Sitting of 12 February 1830

MINUTES.
THE RIGHT HON. JOHN CHARLES HERRIES took the Oaths and his Scat for Harwich.—MR. WRIGHT presented accounts of balances of sums issued for the payment of Dividends due and not demanded, and of Lottery Prizes not claimed; sums received and expended by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; Exchequer Bills purchased by the Bank of England, or on which sums have been advanced; applications to the First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer for advances to Government [by Act]; of advances made to Government on Exchequer Bills and all other securities.—New Writs were ordered for Fowey in the room of the Hon. Robert Henley Eden, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds; and for Wenlock, in the room of the Hon. George Cecil Weld Forester, made Groom of His Majesty's Bedchamber.
The Solicitor-Generalbrought in a Bill to amend the laws regulating Illusory Appointments,—also one to alter and amend the laws respecting Arrests for Contempt; a Bill for the amendment of the Conveyancing Laws: for consolidating and amending the laws respecting Infants and Lunatics; and for consolidating and amending the laws respecting Real Estates,—which were read a first time.
Sir T. Martinpresented a petition from the Merchants, Shipowners, and other persons interested in the trade of Plymouth, praying that no exclusive privileges should be granted on the expiration of the Company's Charter.
Mr. Stanleypresented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce, and signed by a great number of Merchants and Manufacturers of Manchester, praying for a modification in the Charter of the East India Company.
Mr. E. Wodehousepresented a petition from Tunstead, in Norfolk, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws, and against the continuation of the Malt and Beer Duties.
Mr. O'Connellgave notice of his intention to move, on the 17th inst., for leave to bring in a Bill for amending the Vestry Act.

DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.
Colonel Sibthorpepresented a petition from the Merchants, Tradesmen, and Inhabitants of Lincoln, complaining of the general Distress of the Country, and praying the House not to grant further supplies until the state of the Country should be taken into consideration, and measures adopted
430
for its relief. The petition was most numerously and respectably signed, and in it he fully concurred. The hon. Member declared he would never vote for the supplies being granted until the state of the country had been fully taken into consideration. The House was still a sacred spot, in which Members might yet speak their sentiments without fear of prosecution. He hoped those sentiments would be widely diffused throughout the country, in order that the public might know that their complaints were not silently passed over.
Mr. Fazakerleysaid, he could bear testimony that the petition expressed the feelings of a large majority of the very respectable inhabitants of Lincoln, and he fully concurred in the prayer of the petition.—Ordered to be printed.

REPORTING DEBATES.
Colonel Sibthorpeexpressed his intention of moving on a future day for granting greater facilities to those persons who attended the House for the purpose of reporting its proceedings. The accurate reporting of the Debates was of great consequence to the country, especially at the present time; and he should hereafter name a day on which he would bring that subject forward.
LAW OF FORGERY.
Mr. Secretary Peelgave notice that he would move, on Thursday, the 18th of March next, for leave to bring in a bill for amending and consolidating the Laws relating to Forgery.

ESSEX PETITION.
Mr. Westernrose to present a petition from Capel Cure, Sheriff, on behalf of a meeting of Freeholders of the county of Essex, adopted at a general meeting held on the preceding day relative to the distressed state of the country, and observed that the petition was not the one he had supported at the meeting, and that it contained, in some parts of it, sentiments to which he strongly objected; yet he felt it his duty to present it. It was signed by the High Sheriff of the county, in accordance with a resolution passed at the meeting, but he (Mr. Western) would much rather it had borne the signatures of those freeholders whose sentiments it purported to express. He fully felt for the distress—the general public distress—prevailing throughout the

