Sitting of 15 July 1828

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonrose to move, that an Address be presented to His Majesty representing, "That this House has observed with great satisfaction, that the original Natives of South Africa have always been recognized by the British government as a free people, having a lawful abode in the Colony; and that the British government has promised to protect their persons, property, and possessions, the same as those of other free people:—That this House humbly solicits His Majesty to cause such instructions to be sent to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, as shall most effectually secure to all the Natives of South Africa, the same freedom and protection as are enjoyed by other free people of that Colony,
1694
whether English or Dutch:—That this House further humbly requests His Majesty to order Copies of Extracts of the Special Reports of the Commissioners at the Cape of Good Hope, relative to the condition of the Hottentots and Bushmen; together with the Papers given in to the Commissioners by Dr. Philip, and the Memorials addressed to the Colonial Office by the Directors of the London Missionary Society, to be laid before this House." He had intended to have entered into the details of the grievances to which the Hottentots were exposed, at the hands of their Christian neighbours; but he abstained from this course, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies, did not intend to oppose his motion. He should merely observe, that although the Hottentots were perfectly free by law, they were treated entirely as slaves. Lord Caledon, when governor of the Cape, had declared them to be, in every respect, a free people, and had directed that they should be so treated. Another governor, when applied to by the colonists to compel the Hottentots to forced services, had replied, that "they had no more right to compel the Hottentots to serve the settlers, than the Hottentots had to compel the settlers to serve them." Something ought to be done without delay, to remedy the treatment under, which these people were suffering. He referred gentlemen who wished to be acquainted with the subject, to Dr. Philip's
"Researches in Southern Africa;" a work which contained more information on the subject, than any book he had ever read.
Sir G. Murraysaid, he concurred generally in the views of the hon. member.: He had nothing more at heart than to make all classes in the colonies sensible, that his majesty was desirous to extend to them protection equal to that enjoyed by his subjects in any other part of his dominions.—The motion was agreed to.

PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY—CONDUCT OF SIR JOHN NICHOLL.
Mr. Humesaid, he was compelled to postpone presenting a petition complaining of proceedings in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and of the conduct of sir John Nicholl, of which he had given notice. Having been absent from town, he had not had time to see that the allegations in the petition were confirmed by affidavits. It was, therefore, his intention to postpone his motion till to-morrow.
Sir J. Nichollsaid, he was quite ready to meet any charge which might be preferred against him, and thought it rather hard that the hon. member should decline proceeding with his accusation that day, after having published a notice to that effect all over the kingdom. He could justify his conduct, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the House. Under the impression that the petition would have been that day presented, he had disposed of all the business of his court, and made arrangements to leave town with his family to-morrow. He should certainly expect the hon. gentleman to proceed according to his notice. He was ready to assume that the statements of the petition were confirmed by affidavit.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the hon. member should have ascertained whether there were grounds for the complaint before he had given notice of presenting such a petition.
Sir J. Nichollsaid, the hon. member had given notice of a motion for that night, directed against him; and here he was in his place to meet the charge. But the hon. gentleman had postponed his motion, on the ground of his not being prepared with affidavits to substantiate his statements. He could not help thinking it hard that he and his family should be obliged to remain in town, in order to meet the convenience of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member ought to have satisfied himself, that the allegations contained in the petition were well founded, before he came forward to impugn the character of a gentleman who had filled a high judicial situation for twenty years, without the slightest imputation upon that character. Every one knew how painful such a charge was however triumphant might ultimately be the answer to it; for there were always to be found persons ready to believe that there existed some foundation for it. It was a grievous thing that there should exist in this country a lion's mouth, into which all sorts of vague accusations might be cast, and from which charges could proceed without the slightest foundation. If the hon. member did not bring forward his charge that night, he should not consider it necessary to remain in town, but should leave the matter in the hands of his hon. friends [cheers].
