Sitting of 2 April 1830

MINUTES.
The Four-per-cent Annuity Bill was read a Second lime, on the Motion of Mr. G. DAMSON, A Hill to Amend the Constabulary Act, (Ireland), was brought in by Lord F. L. GOWER, and read a first time. The Minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee on East India Affairs, up to April 1st were laid on the Table by Mr. COURTENAY.
Returns laid on the Table. The Monies Demanded and Allowed to the High Sheriff of every County in England, ending Michaelmas, 1828:—Of Hops Imported and Exported during the last year: Of Excise and Customs' Duties collected in each district of Ireland, during the last ten years:—Of Timber Imported during the last four years:—Of the number of Quarters of Malt charged with duty, and amount of Duty on Beer, during the last ten years:—Of the quantity of. Spirits charged with Duties, and imported into England from Scotland and Ireland, in the last ten years:—Of Amount of the Duties collected on Leather in Ireland:—Of the Amount of Excise Duties on Paper in Ireland, with the Expense of Collecting them:—Of the Amount of Duties received by each Collector of Excise, throughout the United Kingdom, and of Payments made by each, and of money remitted by each to London:—Of Duties Collected on Coals imported into Dublin from January 1822 to January 1830:—Of Sums paid into the Stamp Office for Duty on Fire Insurances, and on Marine Policies:—Of the Tonnage of Vessels entered into and cleared out of all the Ports of Ireland in the last seven years:—Of the quantity of Spirits imported from Scotland by land:—Of Papers relating to the office of Coal Meter (Dublin):—Account of the Trade of Southwold for the last twenty years:—Of the number of Midshipmen promoted to be Lieutenants, of Lieutenants to be Commanders, and of Commanders to be Post Captains, between January 1827, and January 1830:—Of Gentlemen appointed to first Commissions, and of promotions in the Marines for the same period:—Of Officers holding Brevet Rank in the Marines, and of those who have sold their full or retired pay:—And Account of the Pilot Fund of the Corporation of the Trinity House.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICK, An Account of the Number, Distribution, and Expense of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, during the last three years:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of the Duties performed by the Barons of Exchequer, (Scotland) in relation to the Public Property |and Hereditary Revenue of the Crown; and a Copy of the Memorial presented by JOHN DENNSON, Master of the Patriot, of Aberdeen, to the Lords of the Treasury, praying for a return of 63 l. charged as Duty on Brandy, used on board his Vessel by the Sick, on her voyage from Jamaica.
Petitions Presented. For an Amelioration of the Criminal Code, by Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, from the Merchants, Bankers, and other Inhabitants of Truro:—By General GASCOIONE from the inhabitants of Hoddesdon. Against Suttees, by Mr. LITTLETON, from several Congregations of Dissenters in different places in Staffordshire. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. By the same Hon. Member, from Drighlington, for the Emancipation of the Jews:—By Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from the Jews of Portsmouth:—By the Marquis of BLANDFORD, from the Jews of Rochester and Chatham. For the repeal of the House and window Tax

1209
by Mr. W. DUNCOMBE, from Whitby. Against the use of Power Looms, by the same Hon Member, from the Artizans of Morley.

THE NEW HAY-MARKET.
Lord Lowtherbrought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill; and moved that it be re-committed.
Mr. Byngsaid, that he intended to oppose the measure, because it would be injurious to many of his constituents occupying houses in the Haymarket. It would remove the market so far from its present site as to be a great inconvenience. With respect to those who complained of it as a nuisance, it should be remembered that they came to the nuisance, and not the nuisance to them. He had no objection to the noble Lord establishing another market in the spot he had selected, but he begged of him to allow the old one to remain.
Lord Lowthersaid, that there could be no question that the Market, as now situated, was a nuisance; and in moving it they were only following the example of other towns. Not above half-a-dozen persons would be affected by it. It was true that the inhabitants had come to the nuisance, but at the same time, within the last few years, the nuisance had greatly increased. The distance to which he proposed to remove the market was not great, as it was only on the other side of the New Road, and consequently equally convenient for the West end of the town.
The Bill re-committed, and ordered to be taken into consideration before a Committee of the whole House on Monday, April 5th.

ST. GILES AND ST. GEORGE BLOOMSBURY.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that in consequence of what had passed in the House on the previous evening, a meeting of the Parishioners had been held this morning, and a Petition against the Saint Giles's and Saint George's Vestry Bill was immediately agreed to. It was signed by upwards of one thousand inhabitants, with their names and addresses, so as to bear the closest scrutiny. The Petition entreated the House, that if they persisted in disfranchising 1,856 of the inhabitants, they would, at least, not allow a gradation of voting, the consequence of which would be—giving to 400 of the higher ratepayers the same powers as those possessed by 1,600 of the lower rate-payers. The petitioners also stated, that if Parliament would consent to lower the rate one-half, so as to give a vote to those who were rated at 15 l. a year, though they would be
1210
more willing (though they should still think the principle of the Bill incorrect) to acquiesce in the decision of Parliament, and to entertain the hope that the measure, as it would then stand, would give comparative satisfaction to their fellow-parishioners. He also begged to observe, that at a late hour last night, or rather at half-past two in the morning, he brought up the Report of the Committee on the General Select Vestry System; and in that Report it was agreed that the elective principle ought to be acted upon in any bill that was recommended to the notice of Parliament—of course with certain modifications. He therefore thought that it would be due to those petitioners, either to wait for a general measure, or else to grant one or other of their prayers. In addition to this Petition, he had another signed by an individual, (Mr. Wakley) who, as he was Churchwarden, added to the prayer of his fellow-parishioners one against that provision of the Bill by which the inhabitants were deprived of choosing their own Churchwardens—a privilege which they had hitherto enjoyed from time immemorial. He had likewise been informed, that the statement made by the hon. Member for London (Mr. Ward), on the previous evening, was incorrect, when he asserted that many of the parishioners had relaxed in their opposition to the Bill. The fact was, that but four or five expressed more than a very qualified assent to the provisions of the present measure.
Mr. Wardobserved, that his only wish was the restoration of the harmony and good feeling of the parish. When he had stated that nine of the parishioners had relaxed in their opposition, he had founded what he said on what he had observed in the Committee up stairs; and he certainly had, on the occasion to which he alluded, understood that several gentlemen, when the rate entitling parishioners to a right of vote was reduced to 30/. had withdrawn that opposition which they had formerly entertained towards the measure.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanhad kept himself free from all parties in this question, though he lived in the parish, in order that he might be able, in the House and in the Committee, to give an unbiassed vote. His feeling, however, was, that these parishioners had a right to what they asked; because he should ever contend, that every man had a right to vote what should be done with his own money. This was the very spirit of the Constitution, and they were bound to support it as long as they

1211
pretended to care for freedom or justice. It had been said that, as the trustees or responsible managers of those rates were highly respectable, and oftentimes noble persons, there need be no fear of abuse in the application of those rates. To this he should say in reply, so much the worse; for he found that those highly respectable, as in the instance of the late Joint Stock Companies, were only used as a shield to protect the less respectable and loss principled. He considered the clause, allowing no person to have a vote who was rated lower than 30 l., most invidious and unjust, and he should oppose the Bill at every stage.
The Petitions were read; they prayed that they might be heard against the Bill, by themselves, their counsel, and agents.—Ordered to lie on the Table.
Lord John Russellmoved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Humewould at that eleventh hour endeavour to have a Bill, so objectionable in its nature, if not re-committed, rejected by the House. The Petition which had been the result of the meeting held that morning, and which had been signed, as his hon. friend had stated, by upwards of 1,000 respectable bonâ fide inhabitant householders, in itself should induce the House to pause ere it gave its assent to a measure by which 1,850' rate payers, out of a total of 4,819, would be deprived of their constitutional right. All that the petitioners prayed for was, the recognition of the principle established by Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. By that Act, every person rated under 50 l. and who had paid the last assessment, was entitled to one vote in parish affairs, the number of votes rising gradually in favour of those who were rated above 50 l. till they reached five or six. But the object of the present Bill was to deprive the parishioners of that right. He trusted, however, that the House would be of opinion, when it was informed that the poor-rates of these united parishes amounted to 40,000 l. a-year, that men rated at 20 l. a-year had as good a right to be able to look after their interests as those who were rated at 400 l.; for it was of great importance that those who were only a little above coming upon the poor-rates themselves should have a right of control on the subject. For himself, he should not have believed it possible that the noble Lord, who had always so strenuously advocated the cause of reform, would have agreed to such propositions as those
1212
advocated by the Bill which he had introduced. It was true that the noble Lord's family had a great stake in the parish, but he thought that that was no argument on which to ground such a measure. He, however, trusted that the noble Lord would consent to fix the rate at 15 l. or 20 l., as even such a concession as that would afford considerable satisfaction to the parish. At all events, in order that there might be time for re-considering the question, he should move the re-commitment of the Bill.
The Speakersaid, that course could not now be adopted. There were three modes of proceeding open to the House. Either the third reading might be negatived; or the third reading might be postponed to that day six months; or an Amendment of any clauses might be proposed, but that must be after the Bill had been read a third time.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume, with a view of giving the parties concerned in the Bill time to come to an agreement, moved as an Amendment, that the third reading be postponed to the 27th of April.
Lord J. Russellobserved, that his only reason for having anything to do with this Bill was in the hopes of restoring the peace and quiet of the parish That was the only interest either he or his family could have in the matter. In the commencement he had been anxious to have nothing at all to do with the Bill; but it was stated to him that his undertaking it would open the chance of a reconciliation between the parties, and he therefore thought that it would have been wrong in him to refuse. He had, therefore, undertaken it; but on this understanding, that he would not be bound by the principles of the Bill. AH the differences between the parties were settled before the Bill came under the consideration of the committee, and those three points were laid before the committee for their decision. He himself abstained from giving any opinion on the subject, and only laid the facts before them. The committee decided in favour of the principle as it stood in the Bill, and against that contained in Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act. That that so happened was the fault of those hon. Gentlemen who did not attend in the committee, and now came down to the House to complain of the step that had been taken. By the decision of that committee (all the petitions having been investigated by it) he felt bound, though, perhaps, it was not exactly what he himself

1213
should have approved. At the same time he thought that it was generally calculated to produce the good government of the parish, and final harmony and satisfaction between all parties. On these grounds he should persist in moving the third reading of the Bill; at the same time leaving it to the House to do exactly as they pleased with it.
Sir F. Burdettthought it was desirable that the House should assent to the Amendment of his hon. friend, and give all the parties an opportunity of coming to an understanding with each other. He disapproved of the Bill, and thought it would have been better to abide by the principles of Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act.
Sir Thomas Fremantleopposed any further delay. Sufficient concessions had already been made in the committee, and further delay would only increase the disagreement of the parties. There was no chance of their agreeing together, and therefore he hoped the House would at once decide the question. The Bill as it then stood was a very fair measure.
Mr. Baringdeclared that it was his intention to vote for the postponement. It was very desirable that some uniformity should be introduced into the proceedings of that House in relation to the parishes of London. Last year they had passed a bill for St. Paul's, Covent-garden, with one qualification, and now they were going to pass one for St. Giles's with another qualification. The House was bound to look that its enactments conformed to each other, and he should vote for delay, with a view to making this. Bill like other bills.
Colonel Daviesremarked, that in St. Paul's, Covent-garden, already one principle prevailed; in St. Andrew's, Holbom, another; and in St. Anne's a third; so that it was impossible for the House to introduce a uniformity of enactment into the several parishes; if any hon. Member would move to substitute 20 l. for 30 l. as the qualification, he should have his support.
Mr. Bynghoped the Bill would be postponed till after the Easter holidays. The concession spoken of by the hon. Baronet opposite was only on one point. There were four points in dispute, and one only had been conceded to those who opposed the Bill; and that was the least important, viz.—that the election of the vestry should be annual, instead of biennial. If the Bill were not postponed till after the Easter holidays, he should feel it to be his duty to vote against the Bill altogether.
Lord Nugentsupported the Amendment.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, he did not know what was meant by concession; but the Bill, as it then stood, contained one of the most monstrous propositions he ever remembered. Almost 2,000 persons were disfranchised by it, and 400 individuals were to have as many votes as 3,000. He hoped the Bill would be postponed.
Mr. Bramstondenied, as it was only a question of degree, that the principle of disfranchisement was at issue; at the same time, as he wished to see the House unanimous, and all parties satisfied, he should like to see 20 l. substituted for 30 l.
The House now grew impatient, and called loudly for the Question. The gallery was accordingly cleared, and on the division the numbers were—For the Amendment 36; Against it 70; Majority 34.
Mr. Humenext proposed, as an Amendment, that every person rated at the sum of 25 l. should be entitled to a vote, precisely in the same manner as in the parishes of Marylebone and St. Paul's, Covent-garden.
The Speakerstated, that from the manner in which the Amendment was worded, the effect would be, that no person could possess more than one vote.
Lord John Russelsaid, that the friends of the Bill had reduced the qualification for a vote from 30 l. to 25 l., on the understanding, as they thought, that the Bill would not then be opposed in the other parts; and as the hon. Member pressed this Amendment, he must vote against it.
Mr. Humedeclared he had not heard of any such agreement as that alluded to by the noble Lord.
The House divided on the Amendment—Against it 48; For it 26; Majority 22.—The House also divided on another Amendment, the object of which was to limit the number of votes possessed by any individual to three, which was lost by the same majority.
Bill read a third time and passed.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL.
On the Motion of Sir G. Clerk, the report on Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill was brought up. The hon. Member moved that it be read a third time next Monday.
Mr. Tennysonwished the third reading to be deferred to a later day. He was not prepared, without first reading the evidence through, to give his vote on the Bill.
Mr. A. Ellisprotested against the haste with which hon. Members were hurrying the Bill through the House. He was not

1215
prepared to say that he should vote against the Bill, on the contrary, he thought he should vote in favour of it; but he could not refrain from opposing the proposition that the Bill be read a third time on so early a day as next Monday. He did conceive that the third reading should be postponed until after the holidays.
Sir G. Clerksaid, there was no disposition on the part of the supporters of the Bill to hurry it through the House. But a most ample inquiry had been entered into, and he thought a very general feeling existed in the House that, after the evidence was ordered to be printed, as little delay should take place as possible. The House would adjourn on Wednesday or Thursday next for the holidays, and it was desirable, he conceived, to have the fate of the Bill decided before that period. The evidence would be printed and in the hands of Members by Monday next; but if any hon. Member should then state that he had not had sufficient time to consider it, he should be ready to postpone the third reading of the Bill till the next day.
Mr. S. Ricethought it would be extreme injustice to the parties concerned, to postpone the third reading until after the holidays; but he suggested that it should take place on a later day than Monday next—namely, on the following Wednesday or Thursday.
On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, the third reading was then fixed for next Tuesday.

