Sitting of 11 February 1830

WRITS FOR EAST RETFORD.
Mr. S. Lumleypresented a petition from the Burgesses of East Retford, praying for new writs for the election of two Members for that Borough to be issued forthwith.
The petitioners, amongst, other matters, submit "that, by the Laws and Constitution of this realm, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their franchise as Freemen of the borough of East Retford without the consent of the three estates of the realm, and the petitioners therefore submit humbly and respectfully to the serious attention of the House, whether the House are acting with justice to the petitioners, to deprive them of their franchise without the consent of the three estates: that the petitioners do not presume to question the principle which governs the House in cases of disfranchisement, but they submit, for the consideration of the House, whether it is not notorious that no Act of Disfranchisement can pass without clear proof that the larger portion of the electors are corrupt, and the petitioners submit that the evidence and petition already before the House establish the fact that the majority of the present electors of the borough of East Retford are not corrupt, and that majority would have been shown to be much larger but for the schisms and other circumstances referred to in the petition: that the petitioners will not. presume to question the power of the House to suspend for a short period the issuing of new writs for filling up vacancies in the House of Commons, but the petitioners submit that such extraordinary power ought to be exercised with extreme care: that the period of three Sessions of Parliament is by no means a short period: that the issuing of a new writ would not interfere with any ulterior measures which the House may in its wisdom see fit to adopt, while the precedent of keeping the representation of the people incomplete is manifestly fraught with the utmost danger to the principles of the Constitution; the petitioners consider it a peculiar hardship, when their legal existence is at stake, to be deprived of the important means of
328
defence which they would enjoy if represented in the House by burgesses of their own choosing: that the House, having come to the decision that no further evidence is necessary, the petitioners submit that the case is now ripe for the decision of the House, and they humbly represent that no decision can be so inconsistent with the principles of justice and expediency as an entire suspension of proceedings: that the petitioners would have submitted with patience to any judgment at which the House might have arrived for remedy of a public grievance, but when no remedial measure is persevered in, nor any thing done beyond passing sentence of forfeiture against the petitioners, they humbly conceive that a new state of things has arisen, in which they are justified in renewing their remonstrances, and they humbly pray that the House will direct new writs to be issued, and to which they are clearly entitled by the present Law: the petitioners therefore most humbly pray, That new Writs for the return of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford may forthwith issue."
Mr. Duncombepresented a petition from certain owners and occupiers of lands in the town and neighbourhood of Boroughbridge, complaining of the pressure of general distress, and praying for the enforcement of strict economy in the national expenditure, a repeal of the Malt duties, and an alteration of the present system of licensing Public-houses.

LAW REFORM.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a petition from several individuals, praying for such a Reform in the Law as would make it what it was not at present—cheap, intelligible, and expeditious. The petition also prayed the House to call upon intelligent persons, to draw up draughts of an "all-comprehensive code of law" for this country. He would read some extracts from it, because the subject was of great importance, and because he might hereafter call further attention to it. The petitioners said, that in so far as the respective consciences of the petitioners will allow, they entertain the sincerest disposition to conform themselves in all things to the good pleasure of those who are set in authority over them; that when by any of them a wish is expressed to know what that pleasure is, he is bid to look to the law of the Land; that when a

329
man asks what the same law is, he learns that there are two parts of it, that the one is called Statute Law, and the other Common Law, and that there are books in which these same two parts are to be found; that when a man asks in what book the Statute Law is to be found, he learns that so far from being contained in any one book, however large, it fills books composing a heap greater than he would be able to lift; that if he thereupon asks in which of all these books he could upon occasion lay his hands and find those parts in which he himself is concerned, without being bewildered with those in which he has no concern, what he learns is, that the whole matter is so completely mixed up together, that for him to pick out the collection of those same parts from the rest is utterly impossible; that if he asks in what book the Common Law is to be found, he learns, that the collection of the books in which, on each occasion, search is to be made for it are so vast, that the house he lives in would scarcely be sufficient to contain it; that if he asks, who it is that the Statute Law is made by, he is told without difficulty, that it is by King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled; that if in continuation they proceed any of them to ask, who it is that the Common Law has been made by, they learn, to their inexpressible surprise, that it has been made by nobody, that it is not made by King, Lords, and Commons, nor by any body else; that the words of it are not to be found anywhere, that in short it has no existence, it is a mere fiction, and that to speak of it as having any existence, is what no man can do without giving currency to an imposture. When upon observing that by every judge it is spoken of as a reality, and that he professes to be acting under it, they ask whether it is not he that makes it, they are told that this is what no Judge ever does, and that by any of the learned Judges a question, what part of the Law is of his making, would be received with indignation and resented as calumny; that when seeing men put to death, and otherwise grievously punished by order of the Judges, a man asks by what authority this is done, he learns that it is by the authority of Statute Law or Common Law, as it may happen; and if he thereupon asks whether, when it is upon the authority of the Common Law that the Judge does this, lit is not by this same Judge that this same
330
Common Law is made, he still receives the same assurance that no Judge ever makes law; and that a question, what part of the law is of his making, would be received with indignation, and resented as calumny, while the truth is, that on each occasion the rule to which a Judge gives the force of law, is one which on this very occasion he makes out of his own head, and this not till the act for which the man is thus dealt with has been done, while by these same Judges, if the same thing were clone by the acknowledged legislature, it would be spoken of as an act of fragrant injustice, designated and reprobated in their language by the name of an ex post facto law; all this while they are told that they have rights given to them, and they are told to be grateful for those rights. They are told that they have duties prescribed to them, and they are bid to be punctual in the fulfilment of all those duties; and so (they are told) they must be if they would save themselves from being visited with condign punishment; hearing this they would really be grateful for these same rights, if they knew what they were, and were able to avail themselves of rights of which they have no knowledge; being in the nature of things impossible, they are utterly unable to learn for what as well as to whom to pay the so called for tribute of their gratitude: as to these same duties, they would endeavour at least to be punctual in the fulfilment of them, if they knew but what they were; but to be punctual in the fulfilment of duties, the knowledge of which is kept concealed from them, is equally impossible; that which is but too possible, and too frequently experienced by them is, the being thus punished for not doing that which it has thus been rendered impossible for them to do; thus while the rights they are bid to be grateful for are mere illusions, the punishments they are made to undergo are sad realities; finally, thus it is, that they who in so far as such oppression admits of their being so, are his Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, are dealt with as were the children of Israel under their Egyptian task masters; and the petitioners hear of tyrants, and those cruel ones; but whatever they may have felt, they have never heard of any tyrant in such sort cruel, as to punish men for disobedience to laws or orders which he had kept them from the knowledge of; they have heard much of

331
cruelties practised by slaveholders upon those who are called their slaves, but so far as regards the mode of treatment the petitioners thus experience, whatever be the cruelties practised upon slaves, never have the petitioners heard this to be of the number of those cruelties; the negro, so long as he does what he is commanded to do, and abstains from doing that which he is forbidden to do, the negro, slave as he is, is safe; in this respect his condition is an object of envy to the petitioners, and they pray that it maybe theirs; they have heard not a little of the pains taken by the House in the endeavour to put an end to those same cruelties; they cannot refuse to any such endeavour the humble tribute of their applause, but they hope they are not altogether unreasonable in their wish to receive from the hands of the House the benefit of the like endeavours, and what the petitioners hereby pray for, is as follows: "1st, that the House, in and by its votes, may be pleased to give invitation to all persons so disposed to send in each of them a plan of an all-comprehensive code, followed by the text thereof, this text, either the whole of it at the same time, or in successive portions, as he may find most convenient; 2nd, that for indemnifying each such contributor from the expense of printing, the House may be pleased to give authority to him to send in such his work in manuscript to any person authorized by the House to print its proceedings, that is to say, for the purpose, and subject to the limitation, hereinafter mentioned, under the assurance that the same will be printed along with the other proceedings of the House, in like manner as Acts of Parliament are at present; 3rd, as to the persons of such contributors, the petitioners humbly insist that, from the liberty of sending in drafts for this purpose, no person shall stand excluded, no not any person whatsoever, for suppose, for example, a foreigner to send in a draft better adapted to the purpose than any draft sent in by any of his Majesty's subjects, the petitioners see not why his being so should debar them from the benefit of it, and assuredly they see not any reason whatever for any such apprehension as that by the House, the circumstance of the draftsman's being a foreigner should ever cause a less well-adapted draft to be applied and sanctioned in preference to a better adapted one; 4th, as to the expense that
332
might be eventually attendant on the printing of such drafts, it is no more than the petitioners are perfectly aware of, but there are two arrangements which, taken together, they cannot but rely on as sufficient to reduce within a moderate compass the amount of that expense; 5th, one is, that it be an instruction to every contributor that no such contributor shall receive the benefit of the accommodation thus afforded, unless to each article, or set of articles, in his proposed code, the reason, or set of reasons, by which it was suggested, on which it is grounded, and to which it trusts for its explanation and reception, be appended; 6th, the other is, that by the House power be resolved to itself, by the hands of any person or persons for that purpose thereto appointed, to put a stop at any time to the printing of any such draft, after which, should the impression be continued, it will be at the contributor's own expense, but that, to assist him in the faculty of thus making a virtual appeal to public opinion, such part of his draft as shall have been already printed shall be delivered to him, to be disposed of as be shall think fit," &c.

IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. O'Connellmoved for Returns of the number of Stamps issued to each Newspaper in Ireland for one year, ending 5th January, 1830; and of the sums paid to Newspapers in Ireland, from 5th Jan. 1829 to 5th Jan. 1830, for printing Proclamations; distinguishing the sums paid to each Newspaper by title, and place of publication." Ordered.

SMUGGLING.
Lord G. Lennoxobtained leave to bring in a bill for the relief of parishes from the expenses of maintaining the wives and families of men convicted under the laws for the prevention of Smuggling, and sentenced to serve in his Majesty's navy.
Mr. F. Baring(such bill having been ordered) said, he rose to call for an explanation from the Admiralty, respecting their treatment of a man of the name of Millar, who had been sentenced in December, 1824, to serve on board one of his Majesty's ships for the space of five years, in consequence of his participation in some smuggling transactions. On the 23rd of December of last year, the term of his imprisonment expired, and he then applied, but in vain, for his release. He repeated

333
the same application on his arrival at Plymouth; his officer forwarded the application to the Admiralty, who returned for answer that the man should be paid off with the rest of the crew on his arrival at Portsmouth. A few days afterwards the vessel arrived in Portsmouth harbour. Millar, on the expiration of his term, had firmly, but respectfully, refused to perform the duty expected from him. In consequence he was thrown into irons, and captain Elliott, his commander, who appeared to have acted throughout the business with considerable kindness, applied, on arriving in port, to the Admiralty for directions how he was to act. In consequence of such application a Court-martial was ordered to sit upon Millar; and by that Court-martial, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of his case, and of the excellence of his character, he was only reprimanded, told to be more cautious in future, and discharged. The hon. Member said, that he would make no comment upon these facts: he would merely ask for an explanation of the authority by which all this had been done. If the law gave the Admiralty the power of protracting the service of a person convicted of smuggling thus indefinitely, some enactment was wanting to regulate the duration of a punishment which might last for six, seven, or ten years, instead of five, as was evidently intended. He wished to know, first, why Millar's discharge had been refused in the first instance? And next, by what authority Millar had been placed on his trial for life, after the period of his service had ceased?
Sir G. Clerksaid, that Acts of Parliament, by which smugglers were permitted to serve on board of his Majesty's ships in lieu of being imprisoned for the pecuniary-penalties to which they had rendered themselves liable by transgressing the law, had warranted the term of Millar's service; and he must contend, from a review of these Acts, that there was not one of them which limited the time of service to five years. The first question, therefore, to be considered in Millar's case was this—had he a right to claim his discharge at the end of five years? And then, supposing for the sake of argument, that he had such right, was he, having been offered full pay on board, authorized to disobey the orders of his commanding officer? He (Sir G. Clerk) contended that on both those points the decision must be clearly against Millar.
334
As to the question why the man had been tried by Court-martial, the answer was easy. The Admiralty felt that as the question had been raised by Millar, without his having a shadow of legal ground on which to rest it, it would be for the benefit of the service to have Millar tried by a Court-martial, in order to have greater publicity given to their decision. The hon. Member opposite had said, that if there were any Act of Parliament in existence by which the Admiralty could prolong the service of a smuggler to seven or eight years duration, it would be necessary to remedy such an evil by legislative enactment. Now he could assure the hon. Member that such a legislative enactment was quite unnecessary, for the Admiralty had no wish to prolong any smuggler's term of service beyond the period of five years.

LORD ELLEN BOROUGH'S LETTER.
Dr. Phillimorewished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether any order had been sent out by his Majesty's Government for the recall of Sir John Peter Grant from his situation of Judge in the Supreme Court of Bombay?
Mr. Peelsaid, no steps had been taken for the removal of the learned gentleman, the matter was under the consideration of the Privy Council.

FEES IN CRIMINAL COURTS.
Mr. Peelgave notice that he would, on the 17th February, move for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of all Fees required from individuals when acquitted on their discharge from any Criminal Court.