Mr. Humesaid, he had read the petition, and believed the allegations which it contained; but, because he thought it
1696
necessary to require explanation, that was not a ground for accusing him with acting harshly towards the right hon. gentleman.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that if the hon. member had no other evidence respecting the transactions which formed the subject of the petition, than statements derived from the person who signed it, or from his solicitor, he was conversant with every part of the case which related to the right hon. judge, and he pledged his character to the fact, that there never had been a charge brought before the House, more totally destitute of truth. He should not do justice to the right hon. judge, in whose court he had practised for twenty years, if he did not avail himself of that opportunity, not only of bearing testimony to the assiduity, ability, and impartiality with which he had presided in that court, but also of stating that the petition in question came before the House under the name of an individual who was not its author. It came, in reality, from a pettifogging attorney, who had been guilty of perjury, and had attempted extortion.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that nothing could be more unjust than the course which the hon. gentleman had pursued. This was another abuse of the privileges of the House. After giving notice of a charge against the right hon. gentleman, was it fair in the hon. member to say he had been out of town, and was unable to make himself master of the accusation? The character of the right hon. judge was a sufficient protection against vague and groundless accusations: but such might not be the case in every instance.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, it was an extreme grievance that a notice, like the one in question, should have been circulated all over the country. The right hon. judge had presided over his court for twenty years, and it was universally admitted, that in no court was justice more expeditiously or impartially administered. When this right hon. judge came down to meet a charge of which notice had been publicly given, the hon. member said he would put it off. If the hon. member did not bring it forward now, he was bound not to do so after the right hon. gentleman had left town.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the right hon. gentleman thought it worth while to vindicate his character, he would remain in town twenty-four hours for that purpose. He would present the petition on Tours-

1697
day, let the right hon. gentleman attend or not.

BRITISH MERCHANTS' CLAIMS ON SPAIN.
Sir James Mackintoshrose to call the attention of the Mouse to a case of no ordinary importance, as affecting the interests of a variety of British Merchants trading to, resident in, or connected with, Spain. He was charged with presenting in behalf of those persons a petition, enumerating the harassing delays and disappointments they had experienced in their attempts to recover their property, or a compensation for its loss, under a convention concluded between his majesty's government and the king of Spain in the spring of 1823. He believed there was not on record a more manifest, obstinate, and inflexible, instance of denial of justice than this, on the part of the king of Spain towards British subjects. Their losses amounted to above 3,000,000 l. sterling; and as the amount of wrong was by far the largest that had ever yet been brought before the House, so the character of the claim was the most simple, clear, and hard to be disputed, because it was founded on the letter of an express treaty. In dwelling thus on the hardship of their case, he was not disposed, any more than the petitioners, to throw blame upon our own government. Great credit had been acquired by Mr. Canning, for his efforts to secure a just indemnification for these individuals. From lord Dudley the claims of these individuals had received a due consideration; and they were disposed to expect similar attention from the present noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Their claims had no reference to the losses experienced by the unfortunate individuals who had engaged in the Spanish loans; though far be it from him to say one word which might tend to shake the validity of their claims. The case of the petitioners was shortly this:—In the long struggle of the Spanish people against French usurpation, about the period of 1808, many British individuals, then connected by commercial habits with Spain, as well as others not so, furnished the Spanish forces and authorities with stores, provisions, and various goods, for which they received vouchers, in some instances, to which the authorities themselves had not hesitated to affix their names. The claims, in some cases, were founded on acts of these authorities, by which British subjects
1698
