per annum. These members might be called the court cards of the pack, and in all committees of supply there would be found the same cards. But these, numerous as they were, were inconsiderable, compared with those who were bound to ministers by benefits, received by different parts of their families. If a list could be shown of all the persons who had applied for a share of the advantages of this patronage, and added to the 79 other persons, it would be seen that the majority preponderated so far as to render it vain to expect any relief for the necessities of the country. This, then, was the manner in which supplies were now voted. He would do all that the forms in the House would allow him upon the present occasion; and he would propose, by way of amendment, "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they do consider of the grievances of the people." This had been done, over and over again; and the right of discussing grievances before supplies, had been always asserted in better times.
The Speakerhaving put the amendment, strangers were ordered to withdraw; when Mr. Creevey said, he should not give the House the trouble of dividing; but would content himself with recording his own sentiments upon the Journals, and letting his amendment be negatived.
Mr. Canningsaid, he did not propose to answer what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, because he believed no one who had heard his speech, could understand any practical benefit which he had proposed by it. He did not mean, if the amendment had not been withdrawn, to have opposed it; nor should he have added another word, but for the mention which had been made of one exalted personage, whose name he could not use consistently with the forms of parliament. That personage had been singularly, and he thought unconstitutionally, introduced into the speech just delivered. He should have thought, that, in common justice, the sacrifices which had been made by the crown for a series of years, and the disposition which had been unceasingly manifested for the reduction of every unnecessary expense, deserved from the hon. gentleman very different treatment.
Mr. W. Lambexpressed his surprise at the line of argument adopted by the hon. member for Appleby. It was most unsatisfactory and inconclusive to go back to the period when the privilege of purveyance existed—that privilege which gave to the agents of the monarch the right to seize, in every market or other place, provisions and other things necessary for the supply of the court; and which was, of all other branches of the prerogative, the most tyrannical and intolerable. Nothing could be more marked than the distinction between those times and our own. The Revolution had altered the situation in which the granting of supplies had previously been placed. Before that period, the crown had been possessed of large territories, from which it derived considerable revenues, and which could be made available in cases of emergency. The abolition of the feudal tenures had deprived it of this revenue, and had thrown it upon the liberality of parliament for the support of its honour and dignity. To hesitate to vote the supplies, would be to doubt the propriety of giving effect to the operations of the government.
Mr. Humesaid, that the state of the crown lands was one of those subjects which called for the attention of the House, and which ought to be looked to before the supplies were granted. They had been given up by the crown; and, by an act of the first of queen Anne, they had been placed apart, for the express purpose of relievin the burdens of the people. He did not

135
complain of this change, which was really excellent; but he complained that, instead of producing between 40 and 50,000 l. per annum, they were swallowed by pensions. The evil, however, did not exist in one department alone. He hoped some of the members of the Irish committee were present. By a paper then before the House, it was pointed out, that in the customs of the port of Dublin, the collection cost 84,000 l. Mr. Richmond, judging what the expense of the collection ought to be, by that which was incurred in London, had recommended it to be reduced 42,000 l., and that of the out-ports 35,000 l., making a reduction of 77,000 l. That report had remained a dead letter; and when en he had submitted certain propositions to the House on the subject, they had been negatived by a large majority. He held in his hand a practical proof how far ministers were inclined to continue an overgrown establishment. A committee, of which he had been a member, had unanimously recommended that 65 receivers-general should be reduced. To his surprise, a whole year had been suffered to elapse, without any practical benefit resulting from that recommendation. With respect to the sums paid to the distributors of stamps, the poundage amounted to 5 and 6 per cent, when it ought only to be at the rate of 2 per cent; and the public were made to pay 85,000 l. when they ought only to pay 30,000 l. He hoped his hon. friend would take the sense of the House upon his motion, in order to impress upon members the necessity of considering the grievances of the people, before they voted away the public money by millions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Robinson) begged to remind the hon. gentleman, that the government had given its cordial assent to one of the measures of economy winch had been recommended, and had carried it into effect by an act of parliament. As to the first topic, that of the crown lands, the hon. gentleman was entirely mistaken. The revenue arising from them was regularly carried to account. He was no holder of crown lands, but he knew many individuals who were; and he would venture to state, that of all the severe landlords in the country, the crown was the most so. It was provided by law, that they should be let to the highest bidder. The last holder of the lease had the option of taking a renewal at the rate fixed on by a
136
sworn surveyor; but if he refused, it was let by auction. It was impossible to make a lease of the crown lands a matter of favour in any instance. They certainly did not bring in so large a revenue as 40,000 l., although he knew that in one of the reports, a hope had been held out that they might ultimately amount to that sum. But the hon. gentleman appeared to forget that a large portion of them consisted of forest land; and it had been recommended by a committee of the House, that the crown lands should be employed in the growth of timber for the use of the navy. The amount of the revenue of the crown lands had, during the last five or six years, been small; but this circumstance was capable of satisfactory explanation. A few years ago it had been thought advisable to appropriate the proceeds of the crown lands to building the new street in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly. The produce of fines and leases had been appropriated to the purchase of the sites of houses in the line of this street. The hon. gentleman might think this an improper mode of applying the money; but it was sanctioned by parliament, and no individual received the smallest advantage from it.
The motion was negatived, and the House resolved itself into the committee of supply.