431
country; but could not allow himself to sign the petition he then held in his hand. He repeated what he had urged at the meeting, that the Bill of 1819 was a direct robbery on all the debtors of the country and unless some measure of value should be devised, on an equitable footing, between the productive and unproductive classes, the ruin of the country would be accomplished. With respect to the proposition with which an hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) was to come down that night, in order to avoid his (Mr. Western) intruding again on the House, he begged leave then to state that he must oppose it. It would not give effectual relief-would not mitigate the distresses of the people; its advantages, if any, were partial, and in his opinion nothing short of the repeal of the Act of 1819 would be a compensation for the robbery which that Bill had committed on all debtors and payers of taxes. The petition being read,
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he lamented to observe, that the hon. Member for Essex seemed to have a lively recollection of the defeat which his propositions experienced the day before at the meeting of the freeholders of his own county. The hon. Gentleman certainly did the meeting justice in one respect, though he withheld it in another—he impeached its prudence while he extolled its patience. Now he (Mr. Harvey) understood that these virtues were always co-existent. It would be too much to expect from the hon. Gentleman an eulogy on the prudence of a meeting which rejected his petition, and adopted one diametrically opposed to it; but it was creditable to his candour to admit the patience which was shown by the freeholders in listening to his oft-repeated arguments on the currency. The truth was, that never was there a more patient, prudent, or deliberative meeting. It heard the different speakers with attention, and decided from reflection. It bore not the tone of party about it, and it rejected all factious feelings. It admitted that distress existed, but it denied its universality; and, while every man was persuaded that the public suffering was increasing, and would, if not checked, become overwhelming, he appeared convinced that it was not yet too late, and that effectual measures would ensure relief. The meeting did not concede every thing to Parliament, but it stated that much could be done out of doors, and it
432
told the people that with themselves a great part of the remedy lay. There was one measure which was decidedly recommended, and in the propriety of which, he cordially concurred—namely, the reduction of the rent of land to the standard of 1792 or 1797. He saw no reasons why pensions and salaries of the officers of Government should be reduced, while the rent of land was left untouched. Here he begged to correct an error which appeared in some reports of his speech at the meeting. He was said to have stated that the tithes of the country amounted to fifty millions a year, but he was misunderstood; what he meant to say was, that the rents of the country amounted to that sum. Taking it for granted that rents were fifty millions, a reduction of twenty-five per cent would give immediate relief to the occupiers of land to the extent of upwards of twelve millions, and he hoped that the landlords would bear that in mind, and not be irritated with their tenantry for being once opposed to them. The tenantry spoke the truth like persons determined, at last, to be heard. They spoke out because they were supported by the presence of each other, and not as if they were compelled to speak in the halls of their landlords, where reductions of rent are thrown to them as if they were so many paupers. [hear, hear] They acted as became them, and as became that class which was once the boast of England—the farmer and the yeoman. The meeting first recommended the taking off of twelve or fifteen millions of those taxes which bore directly on the productive interests of the country, and then it took up a proposition which he had named to the House last year, but which had not been treated with much attention—namely, a well-regulated Property tax. Yes, the meeting said, that the best tax would be on property graduated by a scale, and varying from two and half per cent on annuities not above 30 l. a-year, to ten or fifteen per cent, nay thirty or forty per cent on overgrown incomes. With regard to the taunts which had been thrown out against him, he (Mr. Harvey) declared that he held them in utter indifference. He was satisfied with doing his duty, and he felt that he could not do so without meeting with some interruption and misdirected sarcasm. He had only one word to say with respect to the hon. Member for