EAST RETFORD.
Mr. N. Culvertsaid, that as the case of the Borough of East Retford had been well known for several years, he did not mean, in bringing forward his motion, to trouble the House at any length. He had no personal feeling in this question; and he thought it very hard that any such motive should be attributed to him. His object was one of strict justice and fairness. Under all the circumstances, he should say no more at present, except to claim his right to reply to any argument or objection that might be raised against his motion, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Borough of East Retford."
Mr. Tennysonhoped, that he should not be accused of pertinacity, if, alter so many

335
decisions against extending the forfeited franchise of East Retford to the town of Birmingham, he still presevered in what he considered a just cause. He now rose to propose an Amendment on the Motion of his hon. Friend. On this occasion, he was labouring under a new embarrassment. The last time this question was discussed, he believed it appeared that the average opinion of the people of Birmingham was, that the measure he proposed would give them perfect satisfaction. But since that period, a considerable change had taken place in the average opinion. The general distress had created a great alteration of opinion; and the people attributed that distress to the general corruption, neglect, and misconduct of Parliament. The consequence was, that at Birmingham they had taken steps for their own protection. This, however, would not alter his course. He would still go on, and endeavour to obtain his original object. He had, last session, urged on the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel), the necessity of extending the benefit of representation to the great commercial and manufacturing towns. Government, however, seemed anxious to keep up the old state of things, at the expense of the country, and, he must say, at the expense of common-sense. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to pursue the course he had formerly taken. That the right of electing Members to sit in Parliament should be taken from East Retford, on account of its notorious corruption, did not, he thought, admit of dispute. It was proved, that in the election of 1826, out of one hundred and sixty-six persons who voted, one hundred and fifty-five received bribes. It was proposed to extend the franchise to the hundred of Bassetlaw, but the freeholders of Bassetlaw were already represented by two hon. Gentlemen—he meant the Members for Nottingham; while many populous towns—for instance, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and Sheffield—were unrepresented. It was not only absurd, but it was dangerous, to withhold the benefits of representation from places such as these; for he felt that, in times of pressure, a catastrophe would be the certain result of that want of representation. He could not forget the Political Union Society recently established at Birmingham. The prospectus of that society merited the consideration of the House, and it would be most prudent, by
336
giving to Birmingham the right of electing representatives, to form a link between that Political Union and the House. He concluded by moving, "That all the words after 'that' be omitted, for the purpose of introducing the following:—' Leave be given to bring in a Bill to exclude the Borough of East Retford from electing Burgesses to serve in Parliament, and to enable the Town of Birmingham to return two Representatives in lieu thereof.'"
Mr. Marshallbegged leave to second the motion. In his opinion, the franchise ought to be extended to Birmingham, instead of being given to strengthen an interest which already possessed an overwhelming influence.
Mr. Batleysaid, he thought it was contrary to the principle of the constitution that such towns as Leeds, Birmingham, and Sheffield, should not be properly represented; and whenever a specific motion was brought forward for imparting to them the right to return Members to serve in Parliament, he should give it his strongest support. But he certainly would not benefit those towns by disfranchising other places:—he would not agree to that which would be a bill of Pains and Penalties on East Retford.
Viscount Howicksaid, in consequence of this question having been introduced so soon, he was precluded from making the motion of which he had given notice. He meant, however, to vote for the proposition of the hon. Member for Bletchingley; and if it were not carried, it would then be open to him to move his own resolution as an amendment to the original motion. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire had moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Borough of East Retford; but the motion which he had meant to propose, if he had come down in time, would go to declare, "that the abuses which were alleged to exist in East Retford, were not confined to that town, but were notorious in many cities and boroughs in the United Kingdom." Such was his opinion; and therefore he thought it was much better to propose a general remedy for a general evil, instead of applying particular remedies to particular places—a course which experience showed did not serve any good purpose, and was positively bad in practice. He originally voted for the motion to disfranchise this borough, not to punish the electors for the crime laid, to

337
their charge, but in order that the franchise taken from East Retford should be given to Birmingham, which, was an improvement in the representation, was an alteration desirable to be procured. But the experience of the last three sessions had greatly changed his views on the subject; and he agreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken, that it would be better to extend the franchise directly to great commercial and manufacturing towns, rather than to benefit them by disfranchising other places. He felt that, in taking a contrary course, the friends of Reform were playing the game of their opponents, and lending their countenance to that which, however gravely put forward, was neither more nor less than a mockery and a delusion. The House ought to be cautious in dealing with cases of this kind. The doctrines laid down with respect to them was, that punishment should not be inflicted on all, except all were shown to have been guilty. This doctrine was perfectly just. But the present proceeding was opposed to it; for here punishment was not regularly inflicted by the regular course of law. This was a bill of Pains and Penalties,—an ex post facto law—by which the Parliament was constituted judge, jury, and executioner. No man, he was sure, could seriously say that bribery could be put an end to by disfranchising any certain place. The proper remedy would be to adopt a general measure, instead of pursuing this dilatory and uncertain course—a course as dilatory and as uncertain as the Court of Chancery. He very much feared that the motives of many of those who supported this measure of disfranchisement were not exactly what at first sight they appeared to be. He believed it was not the crime of bribery which excited their indignation, but the clumsiness with which it was effected. They did not wish to put an end to those abuses, but to keep them from the public eye, and to conceal from the light of day their own secret crimes. This it was that induced them to vote for the disfranchisement of East Retford. Such was his belief; but he certainly did not expect that a motive of this kind would have been openly proclaimed in that House. He alluded to the opinion of the right hon. Member for Liverpool, who, in a speech delivered last year (a speech which he did not hear, but which he had read with astonishment), used the following remarkable
338
words:—"What, then, remains behind? Parliamentary Reform. I trust it will long remain behind. I trust we shall always be able to resist that Reform. I am sure, if the motion of the hon. Member for Bletchingley is lost, the difficulty of resisting Parliamentary Reform will be greatly increased." He (Viscount Howick) felt no difficulty in understanding the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. He had here made an admission for which he thanked him. Individuals who thought as the right hon. Gentleman did, were willing to give up some of the outworks of corruption, that they might be the better enabled to defend the principal stronghold. They thought that East Retford ought to be partially sacrificed, in order to prevent the whole system of corruption from being overturned. Just as in a bullfight a cloak is dropped to turn aside the rage of the mad animal, while his assailant prepares more securely to destroy him. If the public were ignorant of the undue means by which a large majority of the Members of that House obtained their seats in it, they might declaim against the venality of the voters of East Retford; but, notorious as these circumstances were, he thought it better to pass over the present case in silence till they were prepared to deal with others equally flagitious. It might be hopeless to obtain complete Reform at present, but we might at least abstain from such hypocrisy and insincerity as to pass a bill against an individual rotten borough when so many more demanded equal punishment. He trusted that a dread of public contempt, if no better motive, would prevent the House from taking such a course, and that if they were not disposed to adopt the natural plan for the prevention of bribery and corruption, they would reject the bill of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire. He regretted that he was prevented by the forms of the House from following up his observations with certain resolutions which it had been his intention to propose. Such being the case, he should merely read them as part of his speech. He concluded with reading the following resolutions:—"That the existence of bribery and corruption in the election of Members of that House had frequently been established by evidence at the bar. especially in the instances of Penryn and East Retford; that it was notorious, however, that similar practices occurred in the

339
majority of the other boroughs in the country; and therefore that it would be better to abandon the useless and expensive course of proceeding by bill to disfranchise particular places, and in lieu thereof to adopt some measure for a general Reform of the Representation."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote on this occasion. Being himself a Radical Reformer, and desiring a complete and thorough Reform in every thing corrupt in the country, he was anxious to make an example in every particular case of corruption that came within the general rule. He thought an hon. Member was mistaken when he stated that the House was now called upon to act in a judicial capacity, and decide whether the electors of East Retford had been guilty of bribery and corruption, and that the fact was not proved against the borough on the occasion of the last election. If the fact were not proved, then certainly the hon. Gentleman ought to oppose the bill of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, which proceeded on the supposition that bribery and corruption existed. The hon. Gent. argued that bribery was not proved. He (Mr. O'Connell) had read the evidence in the case, and was convinced that East Retford continued a sink of bribery and corruption up to the present moment. It was quite true that the existence of bribery, on a recent occasion had not been proved, because the time of payment had not arrived; the bribes were due, but had not been paid. The voters sent Members into the House, and gave credit for the bribes, putting faith in the parties for the forty guineas a-piece. The noble Lord (Howick) seemed to think that as all the voters of East Retford had not been proved guilty, all should not be punished; and argued, that though there might be a guilty majority, yet there was an innocent minority, whom it would be wrong to visit with punishment for the faults of others. But let it be recollected that boroughs acted by majorities—that majorities, and not minorities, sent Members to Parliament; so that, supposing a few voters to be free from corruption, yet was the borough corrupt for all purposes of representation; consequently, the majority ought to be punished, and the borough prevented from ever again sending Members to that House. His opinion was, that the right of representation ought not to belong to any pri-
340
vate individual. He had heard and believed that many Members sat in Parliament who were the nominees of noble Lords, but this was a contradiction in terms of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Let us not talk of the Constitution, if noble Lords, contrary to the resolution of the House, send their nominees here, as I know they do—to be sure I do, [laughter]—every one knows that there are actual nominees of Peers sitting in Parliament. The period would come when the people could no longer be deluded upon this subject. Every man knew that the principle of the Constitution was, that the Crown could not touch a penny of any man's property in the shape of taxes, except through his legal representative; and if taxes were levied upon persons not duly represented, it was, in point of principle, a direct fraud. He should vote for every measure of Reform, and for this among the number. Why let East Retford escape, because, as the noble Lord said, its punishment would be the punishment of a single corrupt borough, when so many others were equally corrupt? Ought the attack to fail, on the ground of its being an isolated one? Suppose, that, during the late severe snows, one hundred and fifty wolves, compelled by the inclemency of the weather, had descended, from the Pyrennees into France; that after having done a great deal of mischief the inhabitants rose against them, and one of the number was clumsy enough to get himself into a corner while the others escaped; what would the people say if it were declared, "Oh, this is an isolated individual, let us not kill him till we can get at the other one hundred and forty-nine, who are quite as bad as he." He, for one, was for destroying the criminal that had been caught, and would not act upon this principle; he should vote for extinguishing the franchise of East Retford, and transferring its privilege of electing Members of Parliament to Birmingham.
Lord Normanbyfully agreed with the noble Lord (Howick) that the voters of East Retford were not singly or peculiarly guilty, but he was of opinion, that as their case had been brought forward, and their guilt proved, an example should be made of them. He wished to take advantage of their delinquency, for the purpose of making a beneficial change in the representation, and transferring the elec-

341
tive franchise of East Retford to Birmingham. He thought this course preferable to extending the franchise so as to make it take in the hundred of Bassetlaw: if that were done, the inhabitants of the hundred would have double votes, one for Members for the borough, and a second for county Members. He could not approve of this. He thought that with the increasing cry which prevailed through the country on this question, it was time for Government to take an open and manly line of conduct in relation to the subject.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he could not give a silent vote on this question. Still, recollecting that only a few months had passed since, at an advanced period of the last Session of Parliament, he had had an opportunity of stating fully (as he did) his views of the subject now under consideration, he did not think it necessary to go again over the ground which he had then traversed. But he must be allowed to say, that every tiling which had occurred within the last few months—every thing which was now passing—every thing in the condition of the country, which even those who ran could read—every thing that occurred in every quarter—pointed out to him as it did to every dispassionate observer, the great and increasing importance and a thorough conviction of the necessity of dealing with a corrupt and rotten borough, like East. Retford, not by extending the franchise to the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw, the inhabitants of which had already votes for Nottinghamshire, but by disfranchising it altogether, and transferring the elective privilege to the great and populous town of Birmingham, which was altogether unrepresented. He felt the increasing and urgent importance of this in reference to the general question of Reform; and he was not afraid to avow his feeling, as he row did, that it was of the utmost importance we should deal with the matter under consideration so as best to guard ourselves against the growing danger of sweeping Reform on principles too abstract and general. He avowed that to be his feeling, and called upon others who thought with him upon the subject to take up this defensive position against the dangers which pressed upon us from every quarter. If by the influence of his Majesty's Government in this House he should be driven from the position which he now occupied,—if the present proposition for a moderate and
342
reasonable Reform were defeated by means of that influence,—much as he should regret it, he should be driven, very reluctantly, to fall back upon another position, which would also be defensive. Taking, as he now did, the best situation and point of defence he could command against large, wild, and sweeping innovations upon our established institutions, he would maintain it as long as practicable, and when driven from it, as he might be by the means alluded to, he should then take up another line of defence. His principle was, to deal with the evil that came before us, in order to confine the remedy, if possible, to the immediate case which appeared to require its application,—an object best attained by a speedy administration of the remedy. When he said, hypothetically, that if the amendment of the hon. Member for Bletchingley were lost, it would be lost by means of Ministerial influence in that House, he used expressions which were perfectly Parliamentary; and he would add, that that influence had been exercised to the utmost extent to which it could be legitimately pushed in cases like the present. It was seen, that where no such influence had been exercised, the view and intention of Parliament was to transfer the elective franchise from a corrupt borough to the important towns of Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, &c. As far as the matter depended on the House of Commons, they had admitted the principle of conferring upon the great towns that had grown up to their present magnitude and importance in proportion to the growth and increase of our wealth and commercial resources, a substantial representation. The representation of Penryn, as far as that House was concerned,—as far as the Commons House of Parliament could,—was to have been transferred to Manchester. Now, when it was peculiarly necessary to show sympathy with the productive classes,—when it was necessary to give them the means of laying a fair statement of their sufferings before Parliament, with a view to an attempt to relieve them,—there should be a tendency on the part of the House to transfer the franchise of this corrupt borough to the town of Birmingham. From the bottom of his heart he said so, and with the utmost sincerity; with a deep sense of the general and profound feeling possessing the minds of the men of this country, not of the ignorant and