SHIPPING INTEREST.
Mr. Sykesrose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to present to the House a Petition from the Ship-owners of the town of Hull. He was confident that the petition would meet with every consideration and attention from the House. If the subject to which the Petition related would of itself be sufficient to fix the attention of all the Members present, the claims of the Petition on their consideration would be enhanced by their knowing that it came from a body of well-informed and well educated gentlemen, who were perfectly cognizant of their own interests and rights, and in his opinion as well qualified as any hon. Gentleman in that House to form a correct judgment upon the subject to which the Petition referred. These gentlemen were associated together in a society called the Ship-owners' Society. From time to time they had laid their petitions most respectfully before the House, and they now again approached it with a respectful statement of their condition,
1216
loping that the House might be able to devise some remedy for their relief. They stated in the Petition which he (Mr. Sykes) held in his hand,—and he was sorry to say that he could confirm the statement to its fullest extent,—that the interests which they represented were involved in the deepest and most deplorable distress. They embodied in their Petition a resolution passed at a meeting of the Ship-owners of Hull, held last January, in which the latter expressed their regret at the present condition, and their melancholy forebodings of the future prospects, of the Shipping-interests of the United Kingdom; and, in conclusion, they earnestly prayed Parliament to institute such an inquiry into the causes of the existing distress of the Shipping-interests as might lead to some remedial measures for the relief of that important national interest. They further prayed the House that they might be relieved from foreign competition, as experience had, in their opinion, fully proved that they were not able to compete with foreigners while burthened with their present load of taxation; and they therefore suggested, that the principle of an equalization of taxation with foreigners should be first applied before they were placed upon an equality with them in other respects. They further suggested, that the House, with a view to afford relief to the existing distress of the country, should introduce a more rigid system of economy into every department of the State,—that the national expenditure should be reduced to the lowest possible scale consistent with the due maintenance of the national honour, and that a more equal distribution should be made of the public burthens. The petitioners likewise objected to the reciprocity system. With their opinions upon that subject he did not concur, and it was a proof of their candour that, though aware of his difference with them upon that point, they did him the honour of intrusting their Petition to him. He should not trouble the House by entering upon the consideration of that system at present; he should only say, that he did not think that any alteration in that system would afford any relief to the distress that prevailed in the Shipping-interests of the United Kingdom. The petitioners also took the liberty of respectfully calling the attention of the House to a reduction of those taxes which more particularly pressed upon navigation. He thought that upon that score, they had a fair claim for a reduction of taxes, and in that portion of

1217
their prayer he fully and entirely concurred. In another part of their Petition the petitioners seemed to glance at the exchange of existing taxes for a property-tax. If ever an opportunity should be afforded to him for expressing his opinion upon that subject, he should do so; but he might he permitted to say that this, at all events, was not the proper time for discussing the expediency of such a measure. He had stated the several requests of these petitioners, and the grounds upon which they rested their claim to the attention and consideration of the House; he had stated those points with regard to which he agreed with the petitioners, and those points with regard to which he differed from them; and in dissenting from them, he would add that the petitioners were gentlemen as fully competent to form a correct opinion upon the subjects to which they alluded as any Gentleman in that House. He should now proceed to state what he conceived would be the best means of affording relief to this important national interest. There were only two things—only two quarters—to which he could look for relief for the shipping of this country. The first of these measures was to extend the foreign trade of this country in every possible direction in which it could he extended, and the other was, to remove from the Ship-owners every burthen that at present prevented the extension of our foreign trade. He conceived that the petitioners were fairly entitled to that species of relief at the hands of Parliament. With respect to the first point,—he alluded to the extension of our foreign trade, he would say that he looked forward with considerable hope to the alteration which he trusted would be made on the renewal of the East-India Company's charter. He should be grievously disappointed, and so would the parties he represented on that occasion, if, upon the renewal of that charter, the British seaman should be prevented from going to any part of India or China to which the sailors or shipping of any other nation was permitted to go. It would be most detrimental to the commercial interests of this country, and a most galling injustice towards British seamen, if all other nations should be allowed to trade freely to the continent of China, while British seamen should be alone excluded from a participation in that trade. He therefore looked forward with considerable anxiety to the period when that charter should come to be renewed, and he trusted that the result would he, that we should be hereafter permitted to navigate
1218
those seas, and to carry our cargoes to India' and China free from all restrictions, and to trade with every part of those countries, like all the other nations of the earth. He also hoped that our foreign trade would be extended in other directions, and especially by the cultivation of a closer commercial intercourse with the States of South America. He should now advert to the other quarters to which he looked for relief of the Shipping interest in the shape of extension of trade. He hoped that every restriction that pressed upon British commerce would be removed. He thought that many burthens which now weighed upon the navigation and commerce of the country might be very judiciously taken off, and he should allude, in the first plate, to a burthen, of which he thought the Ship-owners very justly complained,—he meant the cost and expense of the coast-lights. That was a heavy burthen upon the Ship-owners. These coast-lights were farmed out, it was well known, by the nobility and gentry of the country, who derived a large revenue from keeping them up, and the expense of their maintenance was levied upon the Ship-owners. That burthen ought to be removed. There was also another oppressive burthen upon Ship-owners in the shape of rates for pilotage, which should likewise be taken off. There was also another burthen, called the "Greenwich-chest," which was a tax of 6d. per month upon every seaman's wages. That was a large sum of money to be levied off the seamen. It was levied for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital, and he (Mr. Sykes) should like to know why the seaman who received no benefit whatever from it should be compelled to contribute to a fund that was not devoted in any way to the support of the mercantile marine of the country. A far more important consideration, however, was the heavy taxes laid by the Government on articles used by the Ship-owner; and a reduction of those which pressed most heavily on him ought undoubtedly to be made. Why, for instance, should the present enormous duty upon hemp be kept up, while reductions had been made in the duties on tallow and other kinds of Russian produce? By reducing the duty upon hemp, the Shipowners would be able to get their cordage and other articles at a considerably reduced price. There was another matter which had been already ably pressed upon the consideration of the House by an hon. friend of his,—he meant the reduction of the stamp duties upon marine insurances.

1219
While these duties produced but a small revenue for the Government, they pressed heavily on the Ship-owners, and the reduction of them would afford considerable relief. There was another matter which he conceived well worthy of the attention of the Government and of the House—he meant an equalization of the duty on timber and deals. He thought the duty upon those two articles should be put upon an equal footing. Why should timber, when imported into this country in a solid body, pay a higher, rate of duty than when it was imported cut into deals? He should certainly bring that subject under the consideration of the House upon another occasion, and he should then like to hear, from any member of his Majesty's Government, a reason for the maintenance of this absurdly unequal duty. The fact was, that by imposing a higher rate of duty upon timber imported in a solid shape, than when imported in deals, we gave a premium to foreign labour, and discouraged the labour of our own country. There was another measure with regard to the propriety of which he entertained great doubts, but which the petitioners were anxious to press upon the House, as a means of affording them relief: he alluded to some alteration in the present bonding system. The petitioners urged that this system, which enabled foreign ship-owners to land their goods here without paying duty, was productive of great hardship to the Shipowners of this country, and that it placed them upon an unequal footing with their foreign competitors. He hoped that when the opportunity should arrive, (which he trusted would shortly be the case,) that a full and free trade would be allowed in every respect; and he confidently hoped that before the end of this Session, or at furthest before the end of next session, some of those burthens would be removed or lightened—a measure which would in some degree contribute to restore the prosperity of British Ship-owners. That general distress prevailed amongst them he had always said. That was a proposition which he believed no one who had paid any attention to the subject would deny: and he was greatly afraid that the distress, instead of diminishing, would go on increasing, unless some measures were adopted to counteract its progress. He believed in his conscience that it was greater this year than last year, and unless some remedy should be devised, he was of opinion that it would be still greater next year. The
1220
petitioners did not suggest a remedy for the distress under which they suffered; they left that to the wisdom of the House: and he thought that they had strong claims upon its consideration. To show the extent of the present distress, he should take the liberty to read a statement which had been forwarded to him by a well-informed and intelligent correspondent in the town of Hull, with regard to the trade of that port. He slated that, within the last few years, a diminution of ten per cent had taken place in the freights in that port. The following was the statement upon which that gentleman grounded his opinion, and if the facts which it contained were erroneously stated, it was open to any member to correct the error. The following was the table, as furnished by that gentleman:—

Average Rate of Freights, Provisions, and Wages, from 1821 to 1824 and from 1826 to 1829, all inclusive. [The. year 1825 was omitted, as being one of feverish excitement and unusual speculation.]

FREIGHTS.

per ton.

From 1821 to 1824.—

Memel

£1

3

3

Petersburgh

4

1

10

America

2

4

6

Total

7

9

7

From 1826 to 1829.—

Memel

1

0

1

Petersburgh

3

10

9

America

1

15

9

Total

6

6

7

Difference

1

3

0

Being equal to a diminution of 15 l. 7s. 7d. per cent.

PROVISIONS And WAGES,

From 1821 to 1824—

Beef

£4

19

4

Pork

3

10

3

Bread

0

13

9

Wages

2

17

6

Total

12

0

10

From 1826 to 1829—

Beef

5

15

3

Pork

4

1

10

Bread

0

18

10

Wages

3

0

0

Total

13

15

11

Difference

1

15

1

Percent increase

14

11

4

By that, it appeared that the total alteration against the Ship-owner in the latter period, compared with the former, was 29 l. 18 s. 11 d. per cent. These facts spoke volumes as to the distress which prevailed in the Shipping-interest. It was impossible that the Shipowners could remain passive under such circumstances, and see their property thus slipping out of their hands, without making some effort to procure relief. The fact was, that the Shipping-interest of this country had been depreciated 100 per cent. Their

1221
distress had been going on increasing from year to year, and that fact alone should be sufficient to induce his Majesty's Government to turn its attention to the subject, with a view to afford them some relief, The petitioners merely laid their case before Parliament; they stated that many of the Ship-owners in this country had been reduced to beggary, and that if things went en as at present, and no measures were devised for their relief, their situation would be perfectly hopeless and ruin must ensue. It was impossible that Parliament could allow this interest, which contributed so materially to the maintenance of the national glory and honour, thus to sink into utter and complete ruin. All that he asked on the part of the petitioners was, that the Government and the House would apply themselves to the subject, for the purpose of devising some remedial measures for the relief of this great and important national interest.
Mr. Marryatsaid, I have listened with attention to the statement of the hon. Gentleman who presented the Petition, and I can affirm, from my own knowledge, that the distress of the Shipping-interest is by no means exaggerated. The Shipowners were the first interest to experience that distress which has since unfortunately pervaded all classes: they have suffered long, and most severely. The evidence of this may be found in the present indifferent construction and parsimonious equipment of those vessels, which formerly stood preeminent in the commercial marine of the world. I remember the time when a British ship was insured at half the premium asked upon the foreigner. Now, from the causes I have stated, a foreign vessel is often preferred to the British. Notwithstanding this, I am afraid that it is not possible to grant effectual relief by legislative measures. In my judgment, the distress is to be ascribed to the natural approximation to the low prices and profits of foreign nations, which has arisen from the free intercourse since the peace. It is well known that the price which our surplus commodities command in the foreign market regulates the price at home. We have more shipping than we can employ in our coasting and colonial trades (which are, in fact, our home market as regards shipping.) The surplus ships seek employment in foreign trades, where they must of necessity navigate upon terms as low as foreign ships. These low freights bring down the freight of British ships at home
1222
to the same level; and thus cause a universal depression. I sincerely lament this distress, but am afraid the proposed remedies would in the end only increase the evil. To restrict our imports to British bottoms only, would be useless, unless we could at the same time reduce our shipping to the exact quantity necessary for our own trade, so as to have no surplus requiring employment in the foreign trade. Such being my conviction, I see no means of alleviating the British Ship-owner, except by reducing the duties upon all articles required in the construction and outfit of his vessels, in order that he may, by cheapness of materials, be enabled in some degree to compete with his foreign rival.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he had been particularly requested by the petitioners to support the prayer of this Petition, and he rose to discharge that duty with very great pleasure. The petitioners complained, that since the period when they asked for a Committee of Inquiry—namely, the Session before last, when that committee was refused, the depression which then existed in their trade, so far from getting better, since that time had gone on continually increasing; that the diminution in the value of their property had proceeded at rapid strides; that the rate of freights had become still lower; and that their ships were employed now in many instances without any profitable return. It became the House to consider whether this important national interest should be consigned to ruin without any effort being made to afford it relief. His hon. friend, in presenting the Petition, had said, that the petitioners did not point out any particular remedy for their distress. They certainly did not, because they were of opinion that, without inquiry, it would be presumptuous on their part to dictate to the House the species of remedy which they conceived should be employed for the removal of the distress. It was for the House to institute an inquiry, and to apply the proper, remedy. He recollected that in the course of an incidental discussion upon this subject last Session, the hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) said, that he did not believe that the Shipping-interest was so much depressed as it was described to be, for that we went on building ships, and he could not be satisfied that the Shipping-interest was in such distress while that was the case. He was obliged, however, to deny the correctness of that statement at the time, and he would refer the hon. Member to an account of the number

1223
of ships built in the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, to show that there had been latterly a considerable falling-off. He had taken the trouble that day of consulting the Finance Accounts for the last year, which were not, as yet, in the hands of hon. Members; and it appeared by them that a great falling-off had taken place in ship-building. The facts which he should state afforded ample grounds for investigation; and he trusted that these facts, which showed that the Shipping-interests were in a dreadful state of destruction and depression, would make such an impression upon the Government and the House as to induce them to institute an inquiry. He found by the Finance Accounts, that during the year ending the 5th of January in each of the following years, the number of ships built, with the amount of their tonnage, was as follows:—

Ships.

Tons.

1827

1,719

207,088

1828

1,440

163,946

1829

1,185

128,752

1830

1,075

110,681

Thus exhibiting a decrease of 279 vessels, and 43,142 tons, in 1828; of 534 vessels, and 78,336 tons, in 1829; and of 644 vessels, and 96,407 tons, in the last year, 1830, as compared with the year 1827. That table showed that there had been a diminution of nearly one-half in the amount of tonnage built during a period of only three years. That was an important fact to illustrate the present condition of the Shipping-interest, and was more impressive than the mere fact of the quantity of employment obtained by our ships, which had been cited as an argument to prove that the distress was not so general as had been stated. The truth was, that what ever ships were in existence must be employed, or abandoned altogether, as property, for that was the only alternative. If they were not employed and kept, they occasioned a ruinous expense without any profit. But were they to be seriously told, that when persons employed vessels they must necessarily make profits by them? It was not, in fact, possible to tell, when a vessel commenced a voyage, that it would turn out advantageous, which could only be determined at the end of the voyage. It should be recollected, too, that the Ship-owner always wont on hoping for an improvement, though the state of his trade might be every day getting worse and worse. He could prove that, by a reference to the number of foreign and British ships trading to the ports in the Baltic. His hon. Friend
1224
the member for Hull, had expressed his dissent from the opinions of the petitioners, with reference to what he (Mr. Robinson) would say, was falsely called the system of reciprocity. That system, conjoined with other causes, had increased the depression and distress of the Shipping-interests of this country. It was not possible for British ships, while burthened with one-third more expense, and subject to increased charges in the shape of taxes, to compete with foreign ships. To prove that, he would refer to an official return of the number of Foreign and British vessels which had cleared outwards for and entered inwards from the ports of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Russia. The number of foreign vessels entered inwards from those countries for the different ports of the United Kingdom in the year 1829 was 1,946; the number of British vessels employed in that trade for the same period was only 1,164—the foreign tonnage amounted to 293,402 tons, and the British to 187,822 tons. The number of foreign seamen employed was 14,573, and the number of British only 8,554. It would be found too, that a similar disproportion existed between the number of British and foreign vessels cleared outwards in the same trade during the same period. The number of foreign ships cleared outwards for the ports of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Russia, was 1842, amounting to 267,579 tons, and employing 13,425 seamen. The number of British ships cleared outwards in the same trade for the same period was 1,023, amounting to 189,462 tons, and employing 7,656 men. These facts showed, that in the trade with the ports of the Baltic and of the North of Europe, we were not able to compete with the vessels of foreign shipowners. He saw that within the last three days another reciprocity treaty had been laid on the table of the House, formed with the Emperor of Austria. He would not, upon the present occasion, enter into the policy of that treaty; but this he would say, that it did appear to him most strange and incomprehensible that we should open all the various and numerous ports of the United Kingdom to a power which had only three ports in its dominions to which our ships went, Trieste, Venice, and Fiume. Venice, be it also recollected, was now a free port; and therefore to Venice we should have had free access without any reciprocity treaty. The fact was, that owing to such impolitic regulations, the declension, of our Shipping-in

1225
terest was great and general, and he contended that upon investigation it would be proved to be so beyond all possibility of contradiction. It appeared from a petition which was now upon their Table, that in the port of Whit by, where in 1826 there had been eight ship-yards and seven graving-docks, and upwards of 1,000 men regularly employed, three of the former had been given up already, and two more were going to be abandoned; and that all the docks would be given up and the trade entirely relinquished, unless something were done for its relief by the Government. Let the House consider how the distress of the Shipping-interest affected the general interests of the country. It was not merely because our commercial greatness would pass away like an empty vision if the Shipping-interest of the country were ruined, that he called attention to this subject, but because it had a tendency to augment and aggravate the distress of every other interest in the community. The Shipping-interest gave occupation to many branches of industry: it consumed considerable quantities of various of our manufactures, and thus gave employment and subsistence to a vast portion of our labouring poor. He therefore contended, that it was well worthy of the attention of the House; and in spite of the various instances of refusal to cuter into committees of inquiry which had occurred during the present Session, he hoped that the House would see that it was its duty not to continue in a blind adherence to a system which ought now at least to undergo examination, as all the predictions of its success had been completely falsified. We were at present pursuing a course which seemed likely to lead to great mischief; and he thought that the sooner we paused in our career, the better it would be for the country. It had been said, "What good will inquiry do?" He would answer that question by another—"Will it do any harm?" If the investigation for which the petitioners asked were granted, and it were proved in the course of it that the evils of which they complained were attributable to other causes from those which they imagined, they would sec that those evils were inevitable from their situation, and would learn to bear them with patience and fortitude; but they would never be satisfied to be told without examination, and on the mere dicta of some official gentlemen, that the distress which overwhelmed them was at once inevitable and irremediable. The
1226
ship-owners had, in their general distress, a decided case against the vague representations which had been made of their prosperity, and there was also a primâ facie case against these representations in the constant refusal of Government to grant any inquiry; for it was quite clear that if Ministers were convinced that an inquiry would bear out their representations, they would not have the slightest objection to grant it. He admitted that the present was too important a question to be thus incidentally introduced to the consideration of the House, but as his hon. friend, who presented the Petition, had no intention to follow it up by any motion, he, as a Shipowner, had felt himself induced to cull attention to it. Whether his hon. friend intended at some future period to found a motion upon this Petition, he did not know; and being in that state of ignorance, he thought it right to state fairly, but without exaggeration, the distressed condition of the ship-owners, and to express a hope that the Government would look to it with all the attention which its importance required. He hoped that the reciprocity system would not be followed up by the formation of any more treaties with foreign powers, until the result of the treaties already made was more fully known. We had already gone far enough in that system; we ought to wait for the experience of a few years before we went further. If that experience should prove that the system was good, then we might proceed further; but till then the system ought not to be extended. The only parties who cooperated with us in that system were those small slates which had every thing to gain and nothing to lose by it. Those great commercial nations, which by adopting the reciprocity system were most likely to conduce to our benefit, would have nothing to do with it; they determined to employ their own ships in their own trade, and instead of meeting us with concessions similar to our own, they rendered our access to their ports expensive by imposing high duties. He therefore thought that it was a question which Government ought to consider immediately, whether they could not alter for the better the present boasted reciprocity system.
Mr. William Duncombesaid, that the object of this petition had been so fully and ably stated by the hon. and learned member for Hull, that he did not feel it necessary to say many words in support of it. But as he had presented petitions of a,