were forced to contribute to the immediate exigencies of the times by forced loans or other illegal exactions. To these were added, losses at sea by British subjects, in consequence of their ships or property being detained on the high sea, and sometimes illegally confiscated and sold, by Spanish cruisers and ships of war. The claims of these persons were permitted to remain unadjusted from 1808 to 1823.—In the latter year, on the 12th of March, it was agreed between this government and that of Spain, by treaty, that these claims should be referred to a mixed commission of Spanish and English commissioners, who were "to decide on these claims in a summary way," in order to repay such British subjects as had suffered in consequence of the detention of their property under any of these circumstances. This commission met in October, 1823, and above three hundred claims were referred to it. In many instances several of these claims were combined in one; so that, in the whole, the number of claimants exceeded one thousand five hundred, and the amount of the claims between three and four millions sterling. Before these commissioners, every possible expedient had been resorted to, to delay the chances of indemnification. During eighteen months in which the commissioners sat, no more than eighteen claims were allowed out of three hundred and thirty; and only four claims out of these eighteen were determined to be just. Thus several persons whose property had been seized on the high seas, sixteen years before, contrary to the law of nations, were reduced to poverty. The secret, however, of these delays was soon after revealed. A suggestion was made by a person connected with the government of Spain, that the proceedings, under a commission of this nature, were always so excessively dilatory, that it would be advisable to make an offer to accept a given sum in liquidation of the whole demand. This sum was fixed at 800,000 l.; and they were given to understand, that this would be the amount likely to be afforded by Spain, in discharge of claims amounting to upwards of 3,000,000 l. Upon this suggestion the British merchants agreed to act; and they made a proposal which was copied from the plan of the Spanish agent himself, who had originated the suggestion. It produced, contrary to expectation, no good result; and the only object which

1699
the Spanish government, or their agents, appeared to have in contemplation was, to induce the claimants to make a proposition, in order that they might have it in their power to quote the sum so proposed, as an admission that, in point of fact, no more was due. The Spanish government, through its agents, then proposed to pay a sum of 500,000 l., thus abating the diminished claim of the petitioners, and acting in such a manner as, had an attorney in one of our courts of law so acted, would have subjected him to be struck off the rolls. Indeed, an offer of this nature between private parties, with a view to the adjustment of a disputed claim, could not have been adducible, for the purpose of reducing the amount of their claim, in a court of law. As an additional breach of faith, it must be observed, that the Spanish minister at London, in 1824, had told their agent that such a reduction of their demand should be without prejudice to their claim. Yet, so far from this promise being kept, it was made, in the spring of 1826, a proof that such was the maximum of their demand. The next step was still more disgraceful. The Spanish agent professed to Mr. Cock, that his government was willing, as a proof of the honour which distinguished the Castilian character, to add to 500,000 l. already offered, an additional 50,000 l. Such was the mean and paltry higgling adopted on this occasion, that it almost amounted to a clear evasion of the claim, or an attempt to annihilate it altogether. For some time matters remained in this state of uncertainty, until the gentlemen intrusted to manage for the British claims were invited to Paris, where they had an interview with two Spanish authorities intimately connected with the court, one of them the keeper of the Great Book of Spain, where they received assurances, further corroborated by the letter of the duke of Villa-Hermosa, that the agreement they might then enter into would be final and conclusive; in consequence of which, in February, 1827, they agreed, by convention, to pay three million sterling in two months. Mr. Cock having received assurances that he might consider this matter finally settled, and that he had succeeded in his object, returned to this country.—In about two months afterwards the claimants were informed, that the Spanish agents had, in this instance, exceeded their authority, and that their convention,
1700
together with the letter of the Spanish ambassador in Paris, were of no avail.—He was afraid that nobody who had heard him was aware of the high genealogy of the duke of Villa Hermosa; for their information he would acquaint them, that this duke was a descendant of the Castilian peer of that name, at whose castle on the Ebro, Don Quixote had been entertained, as described by the immortal Cervantes. Surprising as it was, this nobleman, distinguished by his Castilian blood and high rank, still condescended to remain in the service of that monarch, who had not hesitated thus shamefully to violate the pledge given through him to the claimants. He could not envy him the feeling which had prompted him to continue in that service; still less the facility with which he had received from this royal dispenser of honours, the Order of the Golden Fleece of Spain, within one short month of that period, when he had thus dishonoured his representative, by retracting the execution of that which might be considered a common duty of honesty. In this train things continued till the arrival of the Count Ofalia in London. During twelve months afterwards, ineffectual offers were made to effect an arrangement; until the court of Madrid, through the count, raised the offer from the 550,000 l. formerly made, to 700,000 l.; adopting, in this instance, a system which would have disgraced a pedlar. These worthy personages had since raised the offer of indemnification to 900,000 l.—After, therefore, the majority of the claimants had been actually in a starving condition in consequence of the injustice inflicted upon them, it would, perhaps, be wise to attempt to induce them to silence their indignation, and to accept this inadequate sum; but the danger was, that if they now abated their claims, after three years struggling to establish them, this, as in the former instance, would be taken as the maximum of their demand; and the agents thought it would be unsafe for their friends, and treacherous in themselves, thus to violate those rights and claims which the petitioners held under sanction of the law of nations. Under circumstances so mean, base, and ungenerous, he thought there could be no possible defence set up for the conduct of the court of Spain. The letter of the minister of the King of Spain, would, in his mind, have been legal evidence in a court,