343
uninformed rabble, but of men of education and intellect, as competent as the Members of that House to form a sound and judicious opinion upon the circumstances of the country. Looking at the unsettled and disquieted state of mind prevailing among such persons,—a state of mind that existed not only in reference to their own circumstances, but in reference to the condition of the industrious, agricultural, and manufacturing population of the country,—it would be most gratifying to his feelings, as doubtless it would also be to those of the great mass of the community, if they could persuade themselves that among his Majesty's Ministers there did exist a just sense of what the Commons House of Parliament ought to be in the practical administration, and working of the constitution of the country. The events which had taken place of late years might have taught Ministers a little practical wisdom; and they might also have derived instruction from the working and consequences of these events. As much as any man he rejoiced at the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. As much as any man he rejoiced at every vestige of the Roman Catholic penal code having been effaced from the pages of our Statute-book. As much as any man he rejoiced that the improved spirit of the age had wrung from Government successive concessions in favour of liberty, concessions in favour of intelligence, concessions in favour of commerce, concessions in favour of general improvement; but when we looked at the history of these concessions, was it creditable to, or consistent with, the character of the legislature of this country, that we should always appear to grant such concessions only at the moment when prudence and necessity compelled us no longer to withhold them!
Under a deep impression, a firm conviction, that many other individuals took a similar view of the subject, and entertaining a hope that his Majesty's Ministers would be alive to the changes that were working around them, he entertained some faint hopes (he confessed they were only faint) that Government would feel disposed to reconsider the question now before the House, and treat it in a manner different from that in which it was treated by them in the last Session of Parliament. He did not wholly despair of it being reconsidered when he heard the noble Lord
344
who moved the Address (Lord Darlington) with an ability and good feeling which did him infinite credit, stating the reasons that induced him, after having sat for seventeen years in Parliament, to undertake a task generally assigned to younger Members, and also entering into an explanation of the grounds upon which he occupied, for the first time, a place upon the Ministerial benches. The noble Lord had thought it necessary to state the reasons that induced him to move the Address, and he did so with great propriety. He told the House that during seventeen years he had been a constant friend and supporter of liberal principles of Government,—that he had seen with satisfaction the advances recently made towards such principles, and that he hailed with pleasure the circumstance of his Majesty's Ministers having adopted measures that had been recommended by the other side of the House. The noble Lord supported the present Government because, forsooth, they were a Tory Administration, governing on Whig principles. [hear] When he heard this sentiment cheered by so many hon. Gentlemen at the period of its being first uttered by the noble Lord, he might be excused if he found ground for hope in the fact. It was also necessary to bear in mind the fact, that Ministers had appointed to the office of first Law Adviser of his Majesty in that House, a learned gentleman (Sir J. Scarlett) who was Attorney-General when his late lamented friend Mr. Canning was at the head of the Administration. By the way, upon that occasion, as on the present, the noble Lord appeared anxious to support the existing Administration in common with many of his friends, because the course taken by it was consistent with their views and feelings. Another right hon. Member (Mr. Abercromby) who was appointed to a high official situation by Mr. Canning, had been recently promoted to a place upon the bench in Scotland by the Government. He greatly rejoiced that this appointment had taken place. He had long known that excellent individual, he had long known the value of his public character, and the extent of his private virtues. He would now say of that gentleman in his absence (the House being unfortunately for itself deprived of the advantage of his services) what he could not have said in his presence,—namely, that a person of a sounder or

345
more correct mind—of greater sterling good sense—of a more honest and uncompromising spirit, he did not know. That right hon. person would carry into his high office a resolute and honest determination to reform abuses if they existed. A fitter person to fill the situation allotted to him could not have been recommended to his Majesty. He rejoiced at the appointment, and sincerely thanked the King's Ministers for it. Connecting all these concessions and appointments (at which he rejoiced as proofs that the spirit which actuated the government of Mr. Canning had not been entirely lost sight of,) he said he rejoiced; and why?—because he thought it possible that the application of the principle of concessions might also have been extended to the present question. He felt the more confident in his expectation, because each and every one of the individuals who now cheered the Government for acting on Whig principles had been among the most zealous supporters of such Reforms. A near connexion of the noble Mover of the Address, since elevated to the House of Peers, but who then represented the county of Durham in Parliament, had supported such a measure. But if it were to be understood from the silence of Ministers that they still adhered to their former line of conduct with respect to the question now before the House,—that they intended to support the extension of the elective franchise to the hundred of Bassetlaw,—he, for one, should deeply lament it, because, under such circumstances, he thought that the impression occasioned out of doors by such a course would be far from favourable to the general interests of the country. He conceived it was quite impossible that anyone in the situation in which he stood with respect to a town of equal importance with Manchester, Birminghan, or Leeds,—one of the greatest towns in point of wealth, and power, and importance in the commercial transactions of the country,—it was quite impossible that he should not almost daily ask himself the question, "How was it possible for him, a Member for Liverpool, to doubt the importance of such a town as Birmingham,—of such a town as Manchester,—of such a town as Leeds, being represented in Parliament?" His constituents must feel how incompetent he was to discharge the duties assigned him as their representative, but still
346
he was prepared to say, from the frequent communications he had with them (from which he derived much material information to his own great benefit and better qualification for the discharge of his duties in Parliament),—he was prepared to say, what his constituents would freely admit, that the fact of their having representatives in Parliament was a great and substantial benefit to them. He could not flatter himself that he had been nominated upon the East India Committee out of any compliment to himself as an humble individual: doubtless, his name was upon the list because he represented a wealthy, active, and important community. Then he asked himself, if Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds had also representatives in Parliament, would the House have been able or inclined to exclude them from being heard through such representatives upon an occasion so important to their interest? It would have been impossible that such a thing should have taken place. Last summer he had spent a fortnight among his constituents at Liverpool, and a shorter period at Manchester, that great seat of the manufacturing interests. From the communications he had had with the most influential and intelligent persons in both those places, he derived much valuable information connected with their peculiar interests and those of the country at large,—information which never could be obtained by formal deputations forwarded to the Board of Trade. It was by duly considering the results of such intercourse, and collecting general opinions on given subjects, that the interests of the public could be best consulted. Why, then, should places capable of affording such sources of information be excluded from the advantages of representation? Upon this principle, when he proposed that the name of Mr. Marshall, the Member for Yorkshire, should be placed upon the East India Committee, in the room of that of the hon. Member for Sussex, because his hon. friend the Member for Yorkshire had paid considerable attention to the subject of India, and the hon. Member for Sussex had not, what did his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) say in answer to this proposition? Why, that the Committee was very numerous,—that he had endeavoured to select and place it in some representatives of every separate interest in the country, and that the hon. Member for

347
Sussex had been nominated because he represented the Wool Interest. [laughter] He owned that the solemn manner with which his right hon. friend stated his reason about the Wool Interest had nearly overcome his (Mr. H's) gravity; and he felt disposed to ask whether there was a county Member in the House who did not represent something of the Wool Interest as well as also other interests connected with agriculture? When his right hon. friend talked of the Wool Interest being represented by the Member for Sussex, he (Mr. H.) asked the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), who was also in the Committee, and indirectly represented the hardware and mineral interests of which Birmingham was the centre, whether those interests did not deserve to be directly represented in that House? Did not these interests form one of the great branches of our national resources? Was the great manufacturing town of Birmingham unrepresented, or the hundred of Bassetlaw represented, as regarded wool, by the Member for Sussex, and as regarded every thing else by the two Members for Nottinghamshire, the worthier of sending Members to Parliament? But now turning from this point, which was merely a question between Bassetlaw and Birmingham, and one that did not admit of a doubt, he came to another consideration. He saw in Birmingham lately an Association which, as far as he could perceive its elements, principles, and operations, seemed exactly formed on the model of the Catholic Association; for it had its subscriptions, its funds, its meetings, its discussions, and its great agitator. [hear, and laughter] The purpose of this Association was to raise a universal cry for Parliamentary Reform,—to carry the question by exaggerating the difficulties, abuses, and distresses of the country. Admiring, as he did, the talent of the gentleman who took the lead (Mr. Attwood) at the Birmingham meeting, he, for one, would much rather see that Gentleman in the House of Commons,—as fortunately he saw the hon. Member for Clare in the House of Commons [hear, and a laugh],—he would rather see the leader of the Birmingham meeting here as the representative of that town, than in conducting such an Association, sending forth these statements and appeals to the country, which was perhaps too prone, at the
348
present moment, to act on the apprehensions generated by them. These were the reasons which induced him to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bletchingley. If it were lost, he should have no farther concern in the business; for it seemed almost indifferent to him (at least he found little consolation in the alternative), whether the representation remained in the rotten borough of East Retford, or was extended to the influence controlling the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could assure the House that he was by no means unwilling to give an opinion on the present question. His silence hitherto had arisen from deference to his right hon. friend who had just sat down; and who, having been referred to in the discussion, he supposed would wish to avail himself of the earliest opportunity of replying to the allusions that had been made. He had also another reason for his silence. This was not the first occasion on which this question had come before them. The House had, seven or eight times, declared that the franchise of East. Retford should be extended to the hundred of Bassetlaw, and he thought, therefore, that there could be no doubt on the mind of any man that he should adhere to his former conduct, and to the former conduct of the House, in shaping his course on the present occasion. He certainly should vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, because that motion was, in his opinion, most consonant with his views of correcting an established abuse. His right hon. friend had said that he was no Reformer. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to claim for himself the privilege of disclaiming that title also. His right hon. friend, however, thought by the course he proposed to adopt, he should oppose the wilder schemes of Reform, and take up a defensive position against all attempts to carry such schemes into effect. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on the other hand, thought his course was most consistent with the Constitution of that House. He thought that there was great danger in going even one step towards general Reform,—and such a step he thought this to be. His right hon. friend had told them how important it was that Birmingham, and Leeds, and Manchester, and other great towns should send representatives to that House; and, by what

349
his right hon. friend had said on that subject, he had plainly indicated that whenever a measure for giving representatives to such places might be brought forward, he would so depart from the general views he had laid down, as to vote for those measures. His right hon. friend had clearly intimated a disposition to go these further lengths. In so doing, his right hon. friend might think that he was only taking up a defensive position still; but by such a course his right hon. friend would most assuredly go on shifting his position in such a way that, though his right hon. friend might still mean to act on the defensive, there would, at last, be nothing left to defend. His right hon. friend, too, had tried to throw upon the Government the odium, if odium it was to be considered, of not going the length he wished the House to go; and said, that in the event of the rejection of the motion he supported, he should feel himself relieved from the restrictions which, until now, he had imposed upon himself. If, however, his right hon. friend were really desirous of maintaining the Constitution of that House, and of opposing all sweeping measures of Reform, he would find that the course which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to adopt was at once the most prudent and the best calculated for those views which his right hon. friend professed to entertain. He had said, and he begged leave to repeat, that he was no Reformer. He was quite sure that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, surpassed any similar body in any other country, and he chose rather to remain in the secure possession of these certain advantages than trust to any theoretical views, however specious, for uncertain benefits. Yet, though he was no Reformer, he had never opposed the punishment of corruption: but at the same time he did not seek out cases of corruption with the view of gaining Reform in Parliament, but merely in order to punish delinquents.
The precedents of the House on subjects of this nature he apprehended he was but following on the present occasion. In the case of Grampound it was not thought advisable to transfer the franchise to the neighbouring hundreds; and he was prepared for extending the same principle to Penryn; and for this reason,—that the hundreds abounded in boroughs,—that the adjacent country, in fact, was
350
so studded with boroughs that no voters could be got to infuse life into the decayed places. He therefore had voted that the franchise of Penryn should be transferred to Leeds. His right hon. friend taxed them with inconsistency because they did not adopt with respect to East Retford the same course they had adopted in the cases of Grampound and Penryn. But let him ask his right hon. friend how long he had entertained these opinions? In the case of Penryn, the late Mr. Canning, who then led the House, so far from being inclined to advance a step, and to give the franchise to a large town in order to take up a defensive position, declared his wish and intention that we should infuse new voters into Penryn from the circumjacent country. He did not recollect whether his right hon. friend voted with Mr. Canning on that occasion. His right hon. friend had enlarged on the importance of the representation to large commercial towns. For his own part he was the last person to underrate the representation of the commercial interests; but when his right hon. friend said that those interests were not represented in the House of Commons, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was totally at issue with him. Let his right hon. friend recollect, that when it was proposed to lay a tax on iron, the persons engaged in the iron trade found in the exertions and ability of his hon. friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton) and of other hon. Members, an ample compensation for the want of a particular representative. He would not detain the House longer. Since the former decisions of the House on this subject, he had seen nothing to alter his opinion. He should therefore adhere to the vote he had formerly given, because he thought it more in unison with the practice of Parliament, and because, when ulterior measures of Reform were brought forward, he should be better able to resist them.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, it was with great regret that he had heard the speech of his light hon. friend who had just sat down. His right hon. friend, in a very lofty tone, commenced an attack on his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), who sat near him. Now what had his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) said? Why merely that he had taken up a defensive position against the wilder schemes of Reform; that he thought it the duty of the House to watch the

351
signs of the times; and that he regretted that the Government had not only done so, but seemed determined to continue in the opposite course. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), for his part, declared that he would resist the first step; but it happened that he (Mr. Grant) had seen the fate of this doctrine of resisting first steps. It happened that he had seen the meaning of such language. It happened that he had heard the same language delivered in the same assumption of tone, by all the right hon. Gentlemen who had sat on the Treasury Bench. And what had it come to? What had been its course but a course gradually lingering on from partial to actual death. This was not looking to public principle and to the general good. No, it was a timorous, half-consenting, half-suspicious line of conduct, which took away all the advantage of concession, and, by denying that which ought to be granted, invited demands for that which ought to be refused. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told them, that he had voted for the transfer of a franchise to Leeds. His right hon. friend voted for the transfer of a borough-franchise to Leeds. Why, he thought that his right hon. friend resisted first steps, [hear]—that he adhered to the Constitution of that House, inflexible to persuasion, to eloquence, to influence of whatever kind. But no,—his right hon. friend really voted for the transfer of a franchise to Leeds. Well, then, there could be no question of principle in the manner of his right hon. friend voting; and he thought that his right hon. friend, until he declared it, had forgotten his former vote as to Leeds. Was it not, then, trifling with the House, in a question of this nature, to say, "I resist first steps?" Was it not a mere mockery of debate, to say so, when they knew that if there were two franchises before them, his right hon. friend would give one of them to a large town? He appealed to the House if this were the way in which so grave a question ought to be treated. But his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was extremely indignant with his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), because his right hon. friend thought that some portion of the exacerbation of the country arose from the conduct of the Government. Now, at the tremendous risk of incurring the anger of his right hon. friend (the Chan-
352
cellor of the Exchequer) he begged leave to say that he held the same opinion. Had there not been meetings such as had never taken place before? Were there not loud complaints and great dissatisfaction? Were there not signs and symptoms sufficient to make every thinking man pause? And yet his right hon. friend told them that he had seen nothing which could induce him to alter his past conduct. If they refused every thing, then every thing would be asked; if they refused that which was just, that which was unjust would be demanded. Every body knew that the demands of a people under excitement were always much higher than they would be content with having conceded when irritation had subsided. He well knew that the people of England dreaded innovation; that they were sincerely attached to their old institutions; and he knew also that it was judicious to preserve them in that temper, by proceeding, in individual cases of abuse like this of East Retford, in a manner which should be most advantageous to the public interest. While he admitted that this was the disposition of the people, he was inclined to believe that if this temperate mode of remedying abuses were refused them, they would be driven to attack those landmarks which his right hon. friend was so anxious—and justly so anxious—to preserve. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had referred to a circumstance which took place during Mr. Canning's administration. But in that instance what had been done? The Government exercised no influence, and what was the result? Why the House agreed that the franchise of Penryn should be transferred to Manchester, and he acquitted the House, therefore, of all participation in goading the people to overstep the bounds of prudence in their demands. Blame did not attach to the House. It was, however, still in the power of the House to satisfy the just demands of the people. If the popular feeling were just, honest, and English—if it were such as the House was known to participate in, in the name of common-sense what was the spell of Bassetlaw which induced Ministers to resist the popular demand. The people of England—the British public—justly feeling the importance of representation, came to that House, told them of great communities that were unrepresented, and the Government met them,—