433
Essex personally. That hon. Gentleman had spoken much to the House of the sufferings of the people, and of the distress of the farmers, and the scarcity of money which prevailed among the occupiers of land, but the hon. Gentleman omitted to state that he had yesterday received every shilling of his rents, and when some of the tenantry applied for a reduction, his answer was "he would not purchase their popularity at such a rate." He (Mr. Harvey) was content with the part he had taken at the meeting, and proud that the amendment originated with him.
Lord Howicksaid, he must confess his great surprise to hear the calumnies which prevailed in some of the publications of the day against the landlords of England, uttered in that House. He listened with indignation to those imputations on the whole body of the landed interest. He could not with patience hear it declared that the landlords exacted from the tenantry more than the value of the soil. He declared that such a charge was totally unfounded, and while he regretted that any man could say so, he was still more surprised to find the observation cheered by hon. Gentlemen who were the advocates of political economy. Those Gentlemen knew better than that rents were regulated by the cupidity of landlords; and it was not from ignorance of the subject that they denied, by their cheer, that land, like every thing else, was a fair subject of competition. He knew that the landlords were not that grasping and avaricious body which they were charged with being; and he could only state that, though distress existed largely in that part of the country with which he was connected, a single farm never came out of lease without becoming the subject of an active competition at an advanced rent.
Mr. Lennardobserved, he must, in justice to the meeting of yesterday, state that not one word of the conversation repeated by the hon. Member for Colchester fell from any body but himself. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman had given the House a very temperate version of what he did say. At the meeting he spoke of the landlords as having flinty hearts—as mere voluptuaries—as men rolling in luxury, and careless about the sufferings of those around them. It was because these sentiments were listened to with approbation at the meeting, that be wished to hold
434
himself disconnected with the amendment. He felt that the moment was a peculiar one, and that Government should not fail to observe the feelings of the people. He believed that at no other time could a petition be adopted against the sense of the landed property of the country. The Government should not be inattentive. The people were moved with distress, and, unless something was done, the time might arrive when all hope of temperate measures being made available must be abandoned.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonbegged not to be understood as approving of what had been said about the severe exactions of the landlords, because he had given a cheer to one of the observations of the hon. Member for Colchester.
Mr. Humesaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Colchester had been unfairly dealt with. He proposed an alteration of the present system of taxation, which was better than a system which oppressed only particular interests, and he looked for relief to those sources where, in his opinion, it could be best afforded. Now, he appealed to the House, whether it would not be wise to abolish tithes altogether, and pay the Clergy moderate stipends, according to their duties. The petition said no more, and if his hon. friend had declared that some Clergymen were voluptuaries, and lived a life of pleasure, it was no more than a man might be induced to do who had twenty thousand a-year. The error lay in the enormity of the payment. It was not fit that the minister of a religion which preached poverty and temperance should receive such an income; and there was no duty which he performed for which it could be claimed as a compensation. The petition fairly went to the question without any consideration for particular interests. For instance, by the operation of the law the agriculturists had a monopoly of corn. Would they, when they wished to bring every thing down to the standard of 1797, give up that monopoly? That was the proper way to treat the subject, and the petition did no more. He considered it to be a very fair one, and he hoped to see a similar one from every county in England.
Mr. F. Palmersaid, he thought that if the salaries of public offices were reduced to the standard of 1792, it was a fair proposition to have the rents lowered by the same measure. Let the taxes be reduced to the same standard, and he would go

435
hand in hand with any Member in lessening the amount of rent, and not think fifteen or twenty per cent sufficient. There was not one landlord in England who had not made abatements, and the rent of many farmers were lowered from 600 1. to 400 l.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, it ought to be remembered, that there were many hard landlords as well as good and benevolent ones, but the former must give way, as the land would, after all, only fetch its value in the market.
Mr. Westernbegged in reply to say, that as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey) was so personal to him and to his tenants, he hoped the House would permit him to say a few words in explanation. In the first place he must declare that he had not on his land an arrear of 100 l. He had not one farm which was not respectably tenanted. No one tenant had given up his lease or farm, and these facts alone formed a tolerable answer to the statement which had been made against him. He would now tell the House the system adopted by him about ten years ago. He reduced all rents into rents determined by the price of corn, with the exception of one or two farms, which were let under particular circumstances. The price was calculated on that of corn for the preceding half-year. The farms which were let in 1814 were calculated at the rate of 80 s. a quarter on wheat, but soon after prices came down, and he calculated according to another rate. He calculated the rents by the rule of three, and said—If 80 s. give 100, what will 56 s. or 50 s. or 40 s. give? He took so many bushels per acre, and then applied to them the prices of the preceding average. At one time the rents were down fifty per cent when wheat was at 40 s. but he feared that now a still greater sacrifice was to be made; and, under its present difficulties, when every part of the produce of the farm was sold at ruinously low prices, something more decisive must be done. He believed that to meet the pressure a reduction even below the price of wheat must be made. He hoped he had stated enough to convince the House that the observations of the hon. Member for Colchester did not apply to him or to his tenantry, [hear] He would conclude by moving that the petition be brought up, which was done, and. ordered to be printed.
Mr. Westernthen presented another petition, signed by eight hundred or nine hundred respectable Gentlemen, Merchants, and Traders, in the town and vicinity of Chelmsford, the object of which was to state to the House that distress prevailed in every class of society as much as it did among the agricultural. It stated that the evils of the country were growing with frightful rapidity to a head, and they entreated the House to take steps to arrest them, which alone could be done by repealing the Bill of 1819, which, by altering the currency, tended mainly to inflict them. He also presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the parish of Tellingham, in Essex, in which one farm of the best land was abandoned by the tenant, the charges on it being greater than the produce.—Petitions ordered to be printed.