MARRIAGE ACT.—
Several petitions were presented, complaining of the clause in the new Marriage act, which took away from peculiars the privilege of granting marriage licences.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that with regard to this point, no information had been given to the House either by learned lords, or by the right rev. bench, and thus the House had been induced to agree to a clause in the act of last session, taking away from peculiars the right of granting marriage licences without being aware of the extent of the inconvenience thus created, or the vested rights with which they had thus interfered.
Lord Redesdalesaid, he took the blame of the clause to himself. The fact was, that he was not aware of the number of peculiars having the right of granting licences, nor was it, he believed, at all known in the House.
Lord Stowellobserved, that though immediately connected with the administration of justice in the ecclesiastical courts, he was not at all aware of the number of peculiars having the right of granting licences, nor was it known to the right rev. bench, it not coming at all under their cognizance.
Lord Ellenboroughhoped there would be no objection to restoring the rights of these peculiars, founded as they were upon immemorial usage.
Lord Stowellsaid, he had no objection to a clause of that nature.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would not pledge himself upon this question, without knowing more of the nature of these peculiars.
Lord Redesdalewas of opinion, that none of the rights of these peculiars could be of older date than the Reformation, and it was doubtful whether some of them would bear the test of inquiry, or whether the exercise of them had not been assumed in consequence of grants of property to ecclesiastical corporations or individuals.
The Lord Chancellorwas apprehensive, that in some of those jurisdictions called peculiars, licences had been granted, which were not legal, before the parties were aware of the operation of the act of last session; and though he had felt it a painful duty to oppose the retrospective clauses in the act of last session, he should be perfectly ready to agree to a retrospective clause, for the purpose of giving a legal effect to the licences so illegally granted, in order to prevent the unhappy consequences that might otherwise arise, with regard to the marriages solemnized by virtue of such licences.
Lord Stowell,with the view of framing a measure that should be generally and clearly understood, moved the appointment of a committee, to consider the present state of the law regarding marriages, and whether any and what amendment ought to be made therein.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

AUSTRIAN LOAN.—
Several petitions were presented, complaining of Agricultural Distress.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he thought it a fit opportunity, when petitions were presented, complaining of distress which unfortunately was but too well known to exist, to ask a question of the noble earl opposite, regarding a large sum of money which had, for a considerable period, been due to this country. There was but too much reason to complain of the sums which had been lavishly wasted during the progress of the war, and in particular of one large advance to a continental power, which ought to have been long since repaid. He alluded to what had been called the Austrian Loan. It had been understood last session, that a negociation was to take place respecting

125
this loan, at the congress of Verona. Now, as that congress had been for some time broken up and dissolved, he wished to know from the noble earl whether an arrangement had been agreed upon, which held out any hope of the repayment of the loan.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the Austrian loan being merely a transaction between the government of this country and that of Austria, could not become a subject of discussion, either at the congress of Vienna or of Verona. It was true, however, that a noble friend of his had intimated in the last session, that a negociation was in progress with the court of Vienna upon this subject; and he had no hesitation in saying, that the principle of an arrangement for the repayment of the loan had been agreed to by the Austrian government. He trusted he should soon be enabled to announce, that the arrangement had been concluded.