1701
were the case between two private individuals. The justice of their case could not be doubted, and it had, to a certain extent, been admitted. The only hope he had was, that the House, on such an occasion, would be disposed to strengthen the hands of ministers by some manifestation of its opinion, of so formal and solemn a nature, that the artifices even of Spanish Diplomatists would be of no avail against the clearly-expressed opinion of the Commons of Great Britain. For that reason he should reserve to himself the right of proposing an Address to his Majesty; and he was the more disposed to do so, because he had heard that there were Spanish agents in some parts of Europe, and in this country, who declared, that they did not believe that this country was in a condition to risk a vigorous application in behalf of the claimants. He could not trust himself to comment on so flagrant an insinuation. He was sure the feelings of the House must be strongly excited by the bare possibility of the circumstance he had stated. But he did not desire to address himself to these feelings. He disclaimed any such intention; but he did say, that unless we gave some formal mark of our resolution to support ministers, we might seem to countenance these injurious and impudent assertions. He had some reason to believe, that the partisans of such proceedings as he had described, knowing the feelings with which they must be viewed by a British House of Commons, would be disposed still further to protract the settlement of these claims, if they were aware that so troublesome an assembly as that was to be silenced for six months. While he could not consent to delay, he should, in the first instance, move only that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that men of higher honour than the petitioners were not to be found in the city of London. He felt bound to support their claims with all the energy of which he was capable. Many of those persons had been reduced from affluence to a state of abject poverty. One of them had been living on the bounty of his friends, expecting daily an adjudication in his favour; but having sunk under his misfortunes, he was now the inmate of a public hospital. If that unhappy situation was the result of any fault of his own, his case might not call for the interposition of
1702
parliament; but no such charge was alleged against him. His property was taken from him on the high seas, without any other plea than that of necessity.
Mr. Fergussonsaid, he would confine himself to the single point of the imperative duty which had devolved upon government to see the convention fulfilled. Here was a case in which a regular arrangement had been made between a person in the confidence of the Spanish court. It was not denied that the agents of the court of Madrid had acted with full powers; but it was alleged that they had exceeded their instructions. Now, suppose the British claimants had agreed to accept 500,000 l. for their indemnification, would they not have been bound by the act of their agent so stipulating? Why, then, was the act of the Spanish agents to be avoided, because the sum was larger than their government were willing to pay? If this were the case of mere individuals, no question could possibly be raised against it. This was not a matter of private grievance, neither was it a case of political or commercial delinquency.—It was a public case, involving loss of public character, if the terms of it were left unfulfilled, and one fit for government to see redressed, at the risk of the utmost extremity.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, it was quite impossible to deny the undoubted justice of the claims of the petitioners—claims recognised and ratified by a solemn convention, and the right hon. gentleman had borne testimony to the exertions of those who had attempted to give effect to that convention. He knew that Mr. Canning, and after him lord Dudley, had given their utmost attention to those claims. His noble friend, who at present presided over the Foreign Department, had been so much occupied, since his entrance into office, that he had not been able to attend to that particular subject. He nevertheless believed, that nothing was more on his noble friend's mind, than to obtain justice for the petitioners. If, having said thus much, he should offer any opposition to the motion, he trusted it would not be attributed to any intention to oppose claims, the justice of which he had already proclaimed. He thought the right hon. gentleman himself must see, that the manifestation of the opinion of the House would be sufficient for his object. He thought also that to pledge the House to

1703