1227
similar nature from several other sea-ports in the county which he had the honour to represent, he could not let the opportunity pass without expressing a hope to the president of the Board of Trade that he would institute a minute inquiry into the condition of the Shipping-interest. He was convinced that the distress of that interest was not, as that of Birmingham had been represented to be, imaginary, but urgent, clear, and almost overwhelming. The petition which he had presented from Whitby on a former night, stated that several of the establishments for ship-building in that town had been given up, and that others now in existence were likely to share the same fate. The petition which he had presented from the port of Scarborough contained the same statement, and both that petition and the former attributed the distress of the Shipping-interest to the alteration of the Navigation-laws in 1826. He concurred with the petitioners in that opinion; and he trusted that if it were possible for Government to make an alteration in those treaties which had grown out of the reciprocity system, they would apply themselves to that task without delay. He trusted that they would also examine whether relief in some other shape could not be afforded to the Shipping-interest; for it was not merely the ship-owners, but all the artisans who depended upon them for employment, who were affected by the severity of the distress which now pressed upon the Shipping-interest. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that this subject would even yet be deemed worthy of inquiry.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansupported the petition, and expressed his concurrence with what had fallen from the hon. Member who had presented it. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would take the subject into his consideration with a view of affording relief.
Mr. Humerose also to express a hope that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would take some notice of the statements which had just been made to the House, He was one of those who thought that some relief might be granted to this particular branch of trade. One of the objects prayed for in the petition presented by his hon. friend, the member for Hull, was certainly within the power of the Government. It was quite possible for the Government to reduce the rates paid by merchant vessels for lighthouses—rates which put about 18,000 l. or 20,000 l. a year into the coffers of the Commissioners
1228
of Woods and Forests, but which took 18 l. or 20 l. from each vessel to put into the pockets of the nobility and gentry who farmed them. The Government might also reduce the rate of duties levied on various materials used in ship-building, such as hemp and timber; indeed, he thought it was a duty incumbent upon Government to reduce them. He could not, however, concur with the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson), in attributing the present distressed condition of the Shipping-interest to the reciprocity treaties. But for those treaties he believed that things would at present have been much worse. For though it might be true that the Shipping-interest was now in a very low condition, every branch of industry, even those which had no connexion with the reciprocity system, was in an equally depressed state. The hon. member for Worcester had stated, that the predictions made about the success of the reciprocity system had signally failed, but had not said a single word to show how they had failed. He had shown that the Shipping-interest was in distress; but so were other interests. As to the want of employment, of which the ship-owners at present complained, it was one of those accidents which could not be avoided. If we had more ships than were required, the supply must be reduced to the demand. He believed that the supply was now reduced to the demand, and he hoped that by next year they would hear that every ship was in full employment. The hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope that the Government would take off the tax which was imposed on every seaman on board of a commercial vessel for the benefit of the chest at Greenwich Hospital. He conceived that it ought to be taken off because it was partial in its collection, and unjust in its operation.
Mr. Herriesthought, that the House would have been more surprised if he had entered into a discussion like the present, containing such various topics, and embracing so wide a field, on the presentation of a petition, than it now was on hearing the hon. member for Aberdeen taunting him for his silence. Had it not been for the appeal made to him by the hon. member for Montrose, he should not have risen for one moment to address the House on the present occasion. It was to vindicate himself from the possible imputation of any want of respect to the hon. member for Hull, who had presented this petition, and

1229
to the important subject to which that hon. Member had called the attention of the House in the course of his speech, but on which he had not founded, or expressed his intention to found, any motion, that he now trespassed for a few moments on its consideration. He could not consent to enter, upon the present occasion, into any discussion of that great question which the hon. member for Worcester had brought under the notice of the House: for, if he touched upon that topic, what topic, already introduced into the debate, was there, which he could properly fail to notice? The first topic on which he would be called to enter would be that of free trade; and he used the term free trade, because it was the denomination by which a system of commercial policy recently adopted was generally entitled in that House. The hon. Member who presented the petition seemed to take the same view of the question of free trade which he himself was disposed to take. He might therefore leave that hon. Member to give his opinions before him upon that subject, and to refute the observations of the hon. member for Worcester. The same answer would apply to all that had been said on the present occasion respecting the bonding system. Plausible as the arguments against it might appear on the first view, it became quite preposterous, after considering the subject maturely, to think of doing it away. He had had several interviews on the subject with some of the leading Members of the interests to which the hon. Member professed to belong; and the scheme of getting rid of the bonding system was no sooner mentioned in argument than it was immediately abandoned. The hon. member for Hull seemed to agree with him also upon this topic—so that there was no occasion for him to pursue it further. Then there was the reciprocity system! Was the present an occasion on which he ought to address the House for the purpose of showing that the consequences attributed to that system had not emanated from it? That system was no system of his. He could not, therefore, be supposed to have any unfair predilection for it. It had been introduced by others, and though he had fully concurred in the views of those who had adopted it, it by no means followed that he was to defend it at all hazards. Still, though he would not enter into the discussion at present, he was pre-pared, at the proper time, to show that the hon. Member was completely mistaken in the view which he had taken respecting it.
1230
The very fact that the average amount of British tonnage entered inwards and cleaved outwards for the last four years greatly exceeded the average amount of British tonnage during the four years ending in 1824 before the alteration of our system, was a proof that the alteration had not been productive of mischief to the Shipping-interest. There had been an increase of 242,882 tons entered inwards in the latter period. There had likewise been a proportional increase in the number of ships, of tonnage, and of men cleared outwards within the same time. He admitted that in foreign shipping there had been a small increase; but upon the whole, the great increase of employment had undoubtedly been in favour of British shipping. This was a fact which was not known to him alone—it came within the knowledge of every man who gave himself the trouble of attending to this subject. That there had been an increase of the foreign shipping engaged in the British trade was a point which he did not mean to deny; but the increase of the foreign tonnage was to the increase of the British tonnage in the ratio of 5,000 to 200,000. He mentioned this, not for the idle purpose of gaining a temporary advantage in debate, but for the sake of dispelling the gross delusions which prevailed in certain quarters on this topic. He did not enter at present into the question of the profits or of the distress of the shipowners, who were employed, as they stated, at a loss. He would only say, that there was, on the part of Ministers, no want of anxious attention to the condition of the Shipping-interest. There was, on the contrary, an earnest desire to apply their best abilities to the consideration of any remedy which the members of that interest, could point out for the grievances of which they complained. Ministers were, and had been, ready upon all occasions to listen to all their petitions, to weigh them with care, and to argue them with patience, and they had never turned a deaf ear to any statement which had come from this important branch of the trade of the country. He assured the House that Ministers were inclined to pay attention to those parts of the petition which were of a peculiar kind, not referring to the foreign policy of the country, but to the burthens more peculiarly affecting the Shipping-interest; and concluded by promising that they should be made the subject of his immediate consideration.
Mr. John Stewartreferred, in confirmation of the assertions of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, to a declaration contained in the Report recently made by the Committee on commerce to the Congress of the United States. That declaration was as follows:—"When the present and past condition of our navigation are contrasted,—when we compare the increase of British and American tonnage before and since the war, and show the rapid growth of the commerce of the British North American possessions, we shall learn to comprehend the advantages of a system of free trade, and we shall perhaps feel no small degree of alarm, lest our fatal restrictions should have already driven us too far in the rear of all our rivals for national power and naval ascendancy." Attached to that report was a comparative statement of British and American tonnage actually employed; and from that statement it appeared, that for the last few years the increase had regularly been on the side of British, and the decrease on the side of American, tonnage. The hon. member for Worcester had quoted the number of foreign vessels entering inwards as a proof of the mischief arising to the Shipping-interest from the reciprocity system; but the evidence which the hon. Member had brought in support of his position did not appear to him to be altogether satisfactory. For his own part, he believed that all foreign shipping was in a much worse situation than our own. The distress of the Shipping-interest was not the malady of our country, but of the times. He believed that the further we advanced in experience, the more should we be convinced that the doctrines advanced upon this subject by his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, were doctrines founded on sound policy and the most philosophical principles of political economy. They were the seeds which would hereafter ripen into a plentiful harvest of national wealth; and to their prosperous results might be applied the beautiful expression of Virgil—
"Tarda venit seris factura nepotibus umbram.''
The Petition was then brought up. On the question that it be laid upon the Table,
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he must be permitted to make one or two remarks on the observations which had fallen from the right hon. President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that there had been—not that there is—an increase in the amount of British tonnage entered inwards and cleared, outwards.
1232
Though the right hon. Gentleman had not given the returns up to the latest period. He had seen them; and by the official return for the last year, which had not yet been published, it appeared that there had been a decrease in the amount of tonnage for the present year. The right hon. Gentleman said, that there had been an increase in the amount of British tonnage employed in trade generally. He would undertake on another opportunity to show, beyond all possibility of contradiction, that that increase belonged entirely to the vessels engaged in our colonial trade, which had nothing to do with any reciprocity system, and to the vessels engaged in the Brazilian and Indian trade. He would undertake to show that there had been, during the year ending December, 1829, a decrease in the registered tonnage of the United Kingdom of no less than 642 vessels.
Mr. Herries, in reply, stated that he had spoken of the increase in the amount of our tonnage from returns made up to the latest period. He had stated that the amount of British tonnage entering inwards and clearing outwards for the last four years was superior to the amount for the four years immediately preceding the year in which we made the alterations in our commercial system; and he now said, that the amount of men, tonnage and ships entering inwards and clearing outwards, during the last year, was greater than ever it was at any former period. Take the amount, for instance, for the years 1828 and 1829. In 1828, hte number of ships entering inwards was 13,436, their tonnage was 2,094,357, and the number of men employed was 119,141. In 1829 the number of ships entering inwards was 13,659, their tonnage was 2,184,535, and the number of men employed was 122,185. Thus the difference in favour of the year 1829, for ships entering inwards, was, in ships, 223, in tonnage 90,178, and in men 3,044. In 1828, the number of ships clearing outwards was 12,248, their tonnage was 2,006,397, and the number of men employed was 119,143. In 1829 the corresponding numbers were—ships 12,636, tonnage, 2,063,179, men, 119, 262. Thus the difference in favour of the year 1829, for ships clearing outwards, was, in ships 388, in tonnage 56,782, and in men 119-Surely this would satisfy the hon. Member for Worcester. He had also spoken of the comparative average amount of ships, tonnage, and men entering inwards and clear-

1233
ing outwards, for the four years ending with the 5th of January 1822, 1823, 1824, and 1825; and for the four years 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1829; and if the hon. member would allow him, he would shortly state it to the House. In the first of these two periods there were entered inwards, on an average, ships 11,894, tonnage 1,836,223, men, 110,734; in the latter of them there were—ships 13,175, tonnage 2,079,105, men, 117,775; leaving a difference in favour of the last period, of ships 1,281, tonnage, 242,882, men 7,041. In the first of the same two periods, there were, of ships clearing outwards, 10,172, tonnage, 1,634,327, men, 101,034-; and in the latter, ships 11,802, tonnage 1,923,671, men, 113,999; leaving again a difference in favour of the latter period—of ships, 1,630, tonnage 289,344, men, 12,965. He would likewise state that the increase of British ships, on the average of the last four years, over foreign ships, engaged in foreign navigation, was—in ships entering inwards 464, in tonnage, 5,000, and in men, 530; and in ships clearing outwards was, 820, tonnage, 30,000, and men, 2,400.
Mr. Robinsonagain contended, that in the return which he had seen there were 642 vessels of registered tonnage less this year than there were last.
Mr. Trantasked whether the right hon. Gentleman included steam-vessels in his account.
Mr. Herriesanswered, No.
The Petition laid on the Table. On the motion that it be printed,
Mr. Sykesreturned thanks to his hon. friend, the Member for Montrose, for having excited the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, by his observations, to give some reply to the statements of the petitioners. He thought that this question would have been left in a very unsatisfactory condition indeed, if it had not elicited from his right hon. friend the observations which he had just made. His object in giving notice of his intention to present this petition to-day, was to apprize Ministers of the importance which he attributed to it, and to call upon them to declare their sentiments upon it. If his light hon. friend had persisted in his original determination to keep silence, the greatest dismay would have fallen upon the petitioners. It would have pleased him much more if his right hon. friend, instead of dealing in general professions of the attention which be and his colleagues were always ready to
1234
pay to the complaints of the ship-owners, had said that he was prepared to bring forward some specific measure for their relief. As to Free Trade, that was a subject on which he had not thought fit to say a single word: for on this subject, of all others, he thought that a discussion of its merits ought not to be introduced. Free Trade, as he understood the phrase, consisted in the greatest extension of imports and exports into and from every country in the world. To other interests it might be one of the most pestilent heresies that ever existed; he did not, however, think that it was; but to the ship-owners it could not but be favourable, as they were, and must always remain, the carriers of the world, and it gave them, as far as possible, the liberty to go to every part of the world.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next.

FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE COUNTRY.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he would take the present opportunity of putting a question to his Majesty's Ministers with respect to the Foreign Relations of the Country. In his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, at the meeting of Parliament in the present Session, the House had been informed that certain things were pending with reference to Greece, and that when the arrangements were complete, Parliament would be duly informed of the fact, and that the papers connected with those arrangements would be laid before the House. Nothing of the sort had as yet been done. Since this declaration, a speech of the King of France had appeared in all the public Newspapers, in which his Most Christian Majesty informs his two chambers, that the negotiation with respect to Greece had come to a close, and that a Prince had been chosen by the common consent and agreement of the Allied Powers to preside over the destinies of Greece. Although the Prince was not named in his Most Christian Majesty's speech, it was perfectly understood by every body that the allusion was to his Royal Highness Prince Leopold—and he was sure, that a choice more perfectly calculated to ensure the future happiness of Greece, and to establish permanently her pacific connexion with the rest of Europe, could not be made. But this announcement on the part of the King of France to the Chamber made him anxious to inquire of the right hon. Gentle

1235
man opposite (Mr. Peel) whether the negotiation having apparently come to a conclusion, the time hail not arrived when the right hon. Gentleman would receive a command from his Majesty to lay all the papers relating to the arrangements before the Houses of Parliament? With reference to what might be contained in these papers, it would be premature in him to offer any opinion, hut he certainly could not help calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. He was sorry to say that this very important question concerning the kingdom of Greece, as well as the foreign affairs of this country in general, received too little consideration both from Parliament and the public. He was fully aware of the very great importance of the numerous domestic questions which pressed upon the House from day to day; but at the same time he could not but recollect that the most important of all those questions—the weight of debt and taxes which pressed upon the resources and productive industry of the country—were to be attributed to a course of foreign policy which he certainly thought was ruinous, and which, in his opinion, had laid the country under difficulties from which it would require the utmost efforts to save her. He was most anxious to form an opinion upon the foreign policy of the Government of the country, by paying attention to the papers which his Majesty's Ministers might lay before Parliament. He wished, by a consideration of such papers, to decide whether his Majesty's Ministers, in the course of the negotiations that had taken place in the last two years, had pursued a course which was at once pacific, and which had maintained the character of the country? It did appear strange to the House and to the public, that so much of the Session had been allowed to pass—that the House had been called upon to sanction so many, measures, and to consider such various and important topics, without his Majesty's Ministers having laid before Parliament papers relating to the negotiation he had alluded to, and the production of which had been in a manner pledged by his Majesty's Speech from the Throne. He was the more anxious on account of a few words that had incidentally been dropt by a light hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course of the debate that had taken place the other night in voting the Navy Estimates. It appeared, by the speech to which he alluded, and which had created a great sensation throughout the country, that in July last
1236
the political atmosphere had been perfectly clear and undisturbed; but that in the August following, without any previous signs, a sudden change had taken place, and that, in point of fact, the country was on the very eve of a war. If this war had really taken place—if this war had been a war to protect Turkey from the oppression of Russia, he felt quite confident that the flames of war would have extended to the rest of Europe. This i country could not expect to be delivered from such a war but at the expense of at least three hundred millions added to the debt, independent of increased taxation, and impediments laid upon every branch of productive industry. These were the evils to which this country would have infallibly been exposed; and he was, therefore, impatient to know what had been the conduct of Government in this transaction. It would be very difficult to convince him that any necessity had existed to bring the country so near to the very verge of hostilities. He could not but avow that he had a great and general distrust in the policy of his Majesty's Government with respect to foreign States. With reference to Portugal, that distrust was founded upon reasons which he had already stated to the House, and he should be ready to support his opinions in his place when the question respecting Terceira was again brought before Parliament. With reference to Russia and Turkey, his impression was unfavourable to the policy which his Majesty's Ministers had thought it proper to adopt. He would not, however, pronounce any opinion upon the subject, as it might. possibly be changed by the papers which he supposed that Ministers would lay before the Parliament. He would own, however, that his unfavourable impression was strengthened by the delay in producing the papers. With respect to domestic affairs, he had already voted with Ministers upon several occasions. In the questions of Currency and Trade, he was ready to support the line they advocated. He had, in fact, no grounds of opposition to their domestic policy. But in their foreign policy he had not the same confidence, and he believed that respecting it many hon. Members entertained the same distrust and suspicion as himself. He therefore hoped that the papers would be laid before the House as soon as possible; but if, as the King of France had stated, there were certain negotiations not yet concluded, he allowed that the right hon.