353
with what?—with the hundred of Basset-law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that on a certain occasion the iron trade had been protected in that House. But were they thus to argue from the interference of individual members on a particular question; or were they to appeal to the common sense of the matter? He would tell the Government of large communities, consisting of thousands of individuals, whose capital was not to be numbered by hundreds or by thousands, but by millions, he would tell the Government of the enterprise, the spirit, the weight, and the importance of such communities, totally unrepresented; and placing these in the balance against the hundred of Bassetlaw, he would leave the result to the common sense and the consciences of hon. Members who heard him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to explain. There was one point on which his right hon. friend had misunderstood him. He knew and stated that he acted on this question according to precedents; the result of which was, that the franchise should be extended to the hundred, unless the hundred were so small, or so full of other boroughs, that such transfer became unadvisable. In this case the hundred did afford a sufficient number of voters in other boroughs.
Sir F. Blakesaid, though nominally it might be an extension of representation to transfer the franchise to the hundred, yet as he did not know under whose influence the hundred of Bassetlaw was, he thought it would be better to disfranchise the borough altogether. [Cries of Question became very loud and general]
Mr. Peelsaid, he was not surprised at the anxiety of the House to come to a decision on a subject which had already been so frequently and so fully discussed, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen that for this reason it was not his intention to trespass long on their patience. He rose from a wish to disembarrass the question of the extraneous political and personal allusions of his right hon. friend the Member for Liverpool. His right hon. friend argued, that because the Government had selected the same gentleman as Attorney-General who had filled that office under the administration of Mr. Canning, they therefore should adopt the same course in respect to the franchise of a corrupt borough as had been adopted by
354
the House in the time of that right hon. Gentleman. His right hon. friend had passed a high eulogium, in the justice of which he (Mr. Peel) fully concurred, on the great learning and talents of Mr. Abercromby. He was happy to have the opportunity of selecting to fill the important office of Chief Baron of Scotland, a gentleman of the acknowledged talents, and great skill in the Scottish law for which that right hon. gentleman was distinguished. In every thing which had been said of that learned gentleman he fully concurred, but why his right hon. friend should infer from that appointment that Government would now be prepared to consent to the transfer of the lapsed franchise to a large town, instead of extending it to the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw, he (Mr. Peel) was at a loss to conceive; for if they were to follow the course pursued at the time alluded to, it would be to extend the franchise to the adjoining hundred. He owned he could not see what his selection of the hon. Member for Sussex, on a former evening, as a Member of the Committee on Indian affairs, because he represented the interest connected with the growth of wool, had to do as an argument on this question; nor could he see the force of the ridicule which his right hon. friend endeavoured to throw on that selection, and the cause which he had assigned for it. He recollected, that, in a speech made by an hon. Member, last year, on the subject of wool, it was stated, that in the northern parts of China, there would probably be a considerable outlet for our woollen trade. Remembering that, and believing that if the prospect were realized, it would afford a market for one of our staple commodities, he did think it only what was due to that interest to place on the Committee a gentleman representing a part of the country greatly interested in the production of that article. That, he thought, was a reason why an air of ridicule should not be thrown on his selection of Mr. Burrell. He would now put it to the landed interest whether there was a preponderance of that interest when they saw his right hon. friend object to the name of one country gentleman on the Committee, and ask to displace Mr. Burrell by inserting instead of his name that of Mr. Marshall, as a representative of the manufacturing interest. In this he saw no proof of the ascendancy of the landed aristocracy in that House.

355
He (Mr. Peel) did not repent of having preferred the name of Mr. Burreil to that of Mr. Marshall, and he must repeat, he could not see the force of" the ridicule which his right hon. friend endeavoured to cast on him, because in that selection he had not forgot the interest of that staple commodity of our manufactures and trade. He would now say a few words on the subject before them, and would be very brief, as he was sure that most hon. Members were now heartily tired of a subject which had been already so frequently discussed. In the propositions before the House there were tour courses from which they were to choose. The first was to issue the writ for the borough of East Ret-ford at once, because some hon. Members seemed to think that the evidence in proof of general bribery in the borough was not complete, and that whatever corruption had existed, was already sufficiently punished by the long suspension of the issue of the writ. The second course proposed for adoption was that of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, who was for extending the franchise into the hundred of Basset-law. The third was for taking the franchise altogether from East Retford, and transferring: it to Birmingham; and the fourth was that proposed by the noble Lord (Howick), which went, in his (Mr. Peel's) opinion, to cast an imputation of corruption on all the cities and boroughs in the kingdom. Of these four, he was prepared to adopt that of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire. He objected to the first proposition,—that for an immediate issue of the writ—on this ground, that though the evidence did not afford proof of any individual guilt, yet, to his mind, there was sufficient proof of a prevailing-habit of bribery in the borough; and as the House had already declared that the borough was corrupt, and ought to be Punished, it was, he thought, too much to ask that the writ should now be re-issued. With respect to the proposition of the noble Lord, whom he always listened to with respect, because every thing which he pressed on the attention of the House he brought before them with great clearness and ability.—he owned it was one in which he could by no means concur. It was one declaratory of the general prevalence of bribery and corruption in all the cities and boroughs in the kingdom. Now, if he were to admit this, which he did not, but if he were to admit it, it would be an
356
argument in favour of the proposition of his hon. friend the Member for Hertford: because if the cities and boroughs were generally corrupt, it would be a good reason for transferring any franchise which Parliament might have at its disposal, not to any town, but to a county; for the noble Lord's motion did not extend to charge bribery against the counties. He would admit with the noble Lord that there did exist more of bribery and corruption in boroughs and cities than counties, and that, as he had said, would be an additional reason for extending the franchise of this borough to a large body of county voters; but he could not go with the noble Lord in the declaration of general bribery and corruption amongst the boroughs and cities. He could not bring himself to consent to include in such a charge the borough of Westbury, which he had the honour to represent, or to involve its respectable electors in so sweeping a censure. [A laugh, in which the right hon. Gentleman joined.] The noble Lord did not include counties in this charge: he represented a county himself. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, then, a borough; and he (Mr. Peel) would have no objection to the noble Lord applying this charge to his own borough, if he so pleased, but he believed he would get few hon. Members to join him in applying it to the places they represented. He hardly imagined that the hon. Baronet near the noble Lord, (Sir F. Burdett) would consent to such a censure upon his constituents. Taking, then, the proposition of the noble Lord as one to which he thought the House would not consent, he would now come to that of the hon. Member for Hertford, for extending it to the adjoining hundred of Bassetlaw. The argument of his right hon. friend was not understood. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that every case of the kind before them should rest on its own abstract merits, and that he saw circumstances in this that induced him to think that the safest course would be to extend the franchise into the neighbouring hundred. But his right hon. friend the Member for Liverpool, (Mr. Huskisson) in a manner unworthy of his great talents, had endeavoured to throw ridicule on the extension of the franchise to Bassetlaw. He (Mr. Peel) had voted for that proposition before; and he saw nothing in the argument of his right hon. friend to induce him to de-

357
part from the same course on this occasion. Some allusions had been made to the influence which the Duke of Newcastle would obtain by the extension of the franchise to Bassetlaw; but it was not necessary for him to state that he could not have any private inclination to promote the political influence of any one opposed to Government. As the thing had been alluded to, however, he would declare, upon his honour, that the support which Government gave to the proposition of his hon. friend, for extending the franchise to the hundred, was not the result of any communication or any understanding whatever with the noble Duke alluded to. [hear] But the fact was, as understood, the interest of the noble Lord would not be promoted by the extension of the right of voting to the hundred. There were in that hundred two thousand freeholders, and if he were correctly informed, there did not exist any great leading interest amongst them.
In stating his intention of giving the same vote on this question now as he had done on former occasions, he must not be understood as expressing himself hostile to the extension of the franchise to large towns. He had voted for the transfer of the franchise from Penryn to Manchester, and on that occasion he stated if, on a future occasion, a majority of the inhabitants of any borough should be proved guilty of bribery and corruption, he should not object to the transfer of the franchise to a large town, with this understanding—that there should be a division of franchises, at the disposal of Parliament, alternately between the landed and commercial and manufacturing interests. He saw no reason to change that opinion, but he thought that there were circumstances in the case of East Retford which should induce Parliament to extend the franchise to the adjoining hundred. This question had been so often under the consideration of the House, and the House had expressed its opinion upon it by so decided a majority, that he did not think it necessary for him then to restate the arguments which he had urged before, on the motion of his hon. friend; but one element in the case which weighed with him was the consideration that the county of Nottingham sent only eight Members to Parliament, and he saw no good reason why that number should be reduced to six. The same consideration did not exist in
358
the case of Penryn. He also considered that this extension would act as a punishment amongst the guilty electors, while it would not take away the right from those who were innocent. The throwing in upon the borough this large number of freeholders would, to use the language of an hon. Member not then in the House, be a punishment, by "sluicing" them with these two thousand fresh voters; and that the electors of East Retford so considered it, was proved by their protest to that House against the proposition. Now, considering that the question had been eight or ten times discussed, and not apprehending any preponderance of the landed interest in the House from this accession, he thought it would be the safest course which the House could pursue, to adhere to its former decisions; but should it now, contrary to those decisions, adopt the amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Tennyson), he (Mr. Peel) had no hesitation in declaring that he should feel it his duty not to oppose by any vexatious delays the passage to the other House of the bill which the hon. Member would in that case bring in; for, after the decision of to-night, be it what it might, he did hope not to hear the name of this borough again.
Mr. N. Calvertrose amidst cries of 'question.'—He said, he was anxious to state, that he had no personal acquaintance with the Duke of Newcastle, and was not influenced in this motion by any considerations for the influence of that noble Lord. He did not believe, indeed, that the noble Duke would obtain any increase of influence by the extension of the franchise from East Retford to the hundred. There was a Duke of Newcastle, who, when Minister in the reign of Geo. II., had very great influence in the borough, and it was said gave places under Government to most of the electors, but he believed the present Duke possessed very little if any influence there, and certainly no leading influence in the hundred.
Mr. Huskissonin explanation, begged to observe that his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) had mistaken his argument about the appointment of Sir J. Scarlett as Attorney-General. What he said was, that seeing a Tory Ministry acting on Whig principles, he thought they would not object to the course which the hon. Member (Mr. Tennyson) had proposed. As to the objection which his right hon. friend

359
supposed him to entertain to the landed interest being on the East India Committee, ha could assure him that in that he was also mistaken. He had not objected to the hon. Member for Sussex because he was connected with that interest; but it would be an error to suppose the landed aristocracy were not fully represented in the East-India Company. The first name on the list was that of the Marquis Graham. There were also those of Lord Chandos, Mr. Cavendish,—all names connected with the great landed aristocracy. His argument against the hon. Member for Sussex being on the Committee was, that he could not be said to represent the wool interest more than any other country Gentleman. His right hon. friend seemed to think that because the hon. Member for Sussex lived in the immediate vicinity of the South Downs, he was therefore more immediately a representative of the wool interest, and he (Mr. Huskisson) alluding to that observation, had asked, where were the representatives of the iron interest? It was true that many Members represented the counties in which iron was produced very well, but not one represented the iron interest.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, as his right hon. friend, in his explanation, had thought proper to amend his argument, he (Mr. Peel) felt it also necessary to explain. In the first instance his right hon. friend's argument certainly was, that in consequence of the appointments already alluded to, and in consequence of the Government having adopted one great principle, they ought also to adopt the Other principles of Mr. Canning.
Mr. Huskissonbegged to repeat, that, considering this Administration to be a Tory Government, supported by Whig principles, he had contended they might have adopted this one Whig principle with the rest.
Mr. C. Grantexplained. He did not mean to throw out any insinuation against the Government, or attribute motives to them which they had disclaimed.
Mr. Lumleyhoped if it were thought to be impracticable to come to a decision this session, it would be considered best to let the question fall to the ground, and issue new writs for East Retford.
Lord Darlingtonsaid, whatever might have fallen from him the other night (on moving the Address) as to the ground on which he would support Ministers, he
360
must state to the right hon. Member for Liverpool, that he had, whenever the subject was discussed, always voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Hertford.
The House divided: For the original Motion 120; For the Amendment 99: Majority 27.

List of the Majority.

Arkwright, R.

Fane, Sip H.

Apsley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Gordon, Sir W.

Arbuthnot, Col.

Gower, Lord L.

Ashurst, W. H.

Graham, Marquis of

Ashley, Hon. W.

Grant, Sir A.

Alexander, J.

Grosvenor, Gen.

Alexander, H.

Gye, F.

Baker, E.

Hardynge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bankes, H.

Hill, Sir R. Bart.

Bankes, G.