follow up the motion by an address to the Crown, was a proceeding not called for by the case in question. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be called upon to pledge itself to ulterior proceedings, on a subject respecting which negotiations were still pending. He was enabled. to say, that a greater probability existed at present of an amicable settlement of the matter than at any former period; and it was only an act of justice to the count d'Ofalia to declare, that he was most anxious to bring the affair to a conclusion. The count had full powers for that purpose, and had made a proposition, the difference between the sum mentioned in which, and that claimed by the petitioners, was not so material as to forbid the hope that the affair would be amicably settled.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that the discussion had offered the best answer to the calumnies which had been circulated in another place, that the new South American States had so misconducted themselves, since their independence had been established, that the best thing that could be done would be to replace them under the dominion of the parent state. Now, it had been proved, in the case before the House, that the conduct of that parent state had been of a much more flagrant nature, than either Europe or America had furnished an lexample of. He feared, from what had already occurred, that the present government of this country was not disposed to press the claims of the petitioners on Spain, as vigorously as their predecessors had done, in the time of the Cortes; and he saw no reason why the present Spanish government should be treated with more indulgence than the government of the Cortes.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he trusted that the period was near at hand, when the claimants would obtain that fair compromise which, under all the circumstances, could be accepted by them; always providing that such compromise was binding on the king of Spain, and to be forthwith bona fide executed by the payment of the promised sum. He believed, however, that the great difficulty on the part of Spain, had not been so much any pertinacious desire to refuse payment, as her absolute difficulty of finding the means of satisfying the demands upon her. He would take upon himself to say, that Great Britain had never urged any point more
1704
anxiously, with a view not only to the interests of the British subjects, but to the honour of the two countries. That was the course pursued by Mr. Canning and by lord Dudley; and he was happy to find that there was now a prospect of seeing the object attained. Under those circumstances, he was sure the right lion, gentleman would feel that there was no necessity for pressing his motion.
Sir J. Mackintoshobserved, that the claimants had so often expressed themselves willing to accept of a fair compromise, that he could not think of urging them to adopt a course, towards which they were so perfectly disposed already.—He could not help thinking, however, that the declaration of the right hon. gentleman as to the anxiety with which this government had urged the claim of common honesty upon the government of Spain, and, as the result had proved, with so little success, afforded no great prospect of a satisfactory arrangement.—In conclusion, he took it to be the understanding of the House, as much so as if they had expressed it by resolution, that he now abstained from urging the claim, from the conviction that government would take the most effectual means in their power to procure compensation for the petitioners.
Ordered to lie on the table.

NATIONAL DEBT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that in the general view which the chancellor of the Exchequer had taken of our finances, he for the most part cordially concurred: but there was no opinion of his right hon. friend in which he more cordially concurred, than that in which he declared, that we ought to have no Sinking-fund save that which was produced by the surplus of our revenue above our expenditure. Though he was not prepared to quarrel with the proposed reduction in the Sinking-fund, he was disposed to lament that that fund would not he larger in amount. A Sinking-fund of 3,000,000 l. was, in his opinion, much too small, when compared with the debt, to the reduction of which it was to be -appropriated. Their first care should be to guard against an increase of the debt, and he was therefore for applying whatever surplus there existed to its reduction. He wished also to state, that,

1705
in his view of the matter, to the unfunded debt of the country, a jealous attention ought to be paid. Taking all the circumstances of this unfunded debt into account, and connecting it with the present engagements and advances of the Bank of England, he was satisfied that there was ground for prospective disquietude and alarm. In 1819, when we were called upon to consider of the resumption of cash payments, we were told by the Bank of England, that it was necessary that we should pay them the 10,000,000 l., advanced by them to the government on Exchequer bilk. The 10,000,000 l. were re-paid; but since then more than that sum had been advanced by the Bank to the government, and that in a manner which placed the money less under their control, than when they advanced it on Exchequer bills, and under circumstances which, should a case of emergency arise, would place the country in a situation of difficulty, and possibly of eventual loss. In 1823, the Bank contracted with the government for what was called the Deadweight, that was the purchase of annuities to the amount of 585,000 l. for forty-four years. Now, certainly, at the time this contract was made, it was the expectation, he did not mean to say of the directors of the Bank, but of those who treated with them on the part of government, and also the expectation of the public, that the annuity so purchased by them should be gradually distributed and sold to the public. Otherwise the Bank keeping the whole of the annuity, and paying not less than 13,000,000 l. during forty-four years, might as well have had its-capital invested in land, houses, or in any thing else not convertible into the means of meeting other engagements.—Had it been intended, on the part of the directors, to keep the annuity permanently, the natural thing to have done was, to have called together the whole body of the Bank proprietors, and to have stated to them, that such was the nature of the contract, that it was an advantageous arrangement with the government and them, and to have called upon them to advance the necessary capital. In that case the public would have dealt with the Bank as with any other party who made an advance of money. But, as it was, instead of the capital being advanced in order to make the payments to the government, all the Bank did was to lend its