1237
Gentleman could not produce these papers until the difficulties in the way of such a proceeding were brought to an end. Still ho begged to submit, that if these negotiations were nearly concluded, the right hon. Secretary might, perhaps, give the House some pledge that no time would be lost in laying the papers before them.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that his Majesty's Ministers were anxious to produce the papers which related to the negotiations regarding the future condition of Greece at as early a period as they could, consistently with that which must be the leading object of all statesmen—the permanent interests of this kingdom, and those likewise of that country in whose affairs we had been induced to interfere. He had the satisfaction of stating that the parties who signed the Treaty of the 6th of July, 1827, had conic to a resolution respecting the government of Greece, and the relations it was to hold with other powers; and he had also the satisfaction to say, that they were in perfect accord as to the Prince to whom the Sovereignty of that country was to be committed. On these main points, the future government of Greece, its future condition (which, he was happy to declare, was to be one of unqualified independence), and lastly, the selection of the Prince who was to preside over its destinies—on all these great points there was the most complete concord, and the most perfect unanimity between the Allied Powers who had signed the Treaty of the 6th of July. That concord had existed from the beginning, and up to this moment was uninterrupted. But there were some points of a subordinate nature, on which negotiations were still pending, and until they were brought to an end, the noble Lord himself must concur with him that it would not be for the public interest to produce the papers; he was sure, however, that at no distant moment, he should receive the commands of his Majesty to lay them before the House. He was also sure that this would be done at the earliest possible time consistent with the interests of England, and the permanent welfare of Greece. The noble Lord had stated that he approved of the domestic policy pursued by the Administration, but that he viewed the foreign policy with some suspicion and distrust. Now, he could not help thinking that the distinction arose from the circumstance that there was not the same opportunity of giving that immediate explanation respecting the course
1238
pursued by Government in the one that there was in the other. The domestic policy was in itself of necessity more clear—it was the subject of constant discussion in that House; but it was obvious that the same facility did not exist as to foreign policy. Silence was imposed upon the Ministers for a long period in many instances. If, then, on those points in which Ministers had means of explanation the noble Lord gave them his confidence, and if there were points on which they could not give an explanation, he hoped that the House would not follow the example of the noble Lord as to our foreign policy, but, on the contrary, suspend its judgment until Ministers could give a full account of their proceedings; and he entertained the utmost confidence, that when this took place, the decision would be in their favour, as well in regard of foreign policy as in that of domestic policy. The House might rest assured, that after having completed the pacification of Greece, they would neither sacrifice the permanent interests of that country nor of this; and that also the most anxious attention would be paid to that which must be as dear to them as any worldly or pecuniary interest whatsoever-he meant the high character of the British nation [cheers]
Lord J. Russellasked if the negotiations then pending related to the affairs of Greece, or to those of the Ottoman Porte?
Mr. Secretary Peelstated, that they were negotiations between the three Allied Powers on the one hand, and the Prince designated as Sovereign of the country on the other. The right hon. Gentleman, after a short pause, gave a further explanation of what, he said, was a very important point which he had inadvertently omitted, in replying to the questions of the noble Lord. He was unwilling to leave it in that degree of uncertainty which might seem to warrant the correctness of the noble Lord's opinion. The noble Lord said, that from something which had passed in that House, he had been led to understand that in August last we were upon the verge of a war, in order to protect Turkey from the attacks of Russia. Now he could not acquiesce in the correctness of the noble Lord's inference. He was not aware that the country was on the verge of war at the period alluded to, and still less for the purpose of protecting Turkey or Constantinople from the Russians.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he had been led to this opinion in consequence of what

1239
had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty respecting the hospital at Malta. In July it appeared that Government did not consider it necessary to go on with the works at this hospital; but in August an emergency of so grave a nature was stated to have arisen, that Government considered itself justified in applying certain monies to the completion of this establishment, without waiting for a vote from Parliament. From this he had naturally inferred that there was an apprehension that the fleet at Malta might be brought into immediate action. He said then that we must have been upon the verge of a war, and he was not contradicted. The right hon. Gentleman did certainly now say 'no.' But still the statement of the right hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, combined with rumours he had heard from unofficial quarters, to the effect that the Russians were informed that if they proceeded in the extension of the blockade of the Dardanelles, the consequence to them would be a war upon the part of this country—had all induced him to entertain the suspicion, and arrive at the conclusion, to which he had given utterance. It might be that these rumours were perfectly unfounded. Such, however, did not very clearly appear to be the fact; but when the papers which he was desirous of having, came before the House, the necessary information with respect to those transactions would be obtained, and we should then see how the matter stood.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, the noble Lord had mistaken the nature and tendency of the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It had been simply stated, that because in August our force in the Mediterranean had been increased from six thousand to eight thousand men, and from six to nine sail of the line, there would be a necessity for an increased accommodation in the Seamen's Hospital at Malta. Nothing had been breathed respecting the country being upon the verge of a war.
Mr. Humesaid, the statement was, that a case of emergency had arisen which warranted the Admiralty in venturing to increase the expense of the particular item in question, even without the sanction of the House. He could assure Gentlemen opposite, that among persons sitting on this side of the House the impression created, not only by what fell from the Secretary of the Admiralty, but by the observations of another right hon. Gentleman, now in his place, was, that such a danger as that described did exist last August.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that he had stated that applications had been made to increase the establishment of the Naval Hospital at Malta beyond its amount, when there were only six thousand men in the Mediterranean, because circumstances had induced Government to raise that force to eight thousand men, and such being the case, they necessarily required a more extensive establishment, and an augmentation was made in the Naval Hospital.
Sir J. Wrottesleyentirely acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of having given any ground for supposing that a war was impending in August; but from what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty, he must say that the strong impression upon his mind at the time was, not only that it had been likely that the hospital would be called into action to a greater extent than usual by reason of the augmentation of force in the Mediterranean, but that it had been necessary to provide for the contingency of having a certain number of wounded men to take care of; and it struck him at the time as being rather extraordinary that a communication so important as he considered that to be, should have come from a Gentleman not in the Cabinet.
Lord Howickobserved, that the exact words made use of on such an occasion are important; and he believed he could state them pretty accurately. The right hon. Secretary said, that in the month of July the Lords of the Admiralty thought no increase in the hospital at Malta would be necessary; but that in August, there being a prospect of the fleet being called into immediate action, it was requisite to augment the hospital.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, it was stated that in July there was no intention of augmenting the establishment; but that in August, an increase having taken place in the Mediterranean fleet instead of a decrease, it was necessary to augment the hospital. Nine sail of the line were upon the station: it was impossible to tell what might be the result, but he did not say there had been a probability of war.
The conversation dropped, and the Motion for the adjournment of the House at its rising till Monday was agreed to.

SUPPLY—REPORT—CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving moved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee,

1241
of Supply, observed that it was his intention only to ask for a vote on account of the Cavil Contingencies. He should then pro-coed with the Ordnance Estimates.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, it had been his intention to take an early opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the important subject of the collection of the Revenue. His own wish was, that, a committee should be appointed to inquire into the extraordinary amount of the charge of collection: however, he understood that Government intended to make an inquiry into the subject themselves. If this were confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should feel disposed to wait till the result of that inquiry was known. He now asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if steps were to be taken by Ministers for the formation of a commission to investigate the matter, and if such were the case, whether we might expect any report or information on the subject before the close of the Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerflattered himself that he could give a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's question. On the night of the Budget he had intimated that it was the intention of Government to have two commissions—one to inquire into our colonial expenditure, the other to investigate the collection of the revenue. The commissioners would shortly commence their labours, and he had no doubt that before the period mentioned by the hon. Member, they would have advanced so far as to be enabled to lay some information on the subject before the House.
Mr. W. Smithcalled the attention of the Secretary for the Colonies to the propriety of procuring certain returns, connected (we believe) with the number of deaths in the colonies. The returns, though ordered, had not been laid before the House, and unless the right hon. the Secretary wished otherwise, he should move that those orders be complied with forthwith.
Sir G. Murrayexplained the circumstances under which the subject had been introduced last Session. An hon. Member had moved for a return of the deaths at Sierra Leone; and combining the un-healthiness of this colony with others, he proposed that similar returns should be produced respecting them. But there were many objections to this. Hon. Gentlemen would at once perceive, in the first place, that as some colonies were healthy at one season, or one year, and the contrary at another season and, at another year, there was
1242
evidently no means of arriving at an accurate conclusion by such returns; and secondly, there was much doubt whether they would be attended with any public advantage. The promulgation of the un-healthiness of any particular station might disincline the troops to going there (although he allowed they, on all occasions, displayed the utmost alacrity in obeying orders); and were it only on that account, ho thought it might be as well passed over. It might do mischief, and could produce no advantage; the more especially as the hon. Member for Montrose proposed to bring forward a motion respecting Sierra Leone. In conclusion, he submitted to the hon. Member if it would not be well for him to withdraw his notice respecting these returns.
[Mr. Alderman Waithman rose to present a petition; but he was declared out of order, and compelled to sit down.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen brought up the Report of 100,000 l. granted for Civil Contingencies, during 1830.
Mr. Humeasked, what was to be the course of proceeding respecting the Estimates. He was surprised at the Civil Contingencies taking precedence of the Ordnance Estimates. When were the Miscellaneous and Irish Estimates to be brought forward.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the vote for Civil Contingencies was merely on account. As to the course he intended to pursue, he proposed first to go on with the Ordnance Estimates; then the Army Extra ordinaries; and lastly, the Miscellaneous and Irish Estimates, in the usual course.
Mr. Humeasked, if Wednesday was to be a Supply day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the object was, to finish the Ordnance Estimates before Easter. He hoped to get through them to-night, or at furthest on Monday.
On the question that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Burrellsaid, that he himself, the worthy Alderman behind him, and others, had waited four or five hours to present petitions; he thought they should be afforded the opportunity of doing so before any other business was entered on.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas reluctantly compelled to press his Motion.

SUPPLY.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Percevalproposed that 8,933 l., for defraying the Salaries of Officers in the Ordnance Departments at Woolwich during the year 1830, be granted to his Majesty.
Mr. Humesaid, he rose to offer a few observations which could no longer be of any use, since the vote upon which he proposed to touch had been already agreed to. The thrice-told tale about the Ordnance had now become very stale indeed; and from the recent vote, which decided upon the continuance of an unnecessary office, it was perfectly obvious that no reduction in this department was to be expected. He was now fighting in a cause altogether desperate; still he would trouble the House with a few words. There was one extraordinary thing to which he desired to call their attention. The expenses of the Ordnance Establishment, in 1796, were only 18,700 l., while at present they amounted to 71,000 l. It was also remarkable, that when there were four Lords of the Admiralty at 4,000 l., there should be a Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance at 1,200 l. a year, a Surveyor-general at 1,200 l. a year, a principal Storekeeper at 1,200 l. a year, a Clerk of the Ordnance at 1,200 l. a year, and a Clerk of the Deliveries at 1,019 l. a year. Government was, he thought, called on, if they had any regard to their professions, to make some reduction in this enormous expenditure. He would also, in addition to what he had before said, tell the House an extraordinary fact. In 1796 the Surveyor-general of the Ordnance had only fourteen clerks, at salaries of 2,01 l.; at present there were forty-seven clerks at 14,034 l. He could not see why there should be two establishments kept up—one at Pall-mall, the other at the Tower. He should be glad to know, what possible inconvenience could occur from removing the clerks from the Tower to Pall-mall? It could be done without any trouble, and with very little expense, while, by taking that course, a considerable saving would be made. Besides, it was important that all the members of any department should be together, since it materially tended to facilitate the transaction of business. On this ground, he did think, even leaving the important question of economy out of sight, that it was proper to have these different clerks under the same roof. Neither could he observe the utility of keeping up, at enormous salaries, two such officers as the Master-general and Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, when the Lieutenant-general, by the account of
1244
Ministers the other night, did all the business, and the Master-general only assisted him. It was futile however to challenge this salary or that, when they saw a whole department in this way so mismanaged. He could see no cause whatever for laying out 6'0,000 l. or 70,000 l. per annum on a department which in 1797 only required 18,000 l. or 19,000 l. Neither could he conceive why the Government should manifest so much reluctance to accede to the recommendation of the committee which had inquired into all the facts. Notwithstanding all the additional expense imposed upon the country, the business was not better done now than it had been formerly.
Mr. Percevalobserved, that the speech of the hon. Member appeared to be entirely directed to the vote that had been carried the other night; and he thought that the hon. Gentleman must candidly admit that he had made but a rambling statement, from beginning to end. He therefore trusted that he should be excused if he did not follow him accurately and convincingly through every portion of it. The hon. Gentleman had compared the present state of the Ordnance with that of 17.96; but he must be aware that since that period an immense increase of business had been imposed upon the department. That was a ground, therefore, on which censure could not, with justice, be founded. The duty at the present time was increased,—it was trebled; and he would ask, could those who were at the head of the department prevent it from being so increased? The whole subject had been gone into with great detail by his right hon. friend (Sir H. Hardinge) in his evidence before the Finance Committee; and the expressed opinion of his right hon. friend was, that in reality a great saving had been effected. The hon. Member had compared the establishment of the Ordnance with that of the Navy; but he seemed to have forgotten that the former department, in many respects, had much to do on account of the Navy department; all which ought to be taken into consideration. The whole of the Colonial business, as far as garrisons and artillery were concerned in particular, had been thrown on the Ordnance department since the year 1823. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the duties of the chief clerk in the office of the Surveyor-general. That individual had been in the service for fifty years; his exertions had been most meritorious; his salary was not more than commensurate to his labours; and on his retirement, his allowance would

1245
be reduced to 900 l. With respect to the removal of the office from the Tower to Pall-mall, that subject had not been overlooked by the Board, and a calculation had been made of the expense that would be likely to follow on such a step. The result of this calculation was, a conviction that no saving would accrue from the measure. Without considerable buildings to the right and left of the present office in Pall-mall, the thing could not be accomplished at all. If such a proposal as this were to be introduced to the House, he should like to know whether the hon. Member would support the Estimate, and pronounce an eulogium on the principle. It was proved before the Finance Committee, that the expense of the buildings at present was about 1,600 l. a-year; but if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were attended to, it would, he believed, be necessary to increase the expense very much. With respect to the reduction of the Master-general's salary, if the hon. Gentleman would make a motion on the subject, no doubt it would be properly met.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonremarked, that in the Estimates there were four clerks at 550 l. a year, and six clerks at 400 l. a year in the Surveyor-general's department, in all forty-seven, and he could not conceive that there was a necessity for such a number of clerks, or for them to have such large salaries as at present.
Mr. Lennardsaid, he wished to know whether there was any estimate of the expense that would be incurred by removing the clerks to Pall-mall; for at present the question appeared to be one of expense only? The right hon. Gentleman, in his evidence before the Finance Committee, seemed to favour the supposition that the removal itself would be expedient. He was also of opinion, that the business might be done at a less expense.
Mr. Maberlysaid, there was no reason whatever—notwithstanding the assertions of hon. Members opposite, who seemed to think that these two offices possessed some repelling power—why they should be kept separate. A removal as to the Store-department had already taken place; then why not in this case also. It was in every respect improper, that two establishments, which related to the same department, and ought to be under one roof, were thus divided, Letters were continually sent to and fix because the two parts were separate. The Finance Committee, in looking at this question, had proceeded on principle; for what
1246
should they think of any other department—the Treasury, for instance—if one portion of it were carried on at the Tower and the other at Pall-mall? He, therefore, like the committee, looked upon the question as one of principle, which respected the mode of conducting public business, rather than of economy, though that was also a mutter of great importance. What, then, was the reason why the establishment so hung to the Tower? Because the officers were afraid that they would have to give up their residences without remuneration; and the same feeling prevailed at Pall-mall. Would any one pretend to say that there was not ample room for all the clerks at Pall-mall if the building was properly disposed? But if a room forty feet square was given up for a waiting-room, no wonder sufficient room could not be found.
Sir Henry Fanesaid, he was unwilling to trouble the House, but he was obliged to do so by the observations of the hon. member for Dover, relative to the clerks in the Surveyor-general's office. Looking to the various duties which were to be performed, forty-seven clerks were not too much; and he could assure the House that all of them were occupied. It had been said, on a previous evening, that the only business of the Ordnance was to superintend the cutting of jackets and the contracts for pipe-clay: with respect to his own department, he begged to say that the duties were much more serious and important. The details of business connected with the barrack department were very numerous. He had to examine accounts of almost all business which could be named, and even of much which could not be named in that place. With respect to the enormous amount of salaries, all he could say was, that the gentleman to whom allusion had been made had been in the service for more than fifty years, and had always shown himself a most meritorious officer.
Mr. Humesaid, there were many general officers who had served equally long, and who did not receive a third of the pay; therefore either the one was over-rated, or the other under-rated. At the same time he was bound to say, that no department could be in better order; and as to the individual, he appeared to be as fit as possible; and if the union and consolidation which he had introduced had been adopted by the Board, he thought that the whole department would now have been in much better order. As regarded the barracks, two good clerks were sufficient to do the work, for all