Hill, rt. hon. Sir. G.

Bankes, W.

Hastings, Sir C. A. Bt.

Beresford, Sir J. P. bart.

Holmesdale, Viscount

Beresford, Marcus

Ingilby, Sir W. A. Bt.

Benson, Ralph

Irving, J.

Brydges, Sir J.

Knox, Hon. T.

Brecknock, Lord

Knatchbull, Sir E. Bt.

Becket, rt. hon. Sir J.

King, hon. Gen.

Batley, C. H.

Lowther, Lord

Barrard, G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Balfour, J.

Lowther, Col.

Bell, M.

Lushington, Col.

Bastard, E. P.

Leake, W.

Cholmeley, M.

Lewis, rt. hon. F.

Chichester, Major A.

Lygon, Hon. Col. H. P.

Carrington, Sir E. C.

Marryatt, J.

Campbell, A. of Blythewood.

Murray, rt. hon. Sir G.

Mundy, F.

Cust, Hon. P.

Mundy, G.

Cust, Hon. E.

Manners, Lord C.

Calcraft, rt. hon. J.

Manners, Lord R.

Courtenay, rt. hon. T. P.

M'Leod, J. N.

Castlereagh, Lord

Moore, G.

Clark, Sir G.

Martin, Sir T. B.

Croker, rt. hon. J. W.

Manning, W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sr. G.

Northcote, H. S.

Cartwright, W. B.

North, J. H.

Clive, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Cox, J.

Osborne, Lord F.

Cooper, R. B.

Paul, Sir H. St.

Cockerell, Sir C. Bart.

Pitt, J.

Corry, Hon. H. T. L.

Peel, rt. hon. R.

Dundas, R. A.

Peel, W.

Dawson, G. R.

Peachy, Lieut-Gen.

Davis, Hart

Perceval, S.

Darlington, Lord

Peach, N. W.

Dotting A. R.

Planta, J.

Dawkins, Col. H.

Prendergast, G.

Doherty, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Strathaven, Lord

Downes, Lord

Sugden, Sir E. B.

East, Sir E. Hyde

Stopford, Lord

Forrester, Hon. J. G. W.

Smith, Ald.

Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Farquhar, J.

Somerset, Lord E.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Sanderson, R.

361

Sotheron, Adm. F.

Ure, Masterton

Stewart, J.

Valletort, Lord

Spottiswoode, A.

Van Homrigh, P.

Sadler, M. T.

Willoughby, H.

Seymour, H. B.

Williams, Owen

Thompson, L.

Wetherell, Sir C.

Talmash, Hon. F.

Walpole, Hon. Col. J.

Trench, Col. F. W.

—

Townshend, Hon. J. R.

TELLERS.

Thynne, Lord H.

Ross, Charles

Vivian, Sir H.

Calvert, Nicholson

List of the Minority.

Attwood, M.

Milbank, M.

Althorpe, Lord

Marshall, J.

Barclay, C.

Marshall, W.

Barclay, D.

Martin, J.

Blandford, Lord

M'Donald, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Morpeth, Lord

Bernal, R.

Nugent, Lord

Brownlow, C.

O'Connell, D.

Burdett, Sir F.

Pendarvis, E. W.

Blake, Sir F.

Parnell, Sir H.

Beaumont, T. W.

Palmer, C. F.

Baring, A.

Phillimore, Dr.

Baring, F.

Palmerston, Lord

Callaghan, G.

Protheroe, E.

Cavendish, Hon. H.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Cavendish, W.

Robarts, A. W.

Carter, J. Bonham

Robinson, Sir G.

Craddock, Col.

Rumbold, C. E.

Calvert, C.

Rickford, W.

Duncombe, T.

Russell, W.

Davis, Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Davenport, E.

Rice, T. S.

Dawson, A.

Scarlett, Sir J.

Denison, J. J.

Slaney, R. A.

Denison, J. W.

Smith, V.

Ewart, W.

Smith, W.

Ellis, Hon. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Easthope, J.

Stewart, Sir W.S.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Thompson, Ald.

Fortescue, Hon. G.

Taylor, M. A.

Fergusson, Cutlar

Thomson, Poulett

Fazakerly, T. N.

Wells, J.

Ferguson, Sir T.

Westenra, Hon. H. R.

Fyler, T. B.

Warrender, Sir G.

Gascoyne, Gen.

Wodehouse, E.

Guest, J. S.

Wood, Ald.

Grant, rt. hon. C.

Wood, C.

Grant, R.

Wood, J.

Graham, Sir J.

Wilbraham, G.

Gordon, R.

Wall, Baring

Hoye—(of Southamp.)

Warburton, H.

Huskisson, rt. hon. W.

Whitmore, W. W.

Hume, J.

Wilson, Sir R.

Howick, Lord

Waithman, Ald.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wyvill, Marmaduke

Hutchinson, H.

—

Jephson, C. D.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, H.

Tennyson, Charles

Langston, J.

Normanby, Lord

Littleton, E. J.

—

Lester, B. L.

Paired off.

Lamb, Hon. G.

W. J. Denison.

Lord Howick, on the question being put, that the Bill be now brought in, said, it was his opinion that it was extremely unfair to fasten on one single case of political delinquency, like that of East Retford, while it was so notorious that the borough thus stigmatized formed only a component part of a widely prevailing system, deserving of reprobation and reform. He would have punishment inflicted indiscriminately on all culprits of every class, high or low, where soever they might be found. It was an incontrovertible fact, that undue influence, whether in the shape of money or otherwise, had been long exercised in every election throughout the United Kingdom. To cause this undoubted truth to be openly declared by the House of Commons was the object of his resolution. It had been already fully admitted by a noble Lord who filled, a prominent part in the administration several years ago (Lord Castlereagh), and the correctness of the statement was too generally established to be questioned from that day to the present. It was suggested by aright hon. Gentleman opposite, that he ought to be prepared to bring in a bill for the prevention of bribery, grounded on his proposed resolution. Now the course which he intended to adopt was this:—after the passing of the declaratory resolution, he might move for the appointment of a Committee, which Committee should be empowered to draw up a scheme for Parliamentary Reform. But were he presented with the alternative of stopping short in his career, or supporting the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, he would not hesitate a moment in his choice. It was his determination to oppose that hon. Gentleman, because he thought his bill an imposition on the country. He considered it a mere mockery to disfranchise a single borough in the existing circumstances of the country, when no person was blind to the means by which numbers procured seats in that Mouse. Perhaps it might be said that by opposing this bill he was virtually encouraging bribery. In reply, however, he could only say, that while abuse at its full growth walked boldly through the land, he would never be brought, at sight of a solitary instance of corruption, to feign a horror and indignation which he did not feel.
The House again divided: Ayes 154; Noes 55—Majority 99.

List of the Minority on Lord Howick's Motion.

Baring, Alexander

M'Donald, Sir James

Batley, Charles H.

Martin, John

Bernal, Ralph

Marshall, Wm.

Brownlow, Charles

Nugent, Lord

Barclay, Charles

O'Connell, Daniel

Barclay, David

Philips, George

Blandford, Marquis of

Pendarvis, Edw. W. W.

Blake, Sir F.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Burdett, Sir F.

Pallmer, N.

Cavendish, Henry

Protheroe, Edw.

Cavendish, Wm.

Russell, W.

Cholmeley, Montague

Rice, Thomas Spring

Davies, Colonel

Smith Vernon

Davenport, Edw.

Stewart, J. (Bevevley)

Dawson, Alexander

Tennyson, Charles

Easthope, J.

Thompson, Ald. W.

Fazakerley, John N.

Thomson, Poulett

Fortescue, Hon. G.

Warburton, Henry

Ferguson, Sir R. C.

Waithman, Ald.

Gordon, Robert

Wilbraham, George

Howard, Henry

Whitmore, W. W.

Hume, Joseph

Wells, John

Hoye—(of Southampton)

Wood, Ald.

Wood, Charles

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wood, John

Ingilby, Sir W. A. Bt.

—

Lamb, Hon. G.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, Henry

Howick, Lord

Lumley, John S.

Normanby, Lord

Morpeth, Lord

Mr. N. Calvertthen brought in a Bill to prevent Bribery and Corruption in the Election of Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the Borough of East Retford; which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday, 26th of February.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
The Solicitor General (Sir E. B. Sugden)said, he rose for the purpose of introducing to the notice of the House his amendments of the law relating to certain matters which had been the subject of particular decisions in the Court of Chancery. It was his intention to introduce five different Bills to alter the law which those decisions had established. The first Bill related to Illusory Appointments. The law of England was favourable to every latitude in the disposition of property. To that liberal principle was owing the introduction of powers of appointment; thus, for instance, if a father were desirous of reserving to himself on his son's marriage a power of appointment, he might do so. There were two sorts of powers of this kind in the law. The one was an exclusive power, by which the father had the power to give the property
364
to one son, or to a few, and to exclude all the rest. The other was a more general power, by which all the sons were included. Now, at law, if one part, however small, were given to some of the sons mentioned in the appointment, the substance of the settlement was sufficiently answered. The exigency of a general power was complied with, if in the appointment of 100,000 l. there were given to one son 99,999 l. and 1l. to the other; because the law had not the means of pointing out the extent of the sum to be given to each individual. But equity at an early period assumed a power of interfering, on the ground that such an execution of the power was not within the intention of those who had created it, and had frequently declared that some of the appointments thus made were so small as to be illusory, and therefore a case for equitable interference. The authority thus assumed, it was contended, was dangerous, as it must depend almost entirely on the arbitrary distinctions taken by each individual Judge of the Court of Chancery; and it likewise added, the evils of delay and litigation. It was often asked where the line between illusory and valid appointments could be drawn, or what standard could be referred to as that by which a good appointment could always be known. The difficulty of finding such a standard had been often felt, and the power thus assumed by the Courts of Equity has led, as it must lead, to great and unnecessary litigation; so that at last almost all men had agreed in saying, it would have been better that the Courts of Equity should never have possessed such a jurisdiction, but should have left the matter as it stood at law. It occurred to him that the evils he had mentioned might be prevented by the adoption of one general rule. It had been truly held that the introduction of the Equity jurisdiction had proved injurious, and that it might safely put an end to, and the matter left to the Judges at Law to do what was requisite. The Bill which he was now about to propose had met, he was happy to state, with the approbation of those professional gentlemen who had directed their attention to the subject. It had the sanction of the leading members of the profession. The object of it was to restore the law to its old state, and to put the equitable rule on the same footing as the rule at law, so that there should be no such things as Illusory Appointments known

365
in our Courts after the passing of this Act. Any person who might be desirous of bestowing a portion of any given sum upon a particular individual must express his intention, and the money would then go as he had expressed, and this act would not allow a subsequent interference with the disposition of property under an appointment, where the power of appointment itself had made no distinct specification of the amount to be given to the different individuals mentioned in it. This would do no injury to any one; but he trusted it would be found productive of considerable benefit, by stopping a great mass of needless, vexatious, and expensive litigation; while, on the other hand, no hardship whatever could result in any way from the change. Any person who should desire to distribute a specified sum in a particular way would require only to express his desire, in order to have it scrupulously enforced. He concluded with moving—"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Illusory Appointments."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it would be very great presumption in so humble an individual as himself to differ on a legal subject with the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the Bill alluded to, however, he conceived that a slight mistake had been made which would require amendment, notwithstanding the general propriety of the measure, which he was quite ready to admit. The existing system was indeed one which much needed reformation, and he would be the last to oppose the progress of what must prove in the main an improvement; he therefore concurred entirely with the honourable and learned Gentleman, that the Law, as it was now administered in Equity, upon the subject of Illusory Appointments in particular, absolutely required amendment. There was, in fact, no rule in Equity, but a question in Equity, as to the Appointment, or as it might be more truly and conveniently described, the apportionment of property. In every case of distribution of this particular kind, the Court entered upon the inquiry with a view to see whether a substantive share had or had not been given to the various objects of the power of appointment. This raised a question, but gave no rule whatever. The object of this Bill was to correct that evil which was most enormous, and which was made more enormous, inasmuch as the Equity Judges differ-
366
ed so much among themselves as to what was, and what was not an Illusory Appointment, that there existed nothing like a rule upon the subject. That this was the fact he could most easily prove; for he could show intances (if quoting cases in that House were not rather too technically forensic) in which they had widely differed from each other; so that the law upon the subject was as unsatisfactory as it could be. Two learned Lords in this country disagreed more than once upon the point, but law was distinctly laid down, and the plain rule could never be at variance with itself. He accordingly desired to see Equity so far assimilated to law as would prevent the recurrence of expensive and uncalled-for litigation. In law, the appointment of sixpence out of one million of pounds was sufficient to satisfy the power. In Equity the rule was different, the Equity Judges requiring a substantial execution of the power of appointment. Between the Courts there was, therefore, the widest possible difference. But this was not all. The Chief Baron sat as a Judge sometimes in a Court of Common Law, and sometimes in a Court of Equity; and that appointment which he would one day hold to be a good execution of the power, he would treat on the following day in a different, in a diametrically opposite manner. That was the state in which the law stood at present, the Judge changing his doctrines as he changed his wig. The law was, besides, liable to another objection. He had asked several unprofessional gentlemen of ability and intelligence, with whom it had been his fortune to converse at different times, whether they understood what an Illusory Appointment was, and they invariably answered that they did not. Now he would ask whether that system was one which ought to be preserved, of which men of knowledge and intelligence were entirely ignorant. The fact was, they were as much unacquainted with the law of Illusory Appointments, as if it were a law preserved only in the Arabic, or, worse than that, in the Otaheitean language, for some did understand Arabic. He would not trouble the House further on this subject, except to make one suggestion. By the present law the father was possessed of absolute power in making the distribution in what manner he pleased. The check which Equity opposed to this absolute power was mischievous, because it encouraged litigation; but it might be

367
made most useful if properly exercised. He wished the honourable and learned Gentleman to recollect that with which his practice must have made him acquainted, namely, the fact that an unfortunate or distressed father would go among his children, and make a sort of auction of his power of appointment, in order to see who will give him most for his preference. "With respect to that, he would suggest that it might be as well to take away that absolute power of appointment, and to make it imperative to give each of the children an equal share. This plan might, to some persons, appear mischievous, but it had been tried, and succeeded well in France. In his opinion it would restore peace to families if an adequate share were given to each of the children. If it were good, as he thought it was, to make any amendment, that amendment ought to proceed further than the one now proposed.
The Solicitor Generalreplied.—He could not accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Clare. He could not consent to take away from the father his legitimate and reasonable power of apportioning to his children as he might think proper, acting on the impulse of his affections and the dictates of his judgment. It was for this very reason that he admired the excellence of the English Law, although the hon. and learned Gentleman would have him depart from it to follow the questionable example of France. His Bill would trench neither on the rights of parents nor children. Why ought they to divest a father of so important a right, the exercise of which might prove so serviceable in the exigencies of his family? The French Law gave the father the smallest quantity of power over his own property; but he thought such a system ought not to be introduced here. If bargains of the nature described were at any time made, a Court of Equity, on being applied to, would immediately set them aside for the benefit of the children. The rule he should recommend would break in upon nothing—it would work no mischief, but must amend many real practical tangible grievances, which could not be terminated too soon. The bill now proposed would leave any one at full liberty to declare the portions into which he wished his property to be divided, and he believed it would be found to operate as a general benefit, It would not only be a great
368
good in itself, but it would be highly beneficial, as offering an assurance to the people that the Government were anxious to see whether they could introduce any good amendments into the laws; and that although they might be opposed to those reforms which they well knew never could be carried into execution, they were willing to propose such as were capable of being practically effectual, and to follow up with industry and attention any proposal that would conduce to such an end.
Motion agreed to.