SUPPLY—REDUCTION OF PUBLIC SALARIES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the order of the day for receiving the Report. On the Motion being put, that a Supply be granted to his Majesty,
Mr. Callagansaid, he could not help taking the liberty of giving his opinion on the present most unprecedented crisis of the country's affairs. He did not offer himself to the notice of the House for his personal gratification; but, as it was the duty of every Member, in the present state of the country, to see whether any new measures might be elicited for its benefit, and to deliver his opinions, he would speak them because his present observations would save him the trouble of repeating them on future occasions. The question relative to the country embraced two considerations—those of our foreign relations, and the internal condition of the Empire. On the former his general habits would not allow him to speak; but he felt grateful to Ministers, and he begged to tender them his personal gratitude, for their leaving the country in a state of profound tranquillity, both as regarded Portugal, and more particularly that untoward or unfortunate affair of Navarino. On this point he would conclude by saying that this country, more than any other in Europe, was interested in the tranquillity of the new States of the southern hemisphere. And he thought that England and the other Powers ought to interfere to prevent

437
Spain from disturbing them. As to the internal condition of the country, the difference of opinion was merely as to the quantum or the degree of distress; for all agreed that it existed. Now, as to the causes of that distress, it was delusive to say that it was to be attributed to one particular cause, for it was doubtless to be attributed to a combination of various causes. All must agree that the return to peace, from an almost universal state of warfare, was one cause, whilst some referred it exclusively to the return to a metallic standard. The Government and Parliament were unfairly accused of tampering with the currency; but he would not join in the accusation, as the measures of 1822 and 1825 were merely effects of that of 1819. The Act of 1822 was not, as as had been contended, a receding from the Act of 1819, but a mitigation of it. He hoped that the country would never experience a confusion of its monetary dealings—by a return to an inconvertible currency; and, although any Minister who would propose that, would deserve to be consigned to execration, yet he would say that, if a measure could be devised which would remedy the inconveniences of the Act of 1825–26, it would be not only useful, but a compliment to the wishes and feelings of many. There was no doubt that the taking away of the one-pound notes caused local distress, and, as had been observed the other night by the hon. Member for Taunton—[the hon. Member alluded to Mr. A. Baring, who is Member for Callington, but had been Member for Taunton in the preceding Parliament]—whose judgment and talent were unquestionable, it would be well to see whether a nearer way might not be found, on the basis of a measure proposed in 1818, by the present Lord Bexley; namely, that of allowing bankers to issue notes on the deposit of an adequate security. That bill, which had received the sanction of Lord Liverpool, was withdrawn, not because the country was averse to it, but because the private bankers were an influential body, and had sufficient interest with Members of that House to oblige it to be withdrawn. He would say, when so many intelligent individuals desired it, that he joined in their wish to allow the one-pound note circulation, as it would be very gratifying.—[calls of "Question."] He claimed the attention of the House for a few minutes, he thought
438
he was entitled to do so. The manner of affording the relief that he would chuse to recommend would be the reduction of expenditure and taxation. He should be glad to hear if it meant a reduction of the Civil List. [coughing, and considerable interruption.] If, he repeated, it meant a reduction of the Civil List as fixed in 1820, so as to correspond with the altered value of money, he would give it his support. That List was arranged before we had a set standard of currency. From 1792 to 1797 our state was one of warfare; but if the hon. Member's Motion meant to affirm the abstract proposition that the salaries of 1820 were greater than the country could at present bear, he would gladly assent to it. [The hon. Gentleman proceeded to make some observations on the Sinking Fund, and proposed a reduction of taxation as a good remedy; but was continually interrupted by the impatience of the House.]
Sir James Grahamthen rose and said, he could not but observe that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken a very extraordinary course, as he argued in support of his (Sir J. Graham's) motion without waiting to hear it. However, from this he entertained every hope that the hon. Gentleman would vote for the resolution with which he meant to conclude, because he imagined that it would come up to the hon. Gentleman's ideas, both as to reduction of expenditure, and taxation. He never rose in the House without embarrassment, and imperfect recovery from recent illness aggravated that feeling on the present occasion. The task he was about to undertake was an ungracious one, for though all liked economy and reform in the abstract, they very seldom relished it when it came to be acted upon with respect to themselves. He felt this, but his sympathies were not confined to those who derived their incomes from the public purse—his compassion was rather directed to those from whom the taxes were drawn, and he could not turn a deaf ear to the distresses of the country. That distress was general, for notwithstanding that the Speech from the Throne said that distress was confined merely to some parts of the country, yet the whole efforts of Ministers to fritter down our misfortunes have produced nothing but the greatest possible disappointment, and changing hope into despair, had gone nearly