1247
they had to do was to see that the barrack-masters did their duty; and they had no more to do with the stores than he had, further than to see that the returns were correct. He wished to know how many clerks there were at Pall-mall, and how many at the Tower? Then they should be able to judge whether the division of the officers or their union would he the most expensive, He likewise wished to know what was the calculation made as to the expenses of removal?
Sir Henry Faneanswered, that in his department all the clerks were at the Tower. He could assure the Committee that it would be a convenience to every member of the Board to have all the clerk brought together; but the question of expense had been looked to. The offices at the Tower were admirably suited to the purposes required; the Secretary of the hoard was the only officer that had a residence.
Mr. Hume, would recommend then that all the gentlemen should be sent to the Tower. If the Tower could not he brought to Pall-mall, then Pall-mall must be sent to the Tower.
Mr. Percevalobserved, that according to the calculation, there would be an expense of l,560 l. a year for compensation for dwellings, exclusive of 200 l. a year to the Secretary, and of the loss to the Board for the rent of the house which he inhabited. The total expense would be 2,200 l. besides the charge for removal. To this was to be added the expense for new buildings, for the rooms at Pall-mall were not sufficient to receive the clerks from the Tower.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, it was his intention, not having understood that the votes on the salaries of several clerks had been passed, to have divided the House on almost every one of them. He thought, in the present state of things, and looking to the great and growing distress of the time, that these clerks were too well paid, when their remuneration was compared with that of the really hard-working classes of society. Therefore it was his wish to divide the House on these votes. There was no less than 44, 138 l. voted to clerks, certainly not to men the whole of whom did actual duty. Here was one clerk with 1,100 l. a year, another with 1,000 l. a year, whose duties were performed by deputy clerks. They drove about in their carriages, and indulged in every species of luxury, while the people were in a most deplorable state of distress. Here was 1,100 l. a year voted to one clerk,—oue would suppose a private clerk, for he
1248
was never heard of at all,—and he had also perhaps half-pay. When he contrasted his situation with that of an unfortunate wretch who was sent out to Siena Leone on 90 l. a year, or with that of a Lieutenant-colonel of fifty years' standing, who only received 200 l., he could not avoid reprobating so unjust and unfair a system. When the report was to be brought up, he should certainly, if the hon. member for Montrose did not, oppose its being received.
Sir H. Hardingethought, that the salary of 1,100 l. a year to Mr. Angell was by no means too much, considering the length and value of his services. He had been the cause of considerable saving to the public, by means of his vigilance and activity; and if he had been all these years in a mercantile house instead of the Ordnance, there could be no doubt that by this time he would have been a man of very large property. Since the war, 277 clerks had been reduced, and a saving effected to the country of 47,000 l. a year.
Colonel Sibthorphad not intended to question the respectability or abilities of these gentlemen; but he thought that the state of the country called for reduction.
Colonel Trenchsaid, he could bear testimony to the merits of those individuals. There never was a more admirable or efficient body of public servants. He contended also that the offices at the Tower and at Pall-mall could not be dispensed with.
Mr. Lennardwished to see the salaries of the principal officers reduced, and not that of the clerks, who did all the duty. He regretted that the office at Pall-mall was not yet abolished.
Sir H. Hardingethought the discussion quite superfluous, as the vote for those offices was passed.
Mr. Maberlywas of opinion that the subject was yet open to discussion. There was not sufficient business to employ both the offices at Pall-mall and at the Tower, and they ought to be consolidated. With very little trouble the house at Pall-mall might be made to contain all the Ordnance offices. The real reason why neither of these establishments was done away with was, that the gentlemen at the Tower would not go to the office at Pall-mall, and the gentlemen at Pall-mall would not go to the Tower. He hoped another year would not pass without one or other of them being compelled to change their residence. As to Mr. Angell he was quite ready to bear his testimony to the efficiency and value of that

1249
gentleman's services. A more intelligent and able officer did not serve his Majesty. He was ready to bear the same testimony also to the conduct of Mr. Stacey, the Clerk of the Stores, and he was anxious to sec the marine store and barrack department placed under his management. There were other consolidations which he knew might, without much difficulty, be made, if that gentleman's recommendations were followed, by which a considerable saving would be effected. He could not conceive, for example, why the Marine barracks should not be placed under the same department as all the other barracks. He considered—and he supposed the gallant officer would not on that account call him illiberal—the civil department of the army to be much better paid than the military; and though he was ready and willing to admit the great merit of individuals in the former department, he thought many of them were too well paid, and that they were much too numerous. Many of them were, he thought, unnecessary and even useless. The consolidation of the two offices would make this more apparent, and would enable the Government to dispense with the services of several gentlemen: he must therefore repeat his wish that the recommendations of the Finance Committee should be attended to, and the offices consolidated.
Sir G. Clerkhaving been in the Ordnance, and having still the misfortune to hold office (though this might make him a suspected witness in the estimation of the hon. member for Cumberland), felt himself called on to give his opinion. He admitted, that if they had then to form the offices in question, they might be conveniently consolidated; but at present there were two buildings for the two offices, neither of which would be sufficient for both. It would not be possible to collect all the members of both these offices either at the Tower or at Pall-mall, without erecting additional buildings. If the office were to be removed to the Tower, the whole of that must be remodelled to provide convenient offices; and what would the hon. member for Aberdeen say, if the Ministers were to ask for a sum of 30 or 40,000 l. to construct the necessary buildings? By such an alteration the country might save 400 l. or 500 l. a year at an expense of 30,000 l.
Mr. Humewas willing to drop that subject, though he had heard no reason why the two offices should not be consolidated; but he should like to know if the sum of
1250
14,000 l., charged for the management of the Ordnance at Dublin was never to be decreased? Was that to be a permanent charge?
Colonel Peelwas as anxious as any man to reduce the salaries of officers, but he must hear some more convincing arguments than had been urged by the Gentlemen opposite, before he could vote with them. Sometimes they complained of the salaries of the inferior clerks being reduced too low, and now they say they are too high: when those hon. Gentlemen became consistent they might perhaps command his vote.
Mr. Humewas not aware of the inconsistency alluded to by the hon. member for Norwich, though he must admit that it would be very inconsistent in him ever to expect that hon. Member to vote with him. Passing by the hon. Member and his observations, however, he wished to know if 14,000 l. per annum was to be paid for ever for the inspection and taking care of a few stores at Dublin.
Mr. Percevalcould not hold out any hope of reduction in that particular. The salaries of the officers were fixed a few years ago; the office could not be dispensed with, the whole of the barracks and ordnance stores of Ireland being placed in charge of the office at Dublin. It had also a continued correspondence with the chief office in London. Unless the hon. Member were to sweep barracks and all the establishments for the army out of existence, he could not sec how these various offices of inspection and account could be dispensed with.
Mr. Humewished also to inquire, if the office of Inspector of the manufacture of gunpowder at Feversham was to be continued. He admitted that gunpowder must be had, but he doubted the utility of the means the Government employed to procure it. The inspector had a house at Feversham, the manufacture was at Waltham Abbey, the office of accounts was at Pall-mall, and the store was at the Tower. Were these the ingredients for manufacturing gunpowder?
Mr. Percevalcould give the hon. Member a satisfactory answer on this point; the office was to be done away, and arrangements to carry that into effect were in progress.
The vote of 8,933 l. to defray the expense of Salaries, &c. at Woolwich, was then agreed to.
The next question was, that a sum of 87,464 l. be granted to his Majesty, to defray Salaries and other expenses of the

1251
several Civil Establishments of the Ordnance at home and abroad, to which
Mr. Humeobjected, on account of it being extremely inconvenient to vote all the items included under that sum together.
Mr. Percevalsaid, that the items were all set forth in the Estimates. The expense for the stations at home and abroad were kept distinct, and the total of all the stations was the sum of 87,464 l., for which a vote was asked.
Mr. Humewas aware of that, but the arrangement was inconvenient, because some Members objected to one item and some to another, and either they were compelled to forego all opposition or to vote against the whole sum, which many did not like to do. In his opinion the votes for the home and for the foreign stations should be taken separately.
Mr. Percevalreminded the hon. Member that the present Estimates only differed from those of former years by the expense for the Irish barrack-masters having been brought under the head of Ordnance-stations. The home and foreign stations had always been placed together.
Sir John Wrottesleygave the hon. Gentleman credit for the best intentions, but he must call his attention to the inconvenience of the arrangement. The vote was for 87,464 l., and his hon. friend intended to take the sense of the House on the expense for the home station, for which the charge was 17,443 l. Perhaps he only objected to a single item of that, amounting to 700 l., and if he moved that the vote be reduced by that sum, all those who thought as be did would vote for granting 86,000 l. and something more, and would thus be precluded from objecting to many other items, which they were perhaps desirous of opposing.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that the change had been made in the Estimates, he believed, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Callington, and in obedience to what was understood to be the wish of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House.
Mr. Percevalhad no objection to divide the votes to suit the convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. Maberlywas of opinion, that the Ordnance stations should be separated from the Barrack-masters' expenses.
Mr. Humesuggested that the hon. Member should move for a vote for each item as it was placed in the Estimate.
Mr. Perceval Mr. Perceval, instead of moving for 87,464 l. would move, therefore, for 46,076 l.
1252
the expense of the Ordnance stations at home, abroad, and in Ireland.
Mr. Humethought, that the vote was open to all the objections which had already been made to the other, and he should move as an Amendment, to substitute for this the sum of 17,430 l. for the expenses at home, leaving out the stations in Ireland, and those abroad.
On the Question being put on the Amendment,
Mr. Lawleysaid, that was probably the most convenient time for him to bring a subject under the notice of the Committee, on which he had previously presented a Petition from the town of Birmingham. He wished first to express his opinion, that the plan of manufacturing arms by the Government was an injudicious one. It was a sound principle of political writers that a Government should not undertake to manufacture for itself. It never could hope to inspire its servants who were paid by a salary, with that zeal and exertion which were dictated by individual interest; and, therefore, it was at all times better that it should buy what it wanted than attempt to make it. An example of the consequence of acting on the opposite principle had lately fallen under his notice: 10,000 musket stocks, of the manufacture of the Government, had lately been sold for 5½d. a piece, which could not have cost the Government less than 5s. or 6s. a piece. If individuals were to carry on business on such a principle, they would speedily be ruined. He was prepared, as he meant to oppose the vote for the establishment for manufacturing arms, with a statement of its cost and profit, which, though very imperfect, he would submit to the Committee:—The whole charge for the establishment was 9,849 l., and the work done at it was estimated at 11,240 l.; making a profit, as was supposed, of 1,400 l. But he was informed, by several respectable manufacturers, that they would have been happy to execute the same work for 8,000 l. thus realizing not a profit, but sustaining a considerable loss. As to the establishment which it was his object to see reduced, he must say that he did think it an immense loss to the public, and when he should be in possession of those returns for which he intended to move, he pledged himself to the House to show that that loss was to an amount such as would make it the grossest dereliction of duty if the House permitted it to continue. There was no greater public abuse than the whole of that establish-

1253
ment, and he trusted that the Government, in accordance with the disposition it had recently manifested, would continue its plans and practices of retrenchment, and would put an end to that wasteful expense. The Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into that and other subjects connected with the Ordnance Department, had most correctly represented the Government establishment for the manufacture of arms as leading to outgoings, such as placed it far below what it ought to be, and what it would be, were it in any other hands. He would ask what were the objects of Government in creating such an establishment as that at Enfield? One was to produce an increased supply to meet the increased demands; but in creating that establishment they shut themselves out from the benefits of competition, and from the abundance of capital and abundance of workmen which the employment of individual manufacturers would enable them to command. As to the fears of combination, he could not but regard them as perfectly visionary; for facts had shown, that no combination could live, if the contracting party thought proper to exert that power which always resided in him. It was equally unwarrantable to suppose that the supply would not always answer the demand—it had always risen with the demand. If the Government, by forming that establishment, wished to increase the supply, there were two modes in which they might have effected that object—one was by employing workmen already engaged in the trade of manufacturing arms, the other was by bringing into it persons from other trades. The latter mode they had adopted to some extent; but he must say, without that success, as respected the country, or that advantage to the workmen, which might have been anticipated. Many had been decoyed away from their previous employments, who afterwards found it necessary to enroll themselves in the army. Thus was the public service inefficiently performed, and the manufactures of London and Birmingham discouraged. He need scarcely inform the House that a system such as that led to expostulations on the part of the manufacturers, and they obtained from Government a pledge that every practicable encouragement should be afforded to the manufacturers of Birmingham—and what ensued thereupon? nothing more than a single order for 350 rifles. As a great boon, they solicited the Government
1254
to try if they could not make as good articles as those which the workmen in the public employment were capable of executing, and from that hour to the present they received no reply. There was a fact which he had now to mention, and which had excited no small alarm—it had been ascertained that his Majesty's Government had proposed to the East India Company to have their supply of arms at Enfield instead of at Birmingham; now that was not only a direct violation of the pledge previously given, but was altogether one of the most unwise and unjust proceedings that could be adopted. It was asked, what could the advocates of the Birmingham manufacturers require, when the Government had already so many hundred thousand stand of arms fully prepared? With such a supply on hand, how could it be expected, it was asked, that any further orders could be given? In reply to that, he begged to be permitted to observe, that if money were at all to be expended for such a purpose, he thought it might as well, if not better, be applied to sustain that vigour in our manufactures—he should rather say to preserve that basis for them—upon which they might rest during their term of adversity, and from which they might arise whenever circumstances became more propitious. He did request and beseech the House not to discourage the skill and industry of their native manufacturers, and on that subject he must be permitted to make an observation—to paraphrase what was said relative to quite a different matter. He believed that there was perfect truth in the assertion that the first, second, and third duty of a Member of Parliament was—economy, economy, economy. That was their first duty; but they had another duty, at however long an interval it might be placed, and that duty was, to support and encourage the trade and manufactures of the country, and so lay a foundation for the gratitude and confidence of the people; and he had not the slightest hesitation in asserting, that to abolish the establishment at Enfield would be the first step towards obtaining the approbation and giving support to the manufacturers of Birmingham. He concluded by moving, as a further Amendment, that instead of the sum of 17,432 l. for the purposes stated in the original Motion, the sum voted should be 16,778 l.
Upon the Question being put,
Mr. Percevalwished to explain, as far as he could, the principle upon which the