LIABILITY OF REAL PROPERTY, &C.
The Solicitor Generalmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the Payment of Debts out of Real Estates. A few words would suffice to explain its object. He proposed to extend to Covenants the Act of William and Mary, which at present only related to Bonds; for, by the Statute of William, the Bond Debts of an Estate, even in the case of the heir being an infant, were recoverable in Equity, but not Covenants, which were held liable in Common Law. He proposed to extend the power of the Courts of Equity to Covenants, and to enable them to give a title to the estates of the infant which were sold under their jurisdiction. At present, by a strange anomaly, the Court of Chancery possessed and exercised the power of selling the infant's estate, but could not give a title; so that a purchaser was obliged to wait till the infant became twenty-one years of age. He proposed to remedy that defect, and also to grant the Court of Chancery the power of giving a title in the case of devised property. The next object on which he begged leave to say he had expended many weeks' consideration was, to extend the 6th of his present Majesty, which was itself an extension of the Statute of Anne, so as to make the contracts of heirs liable out of their real estates, and to invest the Court of Chancery with the power of giving a title. The giving the Great Seal the power of granting a title, in cases of sales effected under its jurisdiction, of the property of infants, femes covert and lunatics, was the next object of his Bill. He also proposed to give it the same power in the cases of infant and lunatic trustees and mortgagees. At present lunatics were liable for all contracts entered into when in a state of

369
sanity; but the Great Seal, under whose jurisdiction their property fell, had not the power of granting a title, though they exercised that of sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving, for leave to bring in three other Bills:—First, a Bill to facilitate the Payment of Debts out of Real Estate;—Second, a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Property of Infants, Femes-covert, and Lunatics; Thirdly, a Bill to amend the Law relating to Lunatic and Infant Trustees and Mortgagees. The Motion was agreed to.

COMMITMENTS FOR. CONTEMPT.
The Solicitor Generalmoved for leave to bring in a Bill, the object of which was, to amend the Law relating to Process of Contempt, and Commitments for Contempt, by Courts of Equity. The House would be aware that Courts of Equity acted ad personam, and not ad rem, and in all cases an appearance was necessary; and that a violation of its rules or orders were necessarily punishable by confinement of the person, instead of a levy on the property. In no case, but one provided by a special Act of Parliament, when the party must be brought to the bar, could that appearance be entered without the consent of the defendant. Much had been said of the conduct of Lord Eldon upon this subject; but he could assert that no man could be more tender of the personal liberty of the subject, and he never committed an individual for contempt without the most anxious consideration and most earnest desire to avoid that painful extremity. In consequence of steps taken by that noble Lord, persons confined merely for non-payment of a sum of money, as for costs of suit, could he discharged under the Insolvent Act; but he (the Solicitor-General) was convinced that the time had arrived in which relief should be carried much farther, and he thought he could establish, without difficulty, the justice and expediency of altering the existing law. The Commissioners upon the Court of Chancery had suggested the fitness of shortening the process, and he proposed to render it much shorter than they had considered necessary. In the bill he had framed, he made use of some portions of the measure which had been founded upon the report of the Commissioners, and which had been brought in by the present occupant
370
of the Woolsack (Lord Lyndhurst) when Master of the Rolls. He could not think, and never had thought it right, that men should be confined, perhaps for life, within the walls of a prison, because they had not the means, even if they had the inclination, to put in answers to bills filed against them; he, therefore, proposed to relax the system, and to afford a remedy, to which, he believed, no objection could be raised. As it stood, the law was not to be endured; and against poor men, in some cases, it operated with unmixed bitterness; but let the cases be ever so rare, if they could exist, it was highly proper that the evil should be met and redressed. When once a man was lodged in a gaol for contempt, there was no obligation upon the party lodging him there to take the slightest notice of the prisoner for the rest of his life. He believed that there was but one existing instance of the kind, and there the man merited what he suffered, for he remained in the county gaol for the purpose of evading an act, which he ought in justice to perform. A poor man, a tailor, in Coventry gaol, after he had been there for seven years, had written to him (the Solicitor-General); with very few exceptions, he found the parties who occasioned the imprisonment disposed to aid him in the task of setting free those who were confined; and the poor tailor, having been released from prison, had been put in possession of his estate, which had been mortgaged, and had since written a grateful letter, in which he stated that he had never known a state of such comparative affluence and happiness. The evil arising out of the non-entry of appearances was capable of an easy and an immediate remedy, and it was this:—to enable a party to enter an appearance for a person who would not enter it for himself; if it were not done within a reasonable time by the defendant himself, it should be done for him, and the gaoler authorized to release the individual in contempt. The object of imprisonment was to get a certain act performed, and as soon as it was performed, either by the defendant or by others, the object was answered. At the same time he wished the change to be accompanied by this provision; that where justice could not be done unless the defendant himself put in the answer, the Court should have the power, upon application, to prolong the confinement. He begged hon.

371
Members to observe that there was a great difference between this amendment and the present state of the law. Now a man might be left in gaol year after year to the end of his life without the slightest notice of his being still in existence; by the change he proposed, the imprisonment of no man could be prolonged without special application to the Court, and that with due notice to the party. The principle of the law of this country, he was proud to say, made no distinction between rich and poor; laws must necessarily operate in different ways upon the rich and upon the poor; the rich man suffered in his purse, perhaps, while the poor man was obliged to suffer in his person; but all must be made to be obedient to the law, however high or however low their rank. When he came to investigate the state of the Fleet Prison, he saw clearly that some alteration was necessary; but it was a mistake to assert that the parties there confined for contempt were victims of the Court of Chancery—they were victims of the law, which law it was expedient to amend. The present times, and the present state of men's minds, were favourable to that alteration; and without assuming the slightest credit to himself for taking advantage of this disposition, which did. not before exist, at least to the same extent, and anxious to shun all comparison in every other respect with his able predecessors in office, he had undertaken to draw the attention of the Legislature to the subject. When he first visited the Fleet, he found, he believed, thirty-seven prisoners there for contempt of the Court of Chancery: one had been there for nineteen years, another for sixteen, a third for twelve, a fourth for ten years; and so on with others for shorter periods. He found also, to his great astonishment, that the persons sent there by, and thus considered victims of, the Court of Chancery, all held the most lucrative situations in the prison. The cook had been confined in contempt for six years, although he need not have remained there for six days, had he chosen to give up his flourishing office. The hotel keeper had been ten years in prison, without the slightest necessity for stopping there; and his place, he was informed, was worth from 200 l. to 300 l. a year. The individual who occupied the tap—a situation producing from 150 l. to 200 l. a year—had been committed for contempt, and
372
had already remained there for six years. Another person was a solicitor, he had been in the Fleet three years, and need not have been there as many days; but he was now domiciled, and practised his profession with much success. He had, however, found in similar confinement one gentleman, who had for thirteen years been in a state of imbecility, and who was therefore utterly incapable of putting in any answer to a bill in Chancery. Had he died, he would indeed have been lamented over as one of the victims of the Court; but what was the fact? He had been kept in prison for the convenience of others; and he had made no hesitation in telling those others, that if they did not set him at liberty, he would issue a commission of lunacy against the imbecile gentleman, and have a guardian appointed. What was the result? In December 1829, an order for his discharge was produced by his friends, dated in August, 1827, which for their own purposes they had till then kept in their pockets, and would have allowed him to die a victim to the Court of Chancery. Besides this gentleman, there were two wretched individuals both out of their minds: although one was sane enough to do wrong, though he would not do right; the other was merely a silly idiot, who did not know right from wrong. For the cases of such persons it was obvious that a provision should be made; and he proposed that the Court should be empowered to assign to them counsel and solicitors, even though no commission of lunacy had been issued against them. Both these persons had been discharged, and were now under the care of their families. The hotel-keeper, the tapster, the cook, the solicitor, and others were now all discharged from the contempt, and were no longer liable to be detained. In every case in which a poor man made affidavit that he was unable to discharge the expenses of a suit, he would be immediately brought to the bar; and if upon inquiry that allegation were not controverted, or, being controverted, was shown to be true, relief would be given to the suffering party.—[At this moment the noise in the House, which had prevailed to a considerable extent during the whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, increased beyond what it had previously done].—He said he had undertaken the duty of bringing before the House the motions then submitted to its

373
consideration from an imperious sense of duty; he was anxious to proceed with them in the manner most consonant with the wishes of the House; [cheers, and cries of order, order, order] and, for his part, he could not conceive any object better worthy the attention of Parliament than the consideration of measures for giving freedom to those who might otherwise be condemned to pass their lives in prison, without hope of relief; and who, if Parliament did not interfere, might in vain ask for assistance. He could not conceive how a House of Commons could be better employed than in vindicating its own character, and in giving relief to persons by whom relief was so much needed. Before the recent interruption he was about to state, that one of the objects of his measure would be to give relief at once to any man who made out a case of poverty. Of the gratifying effects of that species of relief, administered under very touching circumstances, he had recently an opportunity of witnessing a remarkable instance. A poor Welchman was brought up to the court for the purpose of being discharged, on the ground already mentioned. The poor Welchman could not speak a word of English; an interpreter was procured, and the moment the objects and intentions of the Court were explained to him, his countenance lightened up with joy and gratitude, and thus he received the assurance that he would be released from that prison in which he might, but for that humane interference, have been doomed to end his days.
The object, amongst others, of the bills which he sought to introduce, was to give all cases requiring it the species of relief conceded in that just mentioned. For this purpose he should propose that four times in the year a King's Counsel and a Master in Chancery be appointed to visit the prison, to report upon its slate, and make a representation of the persons whose cases required relief, upon which a solicitor and counsel should be assigned to them, and the questions on which they were at issue with other parties brought to as speedy a decision as possible. From his knowledge of the Chancery bar, he could state, whenever a poor man came before it, the question amongst his learned brethren was, not who would, but who should be the counsel of the pauper.
There was another reform he meant to introduce, which was this, that whenever
374
any man was ordered to execute a deed, and that he did not immediately comply, the Court, instead of imprisoning him, should execute the deed for him; and whenever it was proper for any man to do any act, it should not be necessary to confine him for the remainder of his life, but the Court should proceed at once as if the thing were done. He would even carry that principle further—he would apply it to the case of fines and recoveries. Levying a fine, and suffering a recovery, was nothing more than a circuitous mode of conveyance; and whenever it was directed by a Court, he would have the Court act for the refractory party. Whatever was the nature of the act to be done, whenever it was decided that it should be done, then let it be the business of the Court to see its own commands carried into effect. By the returns made in the year 1821, out of thirty-one persons then in custody, there was one who had been confined for a period of nineteen years, and he declined to accept his liberty on the proposed terms. There was another who had been confined fifteen years, and who was at that time in a state of imbecility. The return of 1827 gave the name of one man who had been confined twenty-five years; but he, so far from wishing to be liberated, procured an affidavit of debt to be made against him, for the purpose of his further detention, in order that he might preserve to himself the enjoyment of confinement, in despite of the Court by which he was originally committed—so remaining voluntarily in prison. Of the number in prison in 1827, he had now the satisfaction of stating, that the cases of the greater part were in a fair train of being satisfactorily disposed of; and an effect of the measures he proposed, would be, to bring that object to its immediate accomplishment; then the system which he proposed to introduce would have fair play, and the means of acting upon a clear prison. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill accordingly.
Mr. Humesaid, he was far from undervaluing the labours of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, on the contrary, he appreciated them highly; but he must be allowed to say that many of the returns upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman had founded his observations were laid upon the table of that House at his (Mr. H.'s) instance. Neither could he