439
to convert patient endurance into the angry spirit of resistance. In contending that the distress was universal, he could not help alluding to the expression of qualified distress used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He admitted the existence of distress in England, but he said that in Scotland and Ireland distress did not exist. These exceptions were remarkable; but were they not also exceptions from the measures about which the right hon. Gentleman and himself had so much contest. [hear.] When in 1826 the Government had come per saltum to a conclusion contrary to that of Sir Francis Baring, of Adam Smith, and Mr. Horner—contrary also to the reports of 1810 and 1819, that convertibility on demand was the only adequate check against the over issue of paper—when they came to that conclusion with respect to England, they condescended to examine as to Scotland and Ireland, which as they were now exceptions to the general distress, so had they been then to the principles of the currency adopted with respect to this country. Yet, on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, no distress prevailed there, whilst in England, where that principle of currency was extinguished, the country was pervaded by universal distress. Perhaps that might be so; but he must say that the fact of the absence of distress in Scotland and Ireland still remained to be proved. But if distress prevailed, then still it might be accounted for by what took place in this country; for if the means of commerce were crippled in England, the effects must always be felt both in Scotland and Ireland. If that were not the case, it must lead to an unfavourable state of the exchanges, and therefore he must doubt the fact of distress existing in England, while prosperity blessed Scotland and Ireland; and he was confirmed in this, as he had heard no Gentleman from either of those countries, who was responsible to his constituents, get up and say that those parts of the empire were free from distress. Having said so much, he would now assume one or two general propositions—1st. That the Bank Restriction Act of 1797 had produced two leading and striking effects—the first being the depreciation of the value of money; the second, the raising of the price of commodities. The fact of the latter was not
440
denied, and it came within the scope of his notice that the rise of prices was connected with the rise of salaries. Perhaps, although he did not like to read documents, he might be permitted to refer to one or two in support of his statement. The first evidence he would appeal to was that of Mr. Addington, in 1802, when he was forced to ask Parliament for an additional grant to make the Civil List adequate to the necessities of the times. He then said "the causes of this application were unavoidable. Sixteen years had passed since the schedules were fixed, and he left it to the sense of every one to see how great had been the rise of prices in the interim." In 1804 fresh debt had accumulated on the Civil List, and Mr. Pitt, the then Prime Minister, used the following expressions, the first sentence of which was important, as it showed that the augmentation was only intended to be temporary:—"It would afford relief that the Civil List should accommodate itself to circumstances as they varied, for in this case it would be reduced in time of peace. There was no one who reflected on the great increase in the prices, who could thus suppose that his Majesty should be able to restrict his expenses within their former limit." It was to be remarked here that Mr. Pitt did not refer to the then price of gold, but he said that "there was an increase of thirty, forty, and even fifty per cent, in the price of every article of consumption." In the article of pensions there was at that time a decrease, although, if proportions were to be observed, there ought rather to have been an addition to their amount. The next authority he would refer to was that of Mr. Percival, who in 1809 applied for an increase of the salaries of Judges, and in the expressions he made use of there was a full opportunity to ascertain his opinions as to the extent of the depreciation which had taken place in the currency. Mr. Percival's object was, to have a thousand pounds per annum additional granted to the Judges, and that was, as he expressed, merely to make their real equal to their nominal income. With that view he also gave the Welsh Judges an additional 300 l. a-year; this was an increase of twenty-five per cent, and from this we might calculate the depression of the currency in 1809. In that year wheat was 84 s. the quarter, and gold at 41. 10 s. 9d. the ounce. The calculation,