1255
establishment at Enfield was kept up. As must be well known to the House, it was originally founded when the supply of arms was entirely unequal to the demand. In the years 1779, 1794, and 1795, the supply of arms was most insufficient, and hence arose the necessity of Government forming an establishment for its own purposes. It was contended that the Government could not manufacture upon as cheap terms as the regular manufacturers. Now he would not discuss the general principle; but for the information of the Committee he would just mention a few facts—he would leave others to decide upon the philosophy of the matter. In the year 1812 the price of the musket—the barrel of the musket he always begged to be understood as speaking of—cost 13 s. The effect of the Government establishment was, to reduce the price from that sum to 8s. 10 d., and thence to 7s. 2d. In 1,246,259 muskets a saving of 98,658 l. was effected. This was a stubborn fact, the reconcilement of which with the theoretical dogmas of political economists, he left to the adepts in that branch of philosophy. It had been asked, why did not Ministers leave the supply to competition, which, it was added, would ensure cheapness as well as excellence? The answer was, that arms were a peculiar manufacture, the demand for which depended so much on contingencies that no regular outlay of capital could be expected on it. The manufacture of gun barrels was exclusively confined to Birmingham, and to the neighbourhood of that town. If, therefore, the Government were to follow the advice of the hon. Member, which seemed to be only the opinion of the Birmingham manufacturers, it would place itself entirely at their mercy, and would be exposed to all the risks of their combinations. As a further proof of the utility of the present system, he would mention the case of Sir William Congreve's gun-sights. When they came into use the price of each was 8l. 5s. 8d., and by the exertions of the Government artificers to manufacture them the price was reduced to 3l. Making rifle barrels afforded another illustration of the same fact. That branch of business was esteemed a great secret confined to one or two manufacturers, and the consequence was, that the Government paid for each barrel 18 s. After it undertook to manufacture them itself, the price was brought down to 8s. 6d. These were all facts, and he wished only to state facts. He must, therefore, press on the Com-
1256
mittee the propriety of keeping up the establishment at Enfield, not only as securing the present supply at a cheap rate, but as ensuring a cheap supply whenever the demand should suddenly increase. He trusted that the Committee would be of his opinion, and resist the Amendment.
Mr. Littletonhoped the Committee would support the Amendment, and thereby express its reprobation of the erroneous, and unjustifiable, and extravagant policy pursued by the Government, with respect to the supply of an article which should be left to the free competition of skill and capital. He admitted the general merit of the Ordnance Department, but in this instance he thought it acted on improper principles. This was confirmed by an admission made before the Finance Committee, that during the war we had been obliged to bring arms from abroad. When the hon. member, the Secretary to the Ordnance, attempted to justify his policy by the fact that the price of arms had fallen since 1812, the date of the Government establishment at Enfield, he seemed to forget the far greater fall of prices which had taken place within the same period in all kinds of manufactures and articles of commerce. Had the supply of arms been, as it ought to be, left to competition, their price would be much lower, and the public be considerably a gainer. This would appear the more manifest if the price of commodities now, as compared with that in 1790, be considered. Bolt-locks, to take one manufacture in the iron trade for an example, which sold in 1790 for 2s. 6d., were now sold wholesale for 1¼d.; a lock and key might be obtained for 1½d. or1¼d., and so with other articles. Then, as to supply, the fact that one manufacturer alone threw off a musket a minute during a war demand, rendered a formal refutation of the hon. Secretary for the Ordnance's argument on that score unnecessary. There was one point which the hon. member for Warwickshire, (Mr. Lawley) had referred to,. which he knew created great alarm at Birmingham, he meant the proposed sale and demolition of the Proof-house, which was taken as a sign that the Government contemplated henceforward supplying all its wants by its own servants. If that were the case, he should think it had broken its contract with the people of Birmingham. He hoped the Committee would support the Amendment, and thus shew that it was opposed to the policy of Government being a manufacturer.
Mr. Percevaladmitted the great general reduction of price mentioned by the hon. Member, but the fall in the price of gun-barrels was so coincident with the establishment of the Government manufacture, it taking place very shortly before 1812, that he could have no doubt that it ought to be attributed to that establishment. The Government reduced the prices of the contractors by proving to them that it could manufacture cheaper than they charged.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonthought the hon. member for Warwickshire had made out a case which demanded the support of the Committee. He saw no reason why the Government should keep up its establishments at Enfield and Lewisham, to the injury of the good understanding between the Government and the manufacturers. The trade at Birmingham in this branch had been very dull since 1815, and when there was a little improvement in 1818, the Order of Council, prohibiting the exportation of arms, interposed and put a stop to it. He was of opinion that the Government could always buy cheaper than it could make, and therefore he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that Government would always find it better to depend on public competition for what they wanted than to manufacture on their own account. This vote, therefore, concerned a great principle in the management of public affairs. He was fully persuaded that such establishments as those at Enfield and Lewisham,—if all they cost were laid before the public—would be found very expensive. He should like to see the real outgoings of such establishments compared to the value of the work performed at them, and he believed, if such accounts were laid before the House, of all the articles manufactured by the Government, it would be found that they cost five, six, or even some of them twenty times as much as they could be bought for ready made. The Government establishments had their store-keepers, their chapels, their chaplains, their surgeons, their inspectors and sub-inspectors, all of whom had retiring allowances, and ought to be included in the cost of the manufacture. From these charges the private manufacturer was quite exempt, and to him, therefore, it seemed beyond all doubt a most unwise policy in the Government to be a manufacturer.
Mr. Whitmoreentirely concurred in the opinion of his hon. friend. He was persuaded that the Government establishments
1258
did not promote but retard improvements. The way for the Government to proceed if it wished to convince the House of the utility of its establishments was, to produce the accounts of their cost, and of the value of their produce as suggested by his hon. friend who spoke last.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, there were only four articles manufactured by the Government, and these chiefly with a view of putting down that competition which, during the war, had raised prices upon the Treasury. It had a manufactory of small-arms, by which it had reduced the price of that article very much. It manufactured gunpowder, and had saved by that, 300,000 l. during the war. The Ordnance Department was also obliged to manufacture brass cannon for its own use, because that article was not made for general consumption. The Ordnance, in point of fact, did not interfere with the manufacturer. It might sell eight or ten thousand stand of arms every year, which had been partly used, but rather than do so it incurred a loss: the barrels of the muskets were shortened and repaired, and they were then transferred to the naval service. It would be impossible to send articles of that bulky description to Birmingham to be repaired, and for that purpose, if for no other, an establishment was necessary. He would recommend the hon. member for Warwickshire to seek a conference with the Master-general of the Ordnance, who would most probably be able to satisfy him that he had formed very erroneous opinions on this subject.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that this plan of preventing combination would be ineffectual, as on a sudden emergency of war, the workmen would themselves combine against their employers in these Government factories. The observations made on the prices of articles, as compared with the prices in 1812, must be fallacious, because that price was altogether an artificial one. Nothing was better proved by experience than the fact that the Government could not manufacture as cheaply as it could buy. Besides, Government manufactures discouraged trade, and damped the ardour of enterprise in individuals. By the latest version which had been given of the utility of the manufactory at Enfield, it seemed to be kept up in order to shorten soldiers old muskets for the use of the Navy. Now this was, in his opinion, an idle recommendation of that establishment, for water-carriage cost so little that these muskets might be sent to Birmingham for a mere trifle. Prices there

1259
were so low, that the public would, he believed, be benefitted by the sending. At present, in that place one dozen curry-combs, thirteen to the dozen, might be bought for 1s. The mere circumstance of fuel being at Birmingham, when it must be brought several hundred miles to the Government manufactory, was decisive as to the advantages of Government, employing the private manufacturer living on the spot. He contended too upon principle, that it was wrong in the Government, which obtained its means from the people, to set about competing with its own subjects, beating down, because its own resources were unfailing, the prices which individuals ought to obtain. As to the utility of the Government having a proof-house in its own establishment, the proof-house at Birmingham was as complete as possible, and was conducted on the safest principles. He should support the Amendment of the hon. member for Warwickshire.
Mr. Lawleystated, that he already had had a conference with the Duke of Wellington, in company with a deputation from the gun-makers, but no benefit had resulted from it; and he was afraid that none would result from any appeal to the Government as long as it held to the opinion that it was able to manufacture cheaper than individuals.
Mr. Percevaldid not contend that the Government could manufacture cheaper than individuals; but at a cheaper rate than they charged the Government. The establishments were useful, therefore, in keeping down the prices of the private manufacturers. As to sending muskets to be repaired at Birmingham, the expense of carriage would be more than the expense of cutting them down.
Mr. Humedid not support this Amendment out of any regard to a particular place; but on the broad principle that the Government ought to buy at the cheapest market. He did not object to these establishments that they were merely useless; but they entailed an endless expense for retiring allowances, and superannuations for clerks, and quartered an army of assistants and supernumeraries on the public.
Sir Ronald Fergusonwas in favour of Government keeping the manufacture of arms under its own eye. He had seen, while in the field, quantities of arms made at Birmingham rejected as useless. The soldier too was obliged to keep his arms in order after he received them, and he had known a private put to the expense of 10 s.
1260
or 12 s. to keep a Birmingham musket in repair. It was necessary, therefore, for the Government to keep up its establishment at Enfield, to ensure the supply of a superior article as well as keep down the price.
Mr. Attwoodthought it was more likely that the arms the gallant General had seen rejected had been manufactured at En-field than at Birmingham. He should like to see the vouchers for the 98,000 l., which the hon. Member said the Government had saved in the manufacture of muskets.
Mr. Perceval.—That was effected by reducing the price, and bringing about an alteration in the mode of making the contracts.
Mr. Attwood.—That saving was made by expending about half a million of capital, raised by taxes on the people, so that the people paid to enable the Government to compete with themselves, and drive down their proper rewards; they derived no benefit from the Government plan.
Sir Ronald Fergusonexplained, that at the period he alluded to, muskets were not manufactured at Enfield, and those he spoke of had the Birmingham mark.
Mr. Attwoodadmitted, that at the breaking out of the war the manufacturers of Birmingham were not so expert as they afterwards became.
Mr. Littletonalso observed, that since the period the hon. and gallant General alluded to, a proof-house had been established at Birmingham, and the whole manufacture was as well carried on as possible.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were, for the Amendment 40; Against it 80;—Majority 40.
The vote for the sum of 17,432 l. for the expense of Salaries, &c. of the Civil Establishments of the Ordnance on the Home station was then agreed to.
The next vote was, "That a sum, not exceeding 28,744 l, be granted to his Majesty for defraying the Salaries of the Civil Establishments of the Ordnance in Ireland during 1830."
Mr. Jephsoninquired whether the offices of Naval and Ordnance storekeepers in the neighbourhood of Cork might not be consolidated. There was one at Cove, and another at Ballyncollig, ten miles from Cork, and one, he thought, might be spared.
Mr. Percevalreplied, that such a consolidation would be impossible, as the duties of the respective offices were essentially different. One belonged to the Naval department, and the other to the Ordnance.
Mr. Humesaw no reason why stores of

1261
all kinds might not be kept by the same person, provided only the premises would permit. The Finance Committee had recommended the principle of consolidation. By the Returns it appeared that there were ninety-eight Ordnance stations; forty-six in Great Britain, seventeen in Ireland, and thirty-five abroad. The committee not having local knowledge of all these places, could not decide on the propriety of keeping up one in preference to another; but it recommended that the Government should endeavour to diminish the number of stations. He saw, from the Estimates, that there were three or four storekeepers kept in the same place, one looking after a few barrels of powder, and another watching over a few casks of beef, and both rejoicing at the folly of Government in keeping them there, at comfortable salaries, doing nothing. He should like to know what attention had been paid to the recommendation of the Finance Committee by the Ordnance Office, and how many stations had been diminished.
Sir H. Hardingedenied that the Finance Committee had come to any definitive resolution on the subject, though he knew that the Committee adopted consolidation as a principle, and recommended it generally. Both the Duke of Wellington and himself had explained before that Committee, that the charge of the Ordnance and the Naval Stores at the same station could not be placed under the same person. The Ordnance and the Barrack departments had been consolidated, but it would be impossible to have the Naval and Ordnance stores, at Cork for example, under the same management. The question had been discussed at great length in the Finance Committee; consolidation had been carried into effect as far as possible, and he saw no utility in renewing the discussion at that time.
Mr. Maberlyadmitted that the Finance Committee had not come to any resolution on the subject, but he reminded the gallant officer, that it recommended the reductions of stations generally. For his own part he saw no reason why the Ordnance and Naval stores might not be placed under the care of one person, and if the gallant Admiral would confer with the gallant General, if the Ordnance would give up its patronage in one place, and the Admiralty its patronage in another, he had no doubt a great many useless places might be done away, and a great saving effected.
Mr. Robert Gordonthought, in opposition to the gallant General, that the Committee of that House was the proper time and place to discuss the subject. There was a storekeeper at Cork, another at Cove, and a third at Ballyncollig, four miles from Cork, and he should like to know why the stores at these three places might not be taken charge of by the same person, even supposing that it would not be convenient to have them collected on the same spot.
Sir Henry Hardingedid not mean to imply that a Committee of Supply could not discuss the question, but to state, that as it had been discussed in the Finance Committee, and as there were great doubts how far the Ordnance Department could take charge of stores for the Navy, he did not suppose the Committee of Supply could discuss it with advantage. As to the three storekeepers mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, there were large buildings at Ballyncollig, which required the care of a responsible person. Cork was an important station, whence troops were embarked for the West Indies, and being four miles distant from Ballyncollig, required a storekeeper and other officers. Again, Cove was eight miles from Cork, and these stores were kept for the men-of-war which frequented that port. If Ballyncollig could be moved to Cork, and Cork carried down to Cove, one storekeeper might serve, but while there were stores and buildings at the three places to be taken care of, he did not see how that could be done by one person. He would only further observe, that by the evidence given before the Finance Committee, it appeared that the number of storekeepers in 1828 only exceeded by three the number in 1792.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the Finance Committee being informed that there were ninety-eight stations came to this resolution, "That the number of stations appears great, but this Committee is not competent to give an opinion how far any of them can be reduced; they therefore recommend the Ordnance Department to institute an inquiry, in order to see what reductions can be made." He wished to know, whether or not that recommendation had been attended to.
Mr. Percevalsaid, two deputy storekeepers had been reduced, and the work of reduction was going on.
Mr. Humewould next remind the Ordnance Department, that Enfield and Waltham Abbey were close to each other, and yet there were separate storekeepers,

1263
and deputy storekeepers at each. The one at Waltham Abbey had a salary of 625 l., his deputy had 304 l. a-year. The storekeeper at Enfield had 350 l. a-year, his deputy had 200 l. These storekeepers, he understood, lived within a few yards of each other. In his opinion, one person might supply the place of all these four.
Mr. Percevalexplained, that the individual who was storekeeper at Waltham Abbey was, for many years, at Ballyncollig, and had a right to some situation. He was a gentleman of great merit, and yet he would not undertake by himself to be wholly responsible for the works at Waltham Abbey. His services were valuable, but if he retired he would be entitled to the whole of his salary. The storekeeper of Enfield certainly lived at Waltham Abbey, but he did not sec any difference which that made, when his services were necessary, as he could assure the hon. Member they were, to that establishment.
Mr. Humerepeated his statement, that reductions ought to be made, but as he would, above all things, avoid granting superannuations, he would not press for them.
After some controversy relative to the distance of the station of Ballyncollig from Cork, the vote was agreed to.
A sum, not exceeding 41,388 l. was granted to defray the Salaries of the Barrack-masters and Serjeants at home, abroad, and in Ireland.
A sum, not exceeding 5,390 l., was also granted to defray the Salaries of Master-gunners, in Great Britain, Guernsey, Jersey, and in Ireland.
The Report brought up, and ordered to be received on Monday.

BEER DUTY.
Mr. R. Gordonwished to know, from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Majesty's Government had come to any determination relative to a point which had excited much interest among persons engaged in the brewing trade, and upon which several memorials had been presented to the Government,—namely, the ad vantage which would arise to the publicans if they were permitted to brew Beer, from the present period until the 1st of October, without paying duty, such Beer to remain under bond until the 1st of October.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion, that considerable inconvenience would result to those engaged in the trade
1264
of brewing Beer, if all the beer henceforth to be brewed were to be subject to a duty, because private persons could brew beer not subject to duty, and bring it into the market after the 1st of October. He had, therefore, tried to discover some means of remedying this inconvenience, and he believed that, by allowing beer to be brewed free of duty, provided it were kept apart, and not brought out for consumption until after the duty on beer was removed, that inconvenience would be removed. Measures were under consideration for carrying such a plan into effect.

ARMS BILL (IRELAND).
On the Motion by Lord Francis L. Gower, that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill. He was aware that it was similar to an Act passed last year, and which had just expired, but the present Bill was to be in force seven years, and some of its provisions though they might be consented to for one year when the country was disturbed, became intolerable through such a period as seven years. By the Bill, arms must be registered, and a license taken out to possess them. No man could have more than two pounds of gunpowder in his house without an express license—a clause that made him suppose Ireland was in a state of rebellion, or at least that the Government regarded the inhabitants with great suspicion. The Act was passed last Session without an observation, but if it were suffered to do so this year, it would reflect great discredit on the Gentlemen connected with Ireland.
Mr. Spring Riceclaimed for himself the merit, being one of those Gentlemen, of not having been inattentive to the Bill; but he saw no good reason for opposing the second reading of it. There were some of its regulations which he did not approve of, but he thought that they should be discussed in the Committee.
Mr. Jephsonobserved, that there was a clause in the bill imposing a penalty of 500 l. for exposing a Gun to sale.
Bill read a second time.