375
concur with that hon. and learned Gentleman in the eulogium he had pronounced upon the late Lord Chancellor.—In the year 1821 he visited the prison, and, after having obtained some information on the condition of the persons confined there, he felt it his duty to address a letter to the Lord Chancellor, upon the then existing state of the law, and upon the unjust sufferings to which those individuals were exposed. The fact was, that cases of those persons could not be brought before the House with effect, unless by a public officer of the Crown; for such an individual alone possessed the facilities, and stood upon the 'vantage ground, which enabled him to do what the case really required—to wrest from confinement the victims of the Court of Chancery. The statements which he (Mr. H.) made upon the occasions when those returns were ordered, were fully assented to by the present Lord Chancellor, when a Member of this House, and to the authority of that noble person as decisively supporting the alterations of which he had always been the advocate. What he complained of, and what he thought the House and the country had a right to complain of, was, that Attorneys and Solicitors-General, instead of amusing them with fine language, had not before that time introduced some measures of reform and amelioration in the state of the law. Never before the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman made that night, had they brought forward a single proposition for the improvement of the legal institutions of the country, upon which so much of the well-being and happiness of the people depended. The improvements in the law, then before the House, would do the hon. and learned Gentleman by whom they had been proposed infinite honour, and could not but prove to him a source of satisfaction and honest pride the longest day he had to live—yet other Attorneys and Solicitors-General had enjoyed their large incomes, and all the rank and patronage and advantages of other offices, without ever bestowing a thought upon the many whom a single act of theirs might have set at liberty. Yet nothing could be further from the thoughts of those great officers than discharging that solemn and important duty. They, so far as he could perceive, had neglected every thing but their own private interests, leaving hundreds of unfortunate individuals to pine in prison and
376
in suffering. The censure upon those functionaries was the highest praise of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as were his praises their condemnation, for the shameful neglect of duty of which they had been guilty. It was with the utmost difficulty he could imagine how the late Lord Chancellor could have reconciled it to his conscience, of which he had so often spoken, to remain five and twenty years in office without once making a proposition for the amelioration of that Court over which he presided. What was there for him at any time to do, but to say to the Attorney or Solicitor-General—do what is necessary—and immediately it would have been done; had but he spoken the word, the old and intolerable system would have been abolished at an instant's notice. There was one case in the year 1821 which had in an especial degree attracted his notice; it was that of an old woman who had been one and twenty years in prison, and who was allowed to remain there up to the time of her death. The people of England had claims for the remedy of those abuses of which they were not aware, and yet they went on from day to day sanctioning abuses for which the law officers ought to be held responsible, but which up to the present moment they had never held out their hands to correct. In support of the truth of that assertion he need only refer to the evidence supplied by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; a speech which reflected upon him the highest honour; though he (Mr. Hume) could never be brought to join in the eulogium which it contained upon the merits and conduct of the late Lord Chancellor Eldon; for with the fullest powers to see his own orders executed, it was acknowledged that he did not see that necessary work performed; and that where he wanted power for the purpose, he did not take measures for coming to Parliament to supply him with the requisite means of accomplishing the ends of justice. Why, then, was that need of praise to be conceded to him, which was due alone to those who had exerted the powers intrusted to them for the public good?
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, he could not but feel the praises of the hon. Member for Montrose as most painful, seeing that they were only given to him in the form of censures pronounced upon the conduct of his predecessors. It was by no means,

377
correct to argue that they had done wrong in not anticipating his measures. He stood in a different situation from what they did; especially as respected time and circumstances. What might have been extremely proper for him to propose to Parliament, various causes might have prevented them from bringing forward; but this, he submitted, formed no ground of censure against them; and greatly did any censures pronounced upon them detract from the value of the praises with which he had just been honoured by the hon. Member for Montrose—indeed nothing was more calculated to damp the ardour of a public officer, than thus to sound his praises at the expense of his predecessors.
Mr. Humesaid, he should be extremely sorry to damp the laudable efforts of any public functionary, but he would put it to him whether the conduct of his predecessors, if like his, would not have led to similar results?
Lord Althorpsaid, that when in former Sessions his hon. friend the Member for Montrose had addressed the House upon the abuses of the Court of Chancery, he had naturally and justly expressed his disapprobation of the conduct of those by whom the abuses in that Court were allowed to exist; and it was perfectly natural and just that when complaints of that nature were at length rendered groundless by the conduct of public officers, that the same hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, should contrast the conduct of the present law officers of the Crown with that of their predecessors.
Sir Charles Wetherellcomplained of the sweeping anathema which the Member for Montrose had pronounced against all who had filled legal offices under the Crown. The hon. Member had taken them severely to task, and he (Sir Charles Wetherell) would take him to task. He would ask that hon. Member where he was all the time the Chancery Commission was sitting? It was well known to all who sat upon that Commission that the noble Lord whose conduct had been so severely censured, uniformly attended that Commission; and though a lawyer of the highest eminence, and a magistrate of the highest order, yet he attended that Commission, and communicated with the youngest tyro of the law amongst its members upon the most perfect terms of equality. The other members of that Commission, consisting as it did of great
378
equity authorities, of barristers, and of men of business, experienced from his Lordship the courtesy in which he never failed towards any man, and that respect for their sentiments which was worthy of his own high character. Lord Eldon went to that Commission, and he said that whenever his presence could aid their deliberations, or afford the smallest light or assistance, then would he be present; and that whenever his absence would conduce to the objects for which they had been formed, then would he be absent. In saying that, he was only stating a fact which was known to every member of the Commission, and in which he should be fully borne out by an eminent and learned civilian (Dr. Lushington) whom he did not then see in his place, but who was a member of that Commission, and who had heard those sentiments from the lips of the noble Lord himself. If that hon. and learned civilian were then in the House, he had no doubt that he would bear testimony to the accuracy of the statement then made, and to the expression of sentiment which he (Sir Charles Wetherell) attributed to the noble Lord. Now he would once again beg leave to break a lance with the honourable Member for Montrose: why did he not come down to the Chancery Commission? Why did he not come down to that Commission with his information in his pocket and enlighten them all? He was a legal reformer, and an ecclesiastical reformer—a reformer of the church, and of the finances—an omnigenous reformer—an encyclopedical reformer—why did he not then come down and lay before them the stores of his learning in matters regarding the Court of Chancery? Why did he not there meet that noble Lord who said, that when any thing in which experience could be of service came before them, he should be sure to attend if required, and who, when any thing that might, from consideration of delicacy or any other cause, be better discussed in his absence, then would he, with as equal certainty, make it a point not to be present. But no; the honourable Member for Montrose did not think proper to come forward upon that occasion; he kept his complaints in petto till the noble Lord went out of office, and then he stood forward to pronounce against him a sweeping anathema, all the while taking a special care not to mention any one of the services which that noble Lord did to the substan-

379
tial improvement of the administration of justice. He said nothing of the expenses in fines and recoveries which that noble Lord abolished. He did not tell what every man of property in the country was interested in knowing, that no improvement of an estate could, under certain circumstances, be effected, until that noble Lord had completed such amendments in the law as rendered it unnecessary in some cases for a man to sell, and then re-purchase, before he could raise money for the most obvious improvement upon it. There was not a man in the country, learned or unlearned, who must not have felt indebted to the noble Lord for that useful alteration. Again, they heard nothing from the honourable Member for Montrose respecting the improvements which Lord Eldon effected in the state of the law relating to executors. Before that alteration, an executor might have 100,000 l. of the testator's estate in his pocket, and when sued at law for the payment of the debts of the testator, might apply to a Court of Equity, and obtain an injunction to restrain proceedings at law, and all the while proceedings were pending he might keep the 100,000 l. in his pocket, as the honourable Member had kept the boasted returns about Contempts in his pocket. The noble Lord put an end to that practice—he made the money be paid into court, and put a complete bar to all the evils of the ancient practice. But it would be vain that he should attempt to do justice to the public services of that noble and learned person. He was not prepared—it would take much more time than circumstances allowed, to enumerate even a portion of the great services Lord Eldon performed, both as a Minister and a Judge. He was not prepared at a short notice to give so good a syllabus of his merits as the hon. Member for Montrose had given of his demerits; he could not do injustice to those merits by then entering into them at length, unfitted for the task as he was by no trifling degree of indisposition. Those two orders of Lord Eldon which he had already adverted to were of the highest importance, as every professional man well knew, and as many men of property could not but occasionally feel; to these he might add many more did time allow; but he must say, that when that noble Lord had now retired from the vortex of public life—from that political collision in which he had been engaged for so many years, it was rather
380
hard to deal out to him such a measure of injustice; he would say egregious injustice; to endeavour to lay upon his back such stripes and lashes as those which the honourable Member for Montrose sought to inflict. Lord Eldon, one of the most amiable and excellent of men, was at the same time one of the greatest and most learned of lawyers. There never existed that man who laboured more assiduously in the exercise of his profession, or manifested in the whole tenour of his life juster sentiments of morals and of religion—no man who more happily united in himself great general talents with the science of a lawyer, the learning of a scholar, and the courtesy and principles which distinguish a gentleman. Combined as all these qualities were, in an almost equal degree, it was difficult to say in which he most excelled. It was rather hard, then, that after five-and-twenty years of public service, the honourable Member for Montrose should now come forward, at the end of two years, against the noble Lord, with what might well be called his posthumous complaints. As he was on his legs, he would advert briefly to the charges of the honourable Member against the various individuals who had filled the offices of Attorney and Solicitor-General. Many of them had come from the honourable Member's own side of the House—the late Sir Samuel Romilly for example; he of course meant to include that learned and eminent person in the sweeping condemnation which he had pronounced upon the class of official delinquents whose conduct failed to meet with his approbation. To his mind nothing could appear more ungracious than for the honourable Member for Montrose to enlarge, with such extraordinary severity upon the conduct of legal functionaries, when his own side of the House was at all times ready to furnish the state with a quiver of law officers. It should be remembered, that the present Attorney-General came from that side of the House, and had not, up to the present moment, proposed any legal reforms; but it was hardly fair to say any thing of him, he was too fresh and green in his office to be made the subject of much animadversion. As to the general principles of the bill, he entirely approved of them, as he should think that any gentleman at the bar must do. It had often happened to himself to walk down to Doctors' Commons, to look at a will, in order that he might save some unfortunate

381
suitor the fee; he did not mention this with a view of taking credit to himself, but rather to show that every member of the profession was ready, if a person could but show that, he had a likely case, to put forth his best energies and efforts to assist him.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he thought the several Bills which the Solicitor-General proposed to introduce gave every promise of being highly useful, and as such they claimed his support. It seemed to him that his honourable friend (Mr. Hume) had not been quite fairly dealt with; he had been attacked because he had not previously joined in the complaints which had been preferred against Lord Eldon; but after ail, on the showing of his own eulogists, what had that learned Lord done for the country? He had received more than half a million of its money, and in return, introduced two measures into Parliament. In his opinion, his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had just grounds for blaming the learned Lord, from the fact of his having been so many years in power, and not having, during all that period, found time to do what the Solicitor-General had done in one year.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

CURRENCY.
Mr. Attwoodmoved for accounts of the amount of Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns issued by the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, from 2nd May 1828 to 31st December 1829, both inclusive:—Also, of the same received by them during the same period; distinguishing the amount paid, the amount received, and the balance:—Also, of all Sovereigns and Half Sovereigns coined at the Mint for other persons than the Bank of England, from 2nd May 1828 to 31st December 1829, both inclusive.—In submitting this motion, he must say, it frequently happened that Ministers, in the course of their observations to Parliament, alluded to and quoted from documents which were not before the public, from which circumstance a considerable degree of embarrassment took place. It was a practice, therefore, which it was extremely desirous to have obviated; and to him the best way of obviating it appeared to be to have all such documents previously laid before both Houses of Parliament. A remarkable instance of this kind resulting from the want of this sort of information, occurred the other night in the other
382
House, when the Duke of Wellington had occasion to address their lordships on the currency, in the course of which he made various statements, none of which had been regularly placed before Parliament. It however, appeared to him that most of the noble Duke's statements were consecutive on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1828—their respective amounts agreeing exactly, with the exception of a difference of six millions between the country bank notes and the sovereigns. This was not a question to which he should so seriously call the attention of the House, were it not, in his opinion, the one which, of all others, was most important and interesting to the whole country at the present crisis. He well remembered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) on this subject some few years ago, when he had assured the House that they were then within reach of the goal, and had only to exercise a little firmness to arrive at it. But how did the matter present itself now? Was the goal arrived at? No; and yet the Minister still exclaimed, "Oh, trust to us; we shall do every thing that is right, and therefore you must not expect any inquiry!" The Government was committing the most fatal and most disastrous of errors, and he besought it to take warning while it was not yet too late, before they entailed upon it a responsibility greater than any Government could bear. According to the Duke of Wellington's statement, there was now a circulation of sixty-five millions in the country; from which the Premier argued that they were wrong who complained of there being any want of money in the country. What was the meaning of this statement, that money was universal? But was it so? He would ask the landlord—did he obtain the same rent as heretofore? He would ask the merchant—did he obtain the same profits as heretofore? He would ask the manufacturer—did he employ the same number of hands as heretofore? He would not ask those on the Treasury benches whether the same money was received there as heretofore, because he did not intend to deny it; but he would ask them—did they not find that with the same money they had much greater power. The French were in the habit of distinguishing between their two sorts of money, by calling the one monnoie forte, and the other monnoie foible; and he thought that similar terms might with justice be used in