441
therefore, in this instance, was not made on the price of gold alone—the capital error of the Committee of 1819—but on the price of commodities. With regard to the depreciation of the currency, he thought that the fact of the high prices during the war precluded the necessity of any observations on that point. He thought certainly, that the fact of the depreciation of the currency was equally evident with that of the high prices; but it did happen that they had a resolution on the books of the House negativing that depreciation. This resolution was, that, at the period when a guinea in gold was selling commonly at 28 s. Bank of England paper was equal to it in value—that is, that things unequal in the public estimation were yet equal to one another;—a doctrine so absurd, that, within the same year it became necessary to pass an act imposing a penalty for passing a guinea for more than twenty-one shillings, or a one-pound note at less than the value it purported to bear; and yet the people are asked to confide in the wisdom of Parliament, and of the mere shreds of the administration of that day.
Oh miseras hominum mentes! Oh pectora cæca!
But they were told that it was God—not man—who caused this. At one time the harvests were over-abundant, at another time they were scanty; at one time we had too much produce, another too little; at one time we had too much drought, at another time too much rain; while the apprehension never seemed to have occurred to any Chancellor of the Exchequer that every addition to taxation was an increased addition to the sterility of the soil, and a further gloominess to the inclemency of the heavens. Now, with respect to the measure of 1819, the right hon. Gentleman, whose honesty and sincerity he most implicitly believed, in his speech on that occasion, drew all his examples from the time of Elizabeth, when there was no debt, and from the time of William, when there was a debt of only 2,000,000 l., the interest of which amounted only to 100,000 l. He never considered the immense effect of this measure upon every debt throughout the country, whether private or public. He (Sir J. G.) might speak freely, as he had voted for the measure. He was then a very young Member, governed by authorities, and overborne by his friend, Mr. Ricardo, upon whose faith he pinned his own. Mr. Ricardo assured him and the
442
House that the difference would be only three per cent, as it would be governed by the price of gold, which was then 4l. 1s. per ounce; and he thought it right to try the experiment. He certainly had his doubts, and he could not help having them, after the statement of his hon. friend the Member for Callington (Mr. Baring), and others for some time; however he was overborne by authorities, he voted for the measure, and thought he had done right. Lord Liverpool had since frankly acknowledged that the difference, instead of three, was 25 per cent. His hon. friend, the Member for Callington, always maintained that it would be from 25 to 30 per cent; while another hon. Member (Mr. Attwood), also a man of high genius and great experience, rated it still higher. As his hon. friend, Mr. Brougham, was not present, and was not a Member, he might use his authority, as well as mention his name; and he would, then, refer to what he had said on the proposition for raising the salaries of the Judges in 1825, when he argued the subject with the usual comprehensiveness of his mind. Mr. Brougham had then said, "It was but a few years since the salaries had been raised to 3,000 l. a-year, which was on account of the depreciated currency, when they were raised 1,000 l. a-year—that was 25 per cent—to make up the difference between the two standards. Then followed the restoration of the currency to a metallic standard, and that made a difference of 25 per cent in favour of the Judges, independent of the reduction of taxation, the consequence of which was, that the salaries were now raised to the rate of 7,000 l. a-year, instead of the 3,000 l., at the value of fifteen years ago." Then came his hon. friend's conclusion, that formerly, and at that low rate, "we did not know of any unfaithful stewards." Then, as to the reduction of 25 per cent, so often stated in the presence of the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel), and which he had never heard him get up and deny—if the right hon. Gentleman doubted it, he should like to hear the doubt cleared up; and if he acknowledged it, he should like to hear that also. Then the country would know the addition, and upon what ground that had been made. The increased value of money had a twofold operation, while it imposed additional weight upon all fixed payments, it lowered both prices and wages. The hon. Member for Col-