MINUTES.
The Suits in Equity Bill was read a second time. The Smugglers' Families Maintenance Bill was also read a second time. Lord. J. RUSSELL, and other Members of the Commons, brought up the St. Giles's Vestry Bill, which was read a first time.
Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY,

who said that seeing by the Votes of the other House that a Bill had been introduced into it for Altering and Reforming the Court of Session in Scotland, which would bring the whole subject of the Court of Session necessarily under their Lordships' consideration, he would move for a return
of the state of the Court of Session Fee Fund, established by the 50th Geo. III. cap. 112, from the 21st June, 1821, to the latest period.
Petitions Presented. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the inhabitants of Pudsey, Bowling, and Bierley; from Stanninglyand Alverthorp:—By Lord HOLLAND, from Swannington, in the County of Derby:—By Lord AUCKLAND, from Hunslet, Gomershall, Soothill, and Shipley;—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Arbroath, for the holding of the Assizes for the West Hiding of the County of York, at Wakefield:—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the inhabitants of Henley, Shepley, and Dalton, for the Amelioration of the Criminal Code:—By the BISHOP of LONDON, from the inhabitants of the Tower District, and from Spratton, and Crcaton:—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, from Lewes, and by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Warrington, for the removal of Disabilities from the Jews:—By the Duke of NORFOLK, from the Jews inhabiting the West of London, Chatham, and Rochester.

The noble Duke said he warmly supported the prayer of these Petitions.
By Lord KINO, from the Jews inhabiting the Southern District of London; and by the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Jews of Portsmouth. For inquiring into the Corporation and Crown Lands of Ireland:—By Lord KING, from Thomas Flanagan. Against Suttees—By Lord AUCKLAND from Dissenting Congregations at Southport, and North Meols:—By Earl GOWER, from Dissenting Congregations at Shelton, Burslem, Lane End, Lane Delph, and New-castle-Under-Lyne. And for the Extension of the Poor-laws to Ireland:—By the Earl of DARNLEY, from John Lawless.

GREECE.
Lord Holland Lord Holland, seeing the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, wished to put a question to him on a subject in which the public took much interest. The noble Secretary, at the beginning of the Session, had stated that the negociations relative to the Settlement of Greece were so far advanced, that he hoped soon to be able to lay the papers on the Table. What he wished to ask was, whether any unforeseen delay had occurred? and if there had, whether the delay was on account of mere matter of form or not? The noble Secretary must be well aware that this was a matter in which the public felt a great interest, and therefore it would be desirable that he should mention at what time he expected to be able to lay the papers on the Table.
The Earl of Aberdeencould not exactly fix on a time when he should be able to produce the papers; but he had hopes that he should be able to do so soon after the holidays. The noble Earl stated in reply to a further question from Lord Holland, that as to the cause of the delay, there were some points still to be settled; but the three Powers were acting in complete concert.

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW.
The Marquis of Lansdown The Marquis of Lansdown, wished to put a question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, relative to the projected Amendments in Law Procedure. In one of the reports of the Real Property Commissioners, they had suggested some most valuable regulations relative to fines and recoveries, the levying and suffering of which were attended with great delay and expense, and hazard. Among the bills brought into the House for carrying into effect the legal improvements, he did not perceive that there was one on the point which he had mentioned; and he wished to know from the noble Lord, whether he had it in view to bring for-
1190
ward a bill on that head in the course of the present Session?
The Lord Chancellorreplied, that he had no intention to propose a measure of the kind at present, and the reason was, that the Amendments suggested by the Real Property Commissioners were so much connected with each other, that it was hazardous to legislate on one point until they had a general view of the whole, and this had been suggested by the Commissioners themselves in their first Report. But the noble Marquis might be assured that he would pay every attention to the subject.

ALGIERS.
The Marquis of Clanricarde The Marquis of Clanricarde, seeing the noble Foreign Secretary in his place, wished to ask him a question on a subject of considerable importance. Their Lordships were aware that the French were preparing an expedition against Algiers, and he was desirous to know whether the Government of France was in communication with our Government on the subject of that expedition?
The Earl of Aberdeenreplied, that the two Governments were in communication on the subject, and that Ministers had not observed any indisposition on the part of the French Government to afford the most satisfactory explanations.

EAST RETFORD WITNESSES' BILL.
The Marquis of Salisburyrose to move the third reading of the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill. It had been so much the practice to pass bills of this kind under similar circumstances, that, he thought it would pass as a matter of course, and therefore he had not given long notice before he brought in this Bill. He certainly had no intention to smuggle it through the House, for he had not anticipated opposition, especially from the noble Lords opposite. Now he understood that a noble Lord (Holland) on the opposite side meant to oppose it on account both of its principle and its provisions. He had, therefore, thought proper to inquire into the practice of their Lordships' House, and he found that it had been the practice to pass bills of that kind, under similar circumstances, for nearly a century. It had happened in three instances lately, and it would be impossible to get the witnesses to attend to give evidence in a case of this kind, unless they were indemnified from the conse-

1191
quences of criminating themselves. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lords who so ably supported him in the Penryn case would assist him now, and he must say that the noble Lord's opposition came rather late, when it was reserved for the third reading of the Bill. He had moved that witnesses in this case of East Retford should be examined at the Bar of their Lordships' House, and he considered it absolutely necessary so follow up that motion with the bringing' in of this Bill to indemnify the witnesses, who could hardly be called upon to answer questions tending to criminate themselves without an indemnity of this description. In so doing, he had only followed the usual practice of their Lordships' House in similar cases. This had been clone in the Shoreham case, in 1771, and afterwards in 1782, and in the late cases. But he had thought it his duly to look farther back, and he found that the principle and practice were referred to in an Address of this House relative to the famous case of Ashby and White. It was there stated, that the elective franchise was incident to the freehold, or founded on custom, and constituted a civil right which this House could not take away without an examination of witnesses at the Bar, that the parties who might think themselves aggrieved might have an opportunity of defending themselves and their property. This, then, was evidently the practice of this House for a long time, and was founded on the principle that the House ought to be peculiarly tender in meddling with private property; and that, therefore, every possible opportunity ought to be afforded to the persons affected by a bill like the East Retford Bill, to express their dissent, and to defend themselves and their rights. 80 peculiarly delicate was the House in meddling with matters of private property, that they had no less than sixteen Standing Orders relating to that particular subject. The noble Lord, he understood, meant to contend that there was no reason for examining witnesses at all; but if they did not examine witnesses they had no other alternatives than to throw out the Bill, or condemn the parties unheard, and without allowing them an opportunity to defend themselves and their property. If they did examine witnesses, then, in order to be able to do so with effect, they must pass this Bill of Indemnity. As to the expediency of the thing, he thought
1192
that the experience of former precedents was in favour of the Bill in that view, and it was certainly not very fitting that they should by a side wind destroy a practice which had prevailed for such a long series of years. But he had heard that it was the intention of the noble Lord to contend that the examination of witnesses was not necessary in this case, because this was not a disfranchising or a disqualifying bill, but merely a bill to extend the franchise to the Hundred of Bassetlaw. He did not mean to say that he was much of a lawyer, but looking at the common sense of the thing, he thought that it was a very different matter for a person to have an elective franchise, which he exercised as one of a hundred, or one which he exercised as one of a thousand. Upon the whole he thought the examination of witnesses in this case was founded on principle, practice, and precedent, from which their Lordships ought not to depart; and if witnesses were to be examined, it was necessary to pass this Bill.
Lord Hollanddid not mean to accuse the noble Marquis of attempting to smuggle the Bill through the House, but he regretted that the attention of the House had not been more prominently directed to it in an earlier stage, although he freely acquitted the noble Marquis of an attempt to take the House by surprise. The noble Marquis had said that his opposition had come rather late; and he admitted that he ought to have urged his objections when the Bill was brought in, or on the second reading, and if he had done so, it would have been so much more for the advantage of his argument; but, unfortunately, his attention had not been called to it. The noble Marquis had supposed many grounds for his opposition to the Bill, and had endeavoured to upset them, apparently much to his own satisfaction. The noble Marquis had started many hares, but he had not started the real game, which he would find too strong to deal with. His objection was not so much to the principle of the Bill, nor to its provisions, as to the time, the manner, and the circumstances. The bill with reference to which this Bill was brought in, was called a bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption at the Election of Members of Parliament for the Borough of East Retford, and he maintained that the examination of witnesses at their Lordships' Bar would be not only useless,

1193
but be attended with injury to the public. The matter had been examined in an Election Committee of the other House—the proper tribunal appointed by law for the purpose—and there was no petition either for or against that bill. The precedents mentioned by the noble Marquis did not apply in this case, for it was one in which there was no necessity for the examination of witnesses to prove the preamble of the bill, and therefore no occasion for a bill to save the witnesses from the consequences of criminating themselves. There were three species of bills usually brought before Parliament—one sort of bills dealing with Private Property, another sort called bills of Pains and Penalties, and a third sort having for their object some advantage to the community, and called Public Bills. In the cases of the two first of these kinds of bills it might be necessary to call witnesses to prove the allegations in the preambles to the bills; but this was a bill of the third description, or a public bill, in which there was no necessity for calling witnesses to prove the preamble; for, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble Marquis, he maintained that this was not a bill in the nature of a bill of Pains and Penalties. He denied that the measure for the disfranchisement of East Retford partook, as was contended, of the nature of a bill of Pains and Penalties. It disfranchised no individual by name, and as an individual, its effect merely was, to extend the franchise—it left all who were already in possession still in undisturbed enjoyment of their rights—it only increased the number of those on whom the right was conferred; that certainly would diminish the value of the right, considered merely as a source of profit; but as a trust, which it indisputably was, that view of the question could not be recognised. Neither in the frame or nature of the Bill did it partake of the nature of a bill of Pains and Penalties—if it did, the House, in its merciful consideration, would have recourse to those wise and safe forms from which, in no case affecting rights or property, did it ever depart. A most material objection to the Bill then before them was, that it pre-supposed the insufficiency of the evidence upon the Disfranchisement bill; and in his apprehension, it was scarcely an expedient proceeding to declare that evidence insufficient which had enabled the House of Com-
1194
mons to come to a decision. That evidence was brought regularly before a competent tribunal (a Select Committee of the House of Commons), and he conceived that the evidence then produced would suffice at their Lordships' bar. He asserted that the Bill in question was not a bill of Pains and Penalties, and he did so upon the broad principle that the elective franchise was not a right or a property, but a trust, subject to abuse; and which the Legislature might alter, revoke, modify, or transfer, as it thought proper. If in doing so it produced any consequences injurious to individuals, it would be perfectly competent to them to come before a Parliament whose doors were never closed against those who had real grievances to complain of. The bill respecting Shoreham incapacitated individuals, and was so far different from the East Retford Bill; but he attached no great importance to the precedent, and would not trouble their Lordships with any notice of it; but there could be no doubt that it did inflict punishment upon some individuals, and therefore was in part a bill of Pains and Penalties—it was a bill for putting an end to the fraud, hypocrisy, and corruption of a set of men desiring to assume a plausible appellation—calling themselves a Christian Society—whose object was, to get possession of the borough and bring it to the best market. The bill in that case was to throw the franchise into the neighbouring hundred. The bill, in the emphatic language of Lord Chatham, was a bill having two objects—one of which was, to transfer the elective franchise from the Banks of the Ganges to the English county of Sussex. On account of the mixed nature of the bill, it was considered a bill of Pains and Penalties. In that case evidence was considered necessary; but in the bills introduced in the Cricklade or Aylesbury cases, there was nothing which could warrant their being justly considered as bills of Pains and Penalties. From the notion, indeed, conceived of the double object of the New Shoreham bill, the same course was followed as to evidence in other cases. In the Aylesbury case two petitions were presented, one for and another against the bill, but the course taken by the House in that case was, that the counsel and witnesses in favour of the bill were ordered to withdraw, and the counsel against the bill were heard in the first instance. If the measure to which,

1195
the present bill had reference were a bill of Pains and Penalties, there could be no doubt that the course proposed would be the proper and legitimate course. For the duty of the House would be, to see that the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill were proved. The House acted in some sort in the capacity of a public prosecutor, the onus probandi lay upon it, and it was bound to prove the preamble before it inflicted punishment. In a question of property, likewise, the same course was to be pursued, and for similar reasons. As the persons by whom the privilege was enjoyed held it, not as a property, but as a trust, there could be no question that they stood quite in a different relation from those who came before their Lordships as liable to injury from a bill of Pains and Penalties. Then, if it should appear—as no doubt it did, from the evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons—that the electors of that borough had been guilty of polluting at its source the other branch of the Legislature—had done all that they could to lower its character and impair its authority—the Parliament, that is, the King, Lords and Commons, were entitled to pass a bill, not for disfranchising those electors so much as for preventing the abuse of the trust reposed in them; and they were entitled to pass that Bill without its being subjected to the incidents of a private bill, or fettered with the forms of a judicial proceeding. The Crown itself had often been limited and regulated, and even transferred from one person to another, and from one family to another, without any examination of witnesses. It would not, he presumed, be denied that that was a vested right, quite as much as any right of election; and it scarcely was expected that the Duke of Savoy would be called to the bar of that House, and heard by counsel, and his witnesses examined, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was a Papist or a person of an arbitrary disposition. When that great and important trust was made the subject of legislation, who could raise a doubt that the Parliament possessed full right to legislate upon the petty and miserable trust which formed the object of the bill under consideration? At the period of the Scotch and Irish Unions, many individuals were deprived of their franchises, and yet no judicial proceedings were instituted—no witnesses were examined: bad they begun
1196
to examine witnesses they never would have got through the Union question. Nay, further, in Ireland, Peers were deprived of sitting and voting in Parliament, and many boroughs received compensation for the loss they sustained, but no one dreamt of proposing to prove the preamble of the Bill, depriving them of these rights. When that most weighty act was under consideration, no witnesses were examined; but on this trifling matter, the most scrupulous formality was to be observed. The present differed altogether from the common-law rights possessed by freeholders—it was much more to be considered in the light of a trust conferred by a charter. There was also the measure of last year with respect to a large body of freeholders in Ireland,—of men whose right of voting was not, as in the case of corporations, held in trust, but existed by common law. Those men were disfranchised without any evidence being heard at the Bar: on the contrary, their petition to be heard was refused. He owned that his consent to that measure was wrung from him only by his sense of the great benefit of the measure which accompanied it. But that measure of disfranchisement was passed without examining any evidence. Besides, the practice against which he was contending opposed itself to all moderate and gradual reform—for a few of those who might oppose themselves to such reforms might, by interposing objections, and insisting upon strict formalities; create such delays as would defeat any plan of reform. He could not help repeating an often-repeated maxim of Lord Bacon's, that "Time was the greatest of all innovators." The duty of Parliament should be to afford every useful and safe benefit to the innovations of time, by adapting its proceedings to the growth and progress of society, and the altered situation of the country; and if anything could add to their Lordships' motives for such adaptation, it was the necessity which existed that that particular House should interpose and remove any impediments to that wise and salutary reform which time and circumstances demanded; which it was to advance, and which, if they impeded, their duty would lose much of its beneficial effects, but ultimately none of its force. The great Lord Somers had said, that there were some things so plain and evident that they did not admit of legal proof, yet they formed very frequently the best possibly

1197
foundations for legislative proceedings. That was true of almost every case which did not involve a judicial inquiry. He concluded by moving that the third reading of the Bill be postponed to the 27th of April.
The Lord Chancellorwished to state shortly his objections to the Amendment of his noble Friend. He would not enter into the general topics connected with Reform, which had just been handled; but he must be allowed to say, that when the noble Lord referred to that well-known maxim of Lord Bacon, it was much to be regretted that he did not add the following words:—"It were good, therefore, that men in their innovations should follow the example of time itself, which indeed innovateth greatly, but quietly, and by degrees scarce to be perceived." The great point in the case was, whether bills of this kind should be considered as bills of Pains and Penalties. The case of Cricklade was so considered both by Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, and was argued in that House upon principles altogether different from those which the noble Lord took up. The ground on which he would contend for the examination of witnesses was this—there was vested in the electors of East Retford a certain right which they had abused, and he had yet to learn how their delinquency could be shown otherwise than by an examination of witnesses. The House of Commons had appointed a Select Committee from out of their own body, but was that House satisfied with the Report of their own body? So far from being so, they examined witnesses themselves; and upon what grounds, then, could their Lordships avoid doing that which the Commons thought necessary? In the case of Penryn the House of Commons had a Select Committee, and examined witnesses themselves; yet their Lordships had examined witnesses at their own Bar, and arrived at a different conclusion from the House of Commons—the witnesses on the latter occasion having been examined on oath. The cases of Barnstaple, Grampound, Penryn, and Cricklade—every one of them supported the views which he took in opposition to the opinions of his noble friend, and established them beyond all controversy. The necessity for examining evidence being once admitted, their Lordships' ought, according to all principles of law, to pass such a bill as
1198
the present, to indemnify the witnesses against the consequences of their own evidence—otherwise that evidence might be incomplete; for a witness might refuse to answer, and then they would have to stop the proceedings to pass such a bill as this, which was found necessary in other cases, where a bill of the kind was passed in one night. It was necessary to protect a witness who gave evidence at the bar, in that way which would effectually guard against all prosecution; for though the evidence taken at the bar could not be used against a witness even without a bill, it might lead to such inquiry as would produce other evidence to convict him. According to the principle he had laid down, then, such a bill as this was necessary for the purpose of getting the fullest evidence. On the occasion of Grampound, in the same manner a bill was introduced for indemnifying the witnesses, and it was found necessary that that bill should be carried through all its stages in one night. The same mode of proceeding was resorted to in the case of Penryn, as the noble Earl (Carnarvon) near him could testify. There was no deviation from this course on their Journals. For the last thirty years, at least, it had been usual to indemnify such witnesses. The case of Scotland and of Ireland, at the time of the Unions, afforded no precedent, for there no case of delinquency was sought to be set up. On these short grounds, therefore, without touching upon the doctrines of general reform, or upon any of the other topics to which the noble Baron had alluded, he should move that this Bill be read a third time.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that if an exanimation of witnesses were necessary, they must of course have a bill like that now proposed. Upon that point he apprebended there was no difference of opinion; but the question was, whether their Lordships ought to examine witnesses at all. To that he for one was extremely unwilling to become pledged. The preamble of the Bill stated that it was necessary to examine witnesses at the Bar of that House; and his objection was, that this expression seemed to impose the same course upon their Lordships upon all similar occasions. It would form a precedent which their Lordships would be obliged to follow in cases where there might be no necessity for examining witnesses. The question had already been before the regu-