1706
credit, without an advance of capital being made on the part of any one person who had a pecuniary interest in that corporation. The difference between such an advance and one on Exchequer bills was very material. If the advance was made on Exchequer bills, in case of emergency they could be redeemed; and the public, if they thought the amount too large, might pay them off; or if the Bank found they were too much in advance, they might claim payment: but now the public had no control over the matter; for there was no possibility of their setting themselves free from any part of the sum without the consent of the Bank. That body had advanced nearly eleven millions on this score; to be added to that was a large sum on account of Exchequer bills; also eight millions in deficiency bills, besides something considerable on the malt duties. The only description of advance in which the Bank was deficient was that on mercantile bills of Exchange. Looking to all these circumstances, and the distant possibility of a change in the situation of the country, he thought it desirable that we should not be placed in a position in which the Bank, in order to do justice to the engagements which it had elsewhere contracted, would be under the necessity of destroying the circulation of the country, or of taking a course which might be inconsistent with the maintenance of our present metallic currency. Not only was it desirable that we should not, for these reasons, be placed in such a position, but also it was desirable, that we should avoid, in order to guard against the greatest of all evils, the possibility of again having recourse to a Bank Restriction act. What had been the result of the course lately pursued? We heard from various parts of the country, that there was at that moment, or was likely to be, an obstructed and straightened circulation, owing to the calling in of the one-pound notes. He did not believe that such would be the effect of that measure; and he knew that in the metropolis there was a perfect plethora of money; indeed, such as had never before been known.—The Bank, at that moment, had deposited in its hands 6,000,000 l. of money, which could find no beneficial employment. This was a far greater amount than he had ever known to be lying idle in its hands before. Every banker in London also had large deposits in his hands, for which he could

1707
find no employment, consistent with the ordinary operations of banking. If the country came to be placed in a situation in which it would be required to make great pecuniary exertions, a demand for money would arise, and these deposits, amounting- to six millions, would be withdrawn, which would prevent the Bank from diminishing the circulation, to protect the issue of bullion. Under any of the unfavourable circumstances which, in the course of events, must occur, he thought it desirable, upon principles of economy and of security, that considerable efforts should be made. He called upon the government, as soon as possible, to place the unfunded debt upon a more contracted scale. The Bank Restriction in 1797, which continued for a quarter of a century, had produced more calamitous consequences, more confusion, more moral and political evils, than any other measure parliament ever sanctioned. There was no sacrifice which they ought not to make to prevent the renewal of those calamities. The Bank of France, with a capital of 8,000,000 l., employed half of it in mercantile discounts, the legitimate use of a banker's funds. The mercantile discounts of the Bank of England were inconsiderable. If the directors were to relieve themselves of the public securities, which they held to an inconvenient extent, in proportion as the circulation was called in by their sale would arise the demand for discounts, and the other legitimate modes in which banks generally employed their capital. He did not mean to say that the safety of the Bank was in danger; but the steps it would take for its own security would distress the other ranks of society, in the same manner as it did in 1825. If the Bank found that they had not so great a demand for discounts as he apprehended, they would have let them reduce their rate of interest. Should we be placed in such a situation as we were in 1825, we should suffer for the advantages we now enjoyed. The signs of those times were obvious to many; and before the event he had himself given warning- of what might happen. The Bank would be safe; but it would be obliged to protect itself, by taking a course which must create alarm in the country, and cause those great fluctuations in the value of property, which were so fatal in commercial communities. He therefore in treated his right hon. friend not
1708
to postpone the revision of that part of our finances, which related to the Unfunded Debt, and the manner in which so large a portion of the credit and capital of the Bank was placed beyond that control which it ought to have overall its funds.