383
this case. It was by concentration that money obtained this force and power; and it was therefore deducible, from the circumstances which he had stated, that there was much less money in the country than there had been formerly. Having shown from argument that this must be the case, he would now proceed to show the same point from facts. It was very evident to him that the whole of the tables upon which the Duke of Wellington had gone were founded in error. The Exchequer was receiving twenty millions less than during the war—the landed interest twenty millions less, and the labouring classes not half so much as at that former period; in fact, these latter, instead of money, were obliged to be content to receive butter, hats, clothes, and such like commodities, in exchange for their services; and one instance that he had heard of carried this so far that a labourer having received a leg of mutton for his labour, and having a child to be baptised, he took his joint to the parson, and begged him to cut off as many slices as were equivalent to the baptismal fee. If there were really sufficient money in the country, or if the Ministers really believed that there was, why did they not propose the appointment of a Finance Committee who might inquire where it lay concealed, and devise the proper means for putting it into circulation? The real fact was, that the statements of the present gold currency, as made by the Duke of Wellington, were entirely in error. In the Duke's estimate of the amount, he took it for granted that every sovereign that had been coined since 1824 was still afloat in the country; in no way did he make any allowance for the prodigious quantity that must have found their way out of the country as exports, with the exception of one batch of six millions, in the course of a certain period of eighteen months, and of which the Bank was cognizant; but how many were there exported of which the Bank knew nothing, and could know nothing? Every now and then it was the interest of the merchant to export according to the vibrations that took place, and the only way in which those small vessels which imported cheese, butter, eggs, &c. were paid, was by sovereigns. Let the House also consider, that the number of absentees were now reckoned at one hundred thousand; and did not those gentlemen take any of the currency away with them? To these reductions of the
384
actual currency was also to be added that most important one, caused by the melting of sovereigns. Formerly the Birmingham and other manufacturers employed a broker, in London, to purchase gold for them; but now they found the easiest way to be to melt down sovereigns as they wanted them. All these, then, were ways in which the gold currency must have rapidly diminished, and for which no allowance had been made in the Duke of Wellington's statements. The honourable Gentleman concluded with moving for the Returns described at the opening of his Speech.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, although the hon. Member had accused the Members of his Majesty's Government with supporting their views by fallacious statements respecting the currency, he believed he should be able to show that the hon. Member had formed erroneous conclusions upon the nature of those statements, and that he had himself been guilty of errors not less material than those which he imputed to the Government. The foundation of the principal argument of the hon. Member rested upon the view which he took of certain statements made in another House by the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government, and by him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the House of Commons, for the purpose of drawing comparisons between the circulation of the country at one period and another, and from these comparisons endeavouring to arrive at some conclusion on the question, of whether or not the distress was produced by the state of that circulation. Now, these comparisons were formed on data of precisely the same character—the calculations were made on foundations precisely similar; and if they were erroneous, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, at one time, they were equally erroneous at another, and therefore the errors, as far as the mere question of comparison went, were calculated to produce very little effect. All that the noble Duke contended for, and all that he himself desired to be drawn from them, was to find some corresponding data, approximating in period and circumstances to each other, through which they could form a comparison as accurate as the subject would admit. The hon. Gentleman says, that the noble Duke urged these comparisons, so formed on erroneous foundations, as a reason for believing that

385
no distress existed in the country. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) denied that the noble Duke used these calculations for any such purpose. The noble Duke used these calculations as a reply to the statements of those who thought that the evils under which they supposed the country to be suffering could be remedied by an unlimited circulation of paper. For that purpose he endeavoured to put them in possession of the amount of the circulating medium in the last year, as compared with another year in which that unlimited currency was allowed. To begin with the first of the hon. Member's opinions:—He holds that the gold in circulation cannot be so much as twenty-eight millions, because there is no allowance made for the amount withdrawn from circulation for exportation or other purposes. Now the fact is, that the whole amount of gold coined at the Mint has been forty-four millions one hundred thousand pounds, and it is in that surplus of sixteen millions one hundred thousand pounds that the noble Duke found the means of accounting for the quantity removed from the circulation, and which the hon. Member erroneously supposes was not taken into the estimate. But he would tell the hon. Member why it was, that the noble Duke assumed twenty-eight millions to be the amount of gold in circulation. He thought the hon. Member would admit that so long as the foreign exchanges were in favour of this country, there could be no danger of the gold in circulation going abroad as an article of commerce. He was confident, although it would not be unlike some of the assertions of the hon. Member if he maintained the reverse, that while the exchanges were in our favour, no great quantity of gold would be sent abroad by the merchants; and, although some few gentlemen might take a small quantity with them for the ordinary demand of travel, as long as the exchanges were favourable, even that small quantity would ultimately find its way back again; for the advantages obtained by it were too obvious to be passed over. As to those who required their rents to be remitted to the continent, he need not surely say that no gentlemen under such circumstances would ever require those remittances to be made in English sovereigns. But then a period might come when the exchanges would be unfavourable to this country. It was impossible, he believed, to say to what
386
extent the gold of the country found its way abroad at such a time, but the calculations by which they endeavoured to make an approximation to the truth were founded on this opinion—that for every sovereign sent abroad there was a demand made for one to replace it on the gold in the hands of the Bank of England. Now this calculation he really did not think an unfair one, for as the gold, under such circumstances, was collected from every part of the country to be expended, so in proportion to the vacuum thus created was the demand on the Bank to fill it up with a fresh supply. But even supposing that the drain created in such cases was greater than this calculation would account for, still he thought that the difference might be naturally accounted for in another way. As in the event of the exchanges being in favour of this country, the estimate was wholly formed on the amount of gold which passed through the hands of the Bank of England, without any reference to the importations of bullion by individuals, so at other times, supposing that some which remained in the hands of individuals was exported in addition to that demanded from the Bank; he apprehended they would, by taking these two additional circumstances into consideration, arrive at a conclusion not very foreign to the truth. At all events, he had. stated the amount vested and withdrawn from the circulation in this manner to be calculated at sixteen millions five hundred thousand pounds, and he thought that was a sum sufficiently large to justify and bear out the assertion, that the present circulating medium amounted to twenty-eight millions of gold. The hon. Member had found by some calculations of his own, that at the conclusion of the war there were ten millions of guineas in the country. Now, it should be recollected, that for a considerable portion of that war, the guinea was selling abroad at the price of twenty-seven shillings, and that the temptation of this price caused every exertion to be used through the country for the purpose of collecting them, although the exportation of bullion and guineas was then declared to be contrary to law. Now the fact was, although the hon. Gentleman supposes the amount to have been ten millions, the whole quantity called in, when the sovereigns were issued, was only four millions. He mentioned this merely because the hon. Gentleman seemed to

387
suppose there had been an exportation of guineas after the coinage. Passing now to the objection of the hon. Member, with reference to the statements on the circulation of Bank paper, he thought it would be in the recollection of the House, that at the time he introduced the measure with respect to the withdrawal of the one pound notes from circulation, he took that circulation to amount to two millions and a half. One calculation produced two millions one hundred thousand; another, two millions four hundred thousand; and therefore he thought the fair average would be two millions five hundred thousand. But the hon. Gentleman contends that the calculations and statements of the noble Duke, authorized and supported by his, would make the amount six millions. Now, here again he must say, that the hon. Member completely misapprehended the nature of the noble Duke's statements, and did not make sufficient allowance for the large number of notes which, previous to the termination of the system, were either destroyed or withdrawn from circulation. At the time of the passing of the law for the abolition of the power to issue small notes, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had expressed an opinion that the place of the small notes would be supplied in the circulation by others of a higher denomination. Of the truth of that assertion the hon. Member had intimated some doubt, and he should, therefore, take leave to read a short account of the amount of stamps issued for 5l. notes and upwards for the quarter which succeeded the announcement that no more small notes were to be issued. It will be remembered that the time to which the circulation of small notes was limited was the 5th of April, 1829. Now it appeared the amount of stamps issued for notes of 5l. and upwards, was, on the

5th of April, 1827

£382,000

5th of July,—

244,000

10th of Oct.—

285,000

5th of Jan. 1828

317,000

5th of April,—

318,000

5th of July,—

258,000

10th of Oct.—

458,000

And now, approaching the period when the circulation of the small notes was to terminate, he found the number of stamps issued on the—

5th of Jan. 1829, to be

£876,000

5th of April,—

737,000

Showing, on a comparison with the two corresponding quarters of the year 1828,
388
an increase of sixteen hundred and thirteen thousand, as compared with six hundred and thirty-five thousand. He thought it right to trouble the House with this detail of figures, because the hon. Member had expressed considerable doubts of the accuracy of the statements; and because it might lead to erroneous ideas of the amount of paper withdrawn from circulation. There was one other subject to which he wished to advert in a very few words. The hon. Member had alluded to the amount of gold which passed through the hands of the Bank of England; but did the hon. Member recollect that individuals, by the new regulations at the Mint, had the facility of taking bullion to be coined, and that the amount so coined on private account was above one million five hundred thousand pounds in a year and a half? Having said thus much, he should not trespass further on the attention of the House, but conclude by observing, that he could have wished the discussion on these subjects had been postponed until the hon. Member was in possession of all the information he desired, as he would then have had an opportunity of meeting him when he was armed with all that knowledge which he seemed to think had been withheld. He would do the hon. Gentleman the justice to say, however, that although he could not help feeling he had been guilty of misrepresentations, he believed them to be more the effect of want of information than of any intention to mislead.
Mr. A. Baringsaid, he confessed, that although these discussions did not produce much at present, they tended, in his opinion, to elicit information, and to make the House better acquainted with a very complicated subject. He thought, too, that the statements put forth by the noble Duke in another place were made much too positively and confidently, when the nature of the question was fairly considered; for, although the grounds of the calculations were very clearly explained by the right hon. Gentleman, yet he conceived it to be quite impossible from those calculations, or from, indeed, any other, to come to an accurate conclusion with respect to the real amount of gold remaining in the country. The amount of small notes, and the stamps issued for those of five pounds, depended on accidental circumstances; and he must contend that a great quantity of gold had,

389
from the alloy of the sovereigns being silver, found its way into the crucible. Every one who looked at the sovereign now must perceive that it was of a much darker colour than that issued formerly, because the alloy was now composed of copper; but until that had been adopted, it was for years a kind of trade in Paris and Birmingham to melt down the English sovereigns on account of the very small quantity of silver which they contained. While on that subject, he would say that it was well worth the while of the Government of this country to look a little at the expense of the Mint. In France the Mint paid itself from the profits obtained by the Master; but in this country the Master and his assistants cost from one to one hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year, without taking into consideration the very large gain derived by the Master from the coinage of silver. That coinage had been nearly nine millions, and the profits on it, which were very considerable, had gone without any inquiry into the pocket of the Master. It had been stated, with some appearance of truth, that the total value of commodities in transit from one individual to another, was reduced from one hundred to sixty millions; and he, therefore, thought it not unfair to presume, that the circulating medium may have been reduced in the same proportion. He should not now trouble the House further; but as it was sometimes imputed to him that he made speeches which were one half in one way and one half in the other, [a laugh, and loud cries of hear, hear] he should say that the facility of local circulation in the one case was perhaps fairly balanced by the security obtained in the other, and on that he would rest his defence.
Mr. Attwoodrepeated, that he had heard nothing which induced him to change his opinions; he re-asserted his original propositions; and maintained, that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government, had greatly overstated the amount of gold that had been, and that was, in circulation.
Motion agreed to: papers ordered.

SUPPLY.
The order of the day being read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee, The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "That a Supply be granted to his Majesty."
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the salaries of public officers. It was well known that half-pay officers, before they received that pay, were obliged to make an affidavit that they possessed no civil employment whatever. What he wanted to know was, whether, in point of fact, officers holding their military rank, and at the same time holding civil offices under the Crown, did or did not receive their military as well as their civil pay? He was aware that it might be said, that the regulation to which he alluded only extended to half-pay. There was also what was called the unattached pay of general officers. There were one hundred and twenty or one hundred and thirty general officers by whom this was received; so that if all the Ministry were composed of such officers, they would receive their military as well as their civil emoluments. He wished also to know what general officers received as colonels; he believed, from six to seven or eight hundred a year. The particular question, however, which he wished to ask was, whether, in point of fact, naval and military servants of the Crown did, while they received civil allowances, also receive military or naval allowances?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the best mode of obtaining accurate information on the subject would be by moving for a return of the individuals in question, and of the nature and amount of their receipts. As far as he was able to answer the hon. Gentleman, he could state that general officers, who had regiments, did not forfeit the advantages arising there from when they accepted civil situations under the Crown. The regiments were the rewards of military services, and of those rewards they were not deprived. As to half-pay general officers, he was not aware that there were any who held civil appointments under the Crown, With respect to naval officers, the only one who received half pay and held civil appointments, were a few of the Lords of the Admiralty. These were always considered as being employed in their profession, and received their half-pay, together with their civil emoluments.
The Speaker having put the question,
Mr. Ald. Waithmanobjected, at that late hour (it being past twelve o'clock) to any proceeding for voting away the public

391
money, and moved as an Amendment, that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Humesupported the Amendment, and hoped that the wholesome practice which prevailed a few years ago of never voting a shilling of the public money after twelve o'clock, would be renewed. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion and bring it on at an earlier period of the evening.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the only Motion to be made in the Committee, if the Motion now before the House were adopted, was the very general one—"that a Supply be granted to his Majesty." Till that Motion was carried the hands of Government were tied, and they were unable even to lay the estimates on the Table.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he had no wish to embarrass his Majesty's Government, but he must discharge his duty conscientiously. He objected to granting any supply until he knew what Ministers meant to do in the way of reduction and expenditure; and what was the exposition which they were prepared to make on the financial condition of the country.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, the only way to hasten an exposition of the financial state of the country, was to agree to his right hon. friend's Motion; for unless the House went into a Committee of Supply, pro forma, the nature and amount of the estimates could not be submitted to the House.
Lord Althorpallowed that he thought the Motion might be acceded to; for it was merely that some supply should be granted to his Majesty. If any hon. Member thought that no supply whatever should be granted, then an Amendment, such as that proposed by the hon. Alderman, was justifiable. Conceiving, however, that such was not the hon. Alderman's wish, though he felt the indispensable necessity of a great reduction of taxation, he implored the hon. Alderman not to persevere in an Amendment which would prevent the production of those estimates, which alone would give the means of ascertaining what reduction might be made.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he had misunderstood the matter and would withdraw his Amendment.
The Marquis of Blandfordsaid, he was regardless of the taunts to which he knew he should expose him self by opposing the Motion, but he felt it his duty to take
392
that course. He was quite sure his Majesty had been imposed upon, and was not aware of the extent of the distress which existed in the country. The best mode of awakening his Majesty's mind to that fact was, in his opinion, the constitutional one, of refusing to grant a Supply for the Public Service. He should, therefore, repeat the Motion "That the House do now adjourn." On this Motion a division immediately took place—
For the Adjournment 9; Against it 105; Majority 96.
Mr. Humeafterwards urged the expediency of bringing on public business at an earlier period of the evening.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was agreed to.

SMUGGLERS.
Lord G. Lennoxobtained leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of Parishes from the Expenses of maintaining the Wives and Families of men convicted under the laws for the Prevention of Smuggling, and sentenced to serve his Majesty in his naval service, which was accordingly read a first time.