1199
lar constitutional tribunal—not one merely constituted by the House of Commons, though proceeding from that body—it was the regular tribunal (a Select Committee) for the trial of such questions; it had examined witnesses and made a report, and that was all the House of Lords had a right to expect, or had any occasion for. He differed altogether from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with respect to the powers of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. The powers of such committees did not stop where the noble and learned Lord supposed they stopped, for the Committee might report upon general malpractices. The Committee on the East Retford election stated in their report, that they considered it their duty to call the attention of the House to the general practice of bribery and corruption which had prevailed in elections for that borough. The noble and learned Lord therefore was wrong in supposing that the powers of such a committee were limited to the particular election. He came back, then, to his objection—namely, that the preamble of the Bill for ever precluded that House from proceeding on similar cases without evidence. If this 'were taking away a franchise, evidence might be necessary; but it did not take away a franchise, it only extended it to two thousand instead of confining it to two hundred voters. The proposed measure was, that others should partake of the right of voting for members for East Retford, but it did not deprive any one of that right. What was the right of voting? Why, merely the right of being represented by persons for whom the voters personally gave their votes. The personal representatives then would be still the same, though the proposed alterations should be carried into effect. He was no reformer. He thought that any great addition to the democratical power of the House of Commons would prevent the Government from going on so long as the Government remained a Monarchy. It was with pain, therefore, that he saw bills of this nature; but if they were to have such bills, let them deal properly with them. There was a reform pretty generally talked of, and one which but for his objection to any addition to the democratical power of the House of Commons, he should be inclined to consent to—he meant reform in the representation of the counties of Scotland, Now, ought the
1200
persons who proposed such a reform to be met by saying, "You must produce evidence in support of your proposal"? This would be preposterous, and so it would have been if the measure for disfranchising the Irish 40s. freeholders had been met in the same way. He thought that in the present case there was a prima facie case for their Lordships to proceed upon, and he could not, therefore, give his consent to the preamble of this bill, which said that it was necessary for their Lordships to call evidence, though he might agree to it if the words were altered to "it may be necessary."
Lord Wynfordthought their Lordships would act inconsistently with justice if they neglected to call evidence in a case like the present. It had been said by one noble Lord, "Wait, and see if any of the witnesses refuse to answer the questions put to them, before you pass a bill like this." He differed, however, from that noble Lord, and in this respect there was a shade of difference, too, between him and his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He would say that their Lordships ought not to wait to see if the witnesses would take this objection, for it was the duty of their Lordships to protect witnesses unasked, and to take care that neither the counsel nor any of their own body should press a man to give answers which would criminate himself. Again, it had been asked, "how do we know that any witnesses will be in this situation?" There would be very little difficulty in answering that question, for the evidence taken before the other House was upon their Lordships' Table; and their Lordships had only to look at that evidence in order to be assured that many witnesses would be in that situation. The question then was this—would their Lordships refuse to extend to these witnesses that protection which every court of justice in the country gave to every witness that came before them? The noble Baron (Lord Holland) opposite, in his very ingenious speech, had described the elective franchise as a trust. The more general, and, allow him to say, the more correct, description was "a trust with an interest." That it could not be sold was certain; but where property gave the right of voting, that property was saleable, and a man was in all cases allowed to hold out this right as a circumstance which enhanced the value of the property, If the right were

1201
not derived from property, still the description of "a trust with an interest" was correct; for would any one say that people had not an interest in sending to Parliament men who represented their opinions? This was not only an interest, but a most valuable interest—an interest, the possession of which the people of this country had often been envied. If the interest were not saleable, the property on which it depended was saleable, and in this respect it most resembled ecclesiastical patronage: though the patronage could not be sold, the property with which it was connected was saleable. Then came the question, whether it was fit to deprive a man of this interest, or to injure it, without evidence. Surely not. But it had been said by a noble Baron (Wharncliffe) opposite, that they did not deprive the voters of their franchise—that they merely admitted others to share it. Now he thought that noble Baron would consider that he was really deprived of a portion of his property, if a number of persons were admitted as joint-tenants with him in it [a laugh]. Was not this case the same? It seemed to him, that in proportion as the numbers were extended who were to partake of the interest, that interest was injured to the smaller number who had previously exclusively enjoyed it: to increase the voters from two hundred to two thousand was so far an injury to the two hundred. A great deal had been said whether the measure upon the Table was a bill of Pains and Penalties, or whether it was only a bill taking away a right for a public advantage. He agreed that it was not necessary to settle that point for the purpose of discussion, because either way a case ought to be made out. He agreed with Lord Mansfield and Lord Thurlow, that whatever diminished a right was so far a bill of Pains and Penalties; and he had looked through the Journals upon this subject, and in Hatsel's Precedents he found a case under the head of "Pains and Penalties," of a separation (not a divorce) between man and wife. At all events, the cases established this principle—that whatever was done by the Legislature which placed an individual in a worse situation than before the passing of the bill was, according to the plain dictates of common sense, a bill of Pains and Penalties. It had been said, that Parliament could do any thing but make a woman a man, but there was another
1202
thing Parliament could not do—it could not be essentially unjust; and it had never deprived a man of a foot of land for a public purpose without compensation. The noble Baron had admitted that the report from the Commons did not state to what extent bribery and corruption had taken place at East Retford, and the House, before it proceeded to disfranchise, would require that the degree and nature of the crime ought to be fully established. The noble Baron had argued, that as the bill deprived parties only of a public interest, it was not necessary to adduce evidence; and in support of this point, he had referred to the act transferring the Crown of this country from the Stuarfs to the family now upon the Throne, and to the recent statute disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders of Ireland. These, however, were cases where Parliament had proceeded upon general notoriety, and witnesses were never examined upon matters known to the whole world. Was such the fact in the instance now before the House? Were the grounds of disfranchisement known to the House? He, for one, begged to state that he knew nothing of the circumstances, and that he required to be informed by evidence before he ventured to decide. The House was bound to inquire fully into the transactions at East Retford; and to shew how far the necessity of producing witnesses had in former times been carried, he need only mention the act of 15th Geo. 3rd, which prohibited the issue of small notes of 1s. and 1s. 6d. and other small sums, which at that period were circulated in Yorkshire. In that instance Sir George Saville had been required to produce evidence at the bar, of the existence of the practice, before the House of Commons would consent to adopt the proposed remedy. A fortiori, therefore, as the evil complained of was confined not to one county, but to one borough, it was incumbent upon Parliament to take care that distinct and positive evidence of criminality was adduced at the bar. The noble Baron (Holland) had objected to the disfranchisement of East Retford, because he thought it would retard Parliamentary Reform. He had his own opinions upon Parliamentary Reform, but he could not see in what way it would postpone that measure, supposing it desirable. On the contrary, it seemed to him that it was calculated to purify and keep pure the

1203
Assembly of the Representatives of the people; certain it was, that it never would be accomplished by an adherence to what was called the corrupt borough system. By measures such as that to which the Bill on the Table related, corrupt boroughs would be made to reform themselves; and if the principle were acted upon, it would prevent Parliament from getting worse, and keep it, as at present, as uncontaminated as any reasonable man could desire, and equal to all purposes for which it was instituted. Disfranchisement bills, when the necessity for them was proved, tended to counteract the injuries and inroads of time, and to renew the vigour of the Constitution.
Lord Hollandexplained: He thanked the noble Baron (Wynford) for the lecture he had been pleased to read him on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and for the statement of the perfect acquaintance he had with his (Lord Holland's) views and wishes. He was not aware, however, that he had ever promulgated those views and wishes to the noble Baron, either publicly or privately; but sure he was, that rendering this House the bar to all improvement of this kind, was the true mode of producing that convulsive and violent reform which every man must dread. He expressed his obligation also to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, for finishing his (Lord Holland's) quotation from Bacon, by a passage much more to his purpose than that which he had himself cited.
The Earl of Carnarvonconsidered this as a great public question, and trusted that their Lordships would not, without evidence, take a step which made an alteration in the Constitution. He agreed that general measures, such as those which had been instanced by his noble friends, might be passed without evidence, because they were to be determined by the dictates of public policy. So, there would be no necessity for evidence in support of an alteration in the representation of the Scotch counties; but, if it were proposed that the representation of one county—say the county of Lanark—should be altered, there would be a necessity for evidence, because that would be a particular, not a general measure. If, in such a case, their Lordships refused to hear evidence, he thought their Lordships would commit an outrage on the Constitution, and be guilty of a dereliction of their duty, The question before them was, whe-
1204
ther they would abandon a course which they had followed for sixty or seventy years, and adopt the unsatisfactory course now recommended. The bill stated, that there had been corruption in the borough of East Retford, and asked their Lordships to make alterations in the mode of representations without inquiring into the truth of the allegation respecting the existence of corruption? Even if there were no parties resisting the Bill, the Constitution ought to be considered a party requiring the proof. Although no Radical Reformer, he advocated these partial renovations, and perhaps had gone further than many in support of them. He did not think that the noble Barons who opposed the Bill, relied much upon their argument against the admission of evidence, because they had themselves allowed that some testimony was required when they urged that the witnesses called by the House of Commons ought to be considered sufficient. It was well known that the House of Commons by its committees sometimes entered only into that part of a case which related to the interests of the Petitioners, whereas here the inquiry ought to be more perfect and general. If the Bill under consideration could for a moment be construed to involve a pledge that the House would proceed without further inquiry, he begged to be considered no party to the admission of the evidence taken by the Commons, if it were the best evidence that their Lordships could obtain; and it could not be disputed that it was not. To pass the Bill without inquiring into the facts he thought would be throwing impediments in the way of rational reform, which he had endeavoured, by advocating measures of the kind, on more occasions than one, to promote. He should vote for any bill which gave the greatest latitude to the proof of corruption. It was necessary that witnesses should be compelled to answer; for that their Lordships could and would protect them. That was a proper course, and he thought that no delay on account of the want of evidence ought to be suffered to arise. As to the mode of dealing with witnesses, it was said that they might wait till that question arose. He did not agree with that proposition; for the expenses of bills like these were most enormous, and no delay that was not absolutely necessary ought to be allowed to occur. On these grounds he should vote for the Bill.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, his noble friend opposite had recommended that to which he was most strongly opposed. That recommendation was, that they should adopt the proceedings on evidence with which the Members of the House of Commons themselves had not been satisfied—that was, the Report of the Select Committee. If they were not satisfied with that Report, surely their Lordships ought not to be less exact.
The Bill read a third time without a division.
Lord Hollandafterwards entered the following Protest against the Witness Indemnity Bill, in the matter of East-Retford.

1. "Because the provisions of the Bill pre-suppose an insufficiency of evidence, and the consequent necessity of resorting to extraordinary means to procure it, in the matter of a Bill lately brought up from the Commons, and entitled, "An Act to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford," whereas the decision of the other House of Parliament, founded first upon the report of a tribunal, appointed by Act of Parliament to try elections, and armed with all necessary powers for that purpose; and, secondly, upon the result of their own inquiries, raises a reasonable presumption, at least, that grounds sufficient to enable us to come to a sound determination on the legislative measure before the House may be obtained without a special suspension of the ordinary rules of evidence, and an anomalous purchase of truth by an extension of impunity to offenders.

2. "Because the recourse to such a preliminary act of power for the purpose of procuring evidence, implies (and the preamble directly asserts), before any petition has been presented to this House against the East Retford Bill, that an examination of witnesses at the Bar is absolutely necessary; and thereby sanctions a notion, in my opinion, erroneous, mischievous, and unconstitutional—namely, that the Bill that has lately passed the House of Commons, and all other measures of a like nature, are bills of Pains and Penalties, partaking of a judicial character, and requiring all that special and cautious regard to legal forms which distinguishes this House in the discharge of its judicial functions, and which it widely and mercifully extends to such legislative acts as
1206
pronounce sentence or inflict punishment, as well as to such as decide between parties applying for the interference of the legislature upon their respective properties and rights. But a Bill of Regulation, for the purpose of preventing bribery and corruption, and preserving the purity of representation in the Commons House of Parliament is not, ex vi termini, either a private bill or a bill of Pains and Penalties, and may consequently be adopted by Parliament, consistently with reason and usage, on a moral conviction of its justice, necessity, or expediency, without subjecting the facts or considerations which lead to its adoption to legal proof at the Bar of the House. The privilege vested by charter in any corporation to send members to Parliament, appears to me a trust and not a property. The individual elected in virtue of such privileges, though the immediate delegate of his constituents, is, according to the maxims of our Constitution, a member of the Supreme Legislature of the empire, and invested with a share of the representation of the people at large, for whose benefit he is bound to exercise his functions. It follows that the right of choosing such a representative, when conferred by any instrument or usage on any separate body of men, is a trust confided to that body of men for the benefit and advantage of the whole community. If, therefore, that trust be so administered as notoriously to defeat the objects for which it was created, and by polluting the sources from whence one branch of the legislature is supplied, to lower the character and impair the authority of the House of Commons, the Parliament is justified, by reason and analogy, in proceeding, on such moral conviction as guides it in every other measure of regulation or reform, to revoke, limit, enlarge, or transfer that trust in the way and to the extent which it deems most conducive to the advantage of the community. The most sacred and important trust which by law can be reposed in human authority—namely, the Crown itself, has been repeatedly in our history limited, regulated, and transferred by the King, Lords, and Commons in Parliament assembled, without any minute and juridical investigation of facts, and without that attention to technical rules and cautious forms which properly distinguish our judicial proceedings, but are utterly inapplicable, and would be inconvenient In those which have for their

1207
object the moulding a government to the exigencies and interests of the governed. On the same principles, the persons and places entitled to vote by themselves or their representatives in the Scottish Parliament, before the Union with that kingdom, had those privileges regulated, curtailed, modified, or suppressed, by a legislative act, without any legal proof of delinquency, or any judicial investigation of the nature and extent of such privileges, or of the manner in which they had been exercised. The legislative Union with Irish Peers of their votes in the House of Lords, and no inconsiderable number of boroughs of Ireland also deprived the majority of the their right to send burgesses to Parliament; and although certain compensations were granted to the latter, neither the preamble of the legislative Act, so depriving them of privileges, or compensating them for the loss, nor the grounds which induced the Parliament to pass it, were subjected to legal proof. More recently a large body of freeholders, entitled by common and by statute law to vote for Knights of the Shire in that kingdom, have been deprived by an Act of Parliament of that privilege; and the said act of Parliament, so far from being subjected to such judicial proceedings as usually attend private bills, or bills of Pains and Penalties in this House, passed the legislature without admitting the petitioners against it to be heard by themselves or their counsel, or to adduce evidence againt the allegations of the preamble in either House of Parliament. Concurring, therefore, with the greatest constitutional authority that ever sat in this House (Lord Somers) that "there are many things plain and evident beyond the testimony of any witnesses, which yet can never be proved in a legal way," I was unwilling, by inference, to sanction a principle which would fetter the functions of this House in the exercise of our legislative discretion and authority, and confine out-power of regulating and reforming abuses in the representation to such cases only as are susceptible of strict legal proof.

3. "Because, if the House of Lords were to establish the practice of proceeding as usual in private bills, or in bills of Pains and Penalties, as indispensable in bills of regulation and reform in matters of election, great delays would ensue and various impediments be thrown in the way of such wholesome reforms as the lapse of time and the exigencies of the country are
1208
likely to require, and such impediments, originating in scruples of this House, warranted by neither reason, analogy, nor example, would be highly injurious to the character of this House, as well as to the progress of sound improvement and wholesome legislation in the country.

(Signed) VASSALL HOLLAND."