Mr. Maberleywas aware of the great inconvenience of the present state of the Unfunded Debt. In 1825, the Bank could scarcely have gone on two hours without a Restriction act. He thought the present system of the deficiency-bills was dangerous. The Bank, by the government anticipating its quarter's revenue, might be in a situation to say, if they did not grant them a Restriction act, that they would not make advances to pay the dividends. The Bank ought never to have had a Restriction act without paying for it to the country. It ought to reduce its rate of discount, and the Sinking-fund should be spent in reducing the Unfunded Debt; for, by purchasing in the 3½ per cents, instead of the Unfunded Debt, the country would lose 200,000 l., in the expenditure of the 3,000,000 l. of Sinking-fund.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he entirely concurred in the general principles which his right hon. friend had laid down. With regard to the Bank, he would observe, that the directors were the best judges of its proper management, and that the government had nothing more to do than to watch their proceedings, if their transactions appeared to interfere with the concerns of the country. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, he must beg it to be distinctly understood, that he had given no pledge that the surplus revenue should be applied solely to the reduction of the Unfunded Debt. While the government diligently attended to the pecuniary concerns of the country, they would not fail to avail themselves of any circumstances which might appear advantageous for the reduction of the Debt, whether funded or unfunded. But he could not think that it would be at all beneficial to accede to limit the power of the commissioners to the purchase of one particular fund. He did not pledge himself to any particular course of conduct: he only asked, on behalf of the government, that they should be left free and unrestricted, but responsible for their conduct, if they should be found to abuse the powers placed in their hand by parliament.
Mr. Humesaid, that ministers ought to be compelled to apply the surplus according to some settled principle, and to redeem some particular Stock. He could not approve of the principle of the bill; because it obliged the government to appropriate three millions to the redemption of the Debt, until parliament again met; and if the consolidated fund did not yield this sum, it was only establishing a Sinking-fund with two millions less. The bill was inconsistent with the resolution of the Finance Committee, and therefore he objected to it.
The bill was read a second time.

GAME BILL.
Lord Wharncliffe,before he moved the second reading of the Game-bill, wished to allude to the way in which the powers of that House had been curtailed by the other House of parliament. Their lordships, early in the session, had passed a bill on this subject, that went to the House of Commons. When it arrived there, that House discovered, that the bill levied a tax upon the subject. On that ground they thought fit to throw it out, and bring in another, which was the bill under their lordships' consideration. Now he must say that in their notion of what was levying a tax on the subject, the ideas of the House of Commons were somewhat strained, when they maintained that the House of Lords must not pass a bill containing a pecuniary penalty, or repeal a bill containing one. If that really was their claim, it was time that it should be understood; for if such were the case, their lordships were there merely to register the bills of the House of Commons. This, he contended, would be an encroachment on their lordships' privileges; and it was the opinion of many that this claim of the Commons ought not to be admitted, and that some understanding should be come to on the subject. He trusted, whatever decision their lordships

1691
might come to with respect to the bill, that this might be made the occasion of coining to a better understanding with the other House on this most important question. With respect to the bill itself, great pains had been taken to defeat it, and it was probable the attempt would be successful; but he would put it to those noble lords who were opposed to the bill, to consider what would be gained by that course, beyond that of additional labour to those who were favourable to it; for no doubt it was their intention to introduce the measure again and again, from a firm conviction of the necessity that something should be done by parliament on the subject. He was aware that the objection of many noble lords to the bill, arose from the opinion, that any extension of the right of sporting would destroy their sport altogether. This he thought was a very mistaken view of the case. He now moved that the bill be read a second time.
The Earl of Westmorlandsaid, he was opposed to the principle of the bill, because he believed it would be most oppressive in its operation. It was an invasion of the rights of others, and would have a tendency to encourage poaching. It also tended to change the character of landowners to that of huxters and poulterers. On these grounds, he should move as an amendment, that it be read a second time that clay six months.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that the bill was supported on the ground, that it would tend to diminish poaching. It would not, he contended, have that effect. The evidence taken before the committee did not justify the opinions of those who supported it. Most of the persons examined stated, that it was doubtful whether legalizing the sale of game would diminish poaching, and the case of Scotland was adduced, where the sale of game was permitted, and where it was proved that the number of poachers had recently increased. As an experiment, he would have no objection to the bill; neither would he object to an alteration of the laws with respect to qualification, some of which were absurd. But this bill went further than he was disposed to go. It allowed persons holding copyhold lands to qualify others; and whether such land was twenty-five acres or one hundred acres, it was the same thing to him, it was to the principle that he objected; which, instead of considering the value of
1692
the land, had reference only to the quantity of it.
The Marquis of Salisburyobserved, that his noble friend had said, that he was ready to give his support to a bill which should legalize the sale of game. Now this bill went very little further. Besides, I his noble friend had only been able to find one objectionable clause in the bill. He had therefore a right to calculate on the support of his noble friend in other parts of the bill. For the objection able clause, his noble friend might urge his arguments against it when the bill was committed. He put it to their lordships, whether they would now act in contradiction to what they had themselves resolved upon, and sent down for the consent of another branch of the legislature.
The Earl of Carnarvon, while he supported the present bill, was ready to admit that he did not suppose it would put a stop to poaching altogether. He doubted whether any bill would have such an effect. What he wished to put a stop to was, that permitting the poacher to have an exclusive monopoly of the sale of game. All the poulterers had declared, that they could procure a sufficient supply of game to answer the present demand, or any demand which was likely to arise. This they could now only procure through those who were guilty of crimes against the law. If they passed the present bill, a supply could be procured through a legal channel; but what was of much greater importance, they would give a better character to the laws of the country.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that one of the objects of the bill, was to bring gentlemen into the market, in order to drive out the poacher. This experiment had never yet been made; and he was satisfied, that, if made, the result would be much better than the present state of things. With respect to the mode of qualification in the bill, he would only observe, that that qualification had been brought as near as possible to the law of Scotland. If their lordships threw out the bill, what would be the effect of such a course upon the country, after a committee had proved that, in spite of the laws, game was supplied to the public; that from the highest to the lowest, their tables were supplied with game by poaching? In all the great markets of the metropolis, game was sold; and, would their lordships say, that they would not make that legal, which, in spite of all

1693
their laws, would be done with impunity? Let their lordships ask themselves, if they had the power of stopping the sale of game, while the public demanded that it should be sold? They had no such power. Their lordships were learning a terrible lesson. They were learning that there were certain things that they could not stop; and the time was not far distant when they would be sorry that they had ever resisted such things. Here was one case brought home to their own doors. They were supporting laws which were set at nought and laughed at. But, let their lordships be assured, that the subject would force itself upon them every session. Even at that advanced state of the session, if he thought there were any chance of passing such a measure, he would try the effect of a bill which should legalize the sale of game; though he was firmly persuaded that such a bill, unaccompanied by other alterations in the game laws, would be infinitely inferior to this. Could it be endured that proprietors of extensive lands should be allowed to make a profit of the sale of their game, while the same privilege was denied to the small landholders? He left the matter in their lordships' hands; declaring at the same time, that he would renew the subject, session after session.
Their lordships divided upon the motion, "that the bill be now read a second time." Content—Present 37; Proxies 27–64. Not-Content—Present 36; Proxies 58–94. Majority against the second reading 30.