443
chester (Mr. D. W. Harvey) had said it was the duty of the landed interest to reduce their rents, and he agreed with those who had in reply observed that since the war, rents had been reduced from 25 to 30 per cent. If, however, the landed interest were called on to submit to another reduction of 25 per cent, he would say boldly to nine-tenths of the landed interest, "at once sell your estates." In fact, such a measure would be a secret or silent mode of transferring their estates to their creditors; and it was a thing they could not bear, and would be absurd if they did. He would then consider the effect of low wages. If the labourer wanted bread, all property, whether from land or funds, must be placed in the greatest jeopardy. They had been told that since the war a great alteration had taken place in that respect, and should it go lower they should all be placed in a position of the greatest hazard. He had never supported the Corn Laws; but the country had been driven to them by necessity. They were as a pebble, but which in the sling of a stripling, might overthrow the giant. Free Trade had relieved some articles of secondary necessity, whilst there was a monopoly of the article of the first necessity, and thus there was a transfer of a burthen from the strong to the weak; and till the questions respecting currency and corn were adjusted, Free Trade would operate with the greatest possible injustice. War taxation entered largely into the prices of articles of necessity, and they could not become cheap. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, in his resolution of 1823, had substantiated this fact beyond dispute. There was less malt in proportion consumed now than before the French war; and this was the case with respect to tea sugar, and tobacco, and many other articles. When Government increased the value of money, and did not reduce taxation, they encroached on the comforts of the labouring classes. Taxation prevented the fall of prices. He had heard something of luxuries, but he knew not whence the notions of luxuries were derived. Were they drawn from the gorgeous palaces of Kings, or from the rival palaces of Ministers, or from those of East India Directors, rich with the monopoly of the China trade, or from those of Jew Loan Contractors, who supplied to foreign States the gold from the coffers of the Bank of England?
444
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
"Tis your's to judge how wide the limits stand Between a splendid and a happy land."
But what was now the boast of this happy country? Where was the furniture that adorned the poor man's cottage? all was gone—pinching hunger and despair now held their place in the labourer's habitation. The weaver in the county which he represented (Cumberland) earned but 4s. 2d. a week, out of which he had to supply his family. Oatmeal, water, and peas were his sole food, and for these he had to work fourteen or fifteen hours a day. So extremely low were wages, that even the power-looms were under-worked. The country had now come to the point where something must be done—
"Hic locus est, partes ubi se via findit in ambas."
It was not becoming in the Treasury Benches to say that the only exception to retrenchment must be among those classes to which they belonged. The next course was to alter taxes and obtain high prices, by returning again to the ancient standard of England. From the Tudors to the Revolution silver alone had been the standard of this country. From that time to 1793 silver and gold conjointly had been the standard; and in 1819 the measure was an anomaly, if not a novelty; but, so far from this measure having been in full operation for ten years, as had been so often repeated, it had been in full operation only for a few months. The Act did not come into operation till two years after it was passed. The year after it was to come into effect, such was the distress, that Lord Castlereagh agreed that the repeal of the Small Note Act should not come into operation till the Charter of the Bank of England expired. Prices rose and prosperity continued for a short period, and only for a short period. To reconsider the Small Note Bill, the House must reconsider the standard, and the whole system of banking. But Government was inexorable. The Duke of Wellington had said, "You shall not inquire." If you argue the question keenly in print, the Attorney-General is ready to pounce upon you. [cheers] He will file ex officio informations for publishing what has a tendency to bring Ministers into contempt. It was only in a moment of distress that useful purposes were effected, and he hoped that the House would not pass to othert

445
measures till retrenchment was pushed to its utmost. Two modes presented themselves—to reduce the number employed, or to diminish the salaries. With respect to the former, this was not the time or the place to deal with the subject. With respect to the reduction of salaries, before the House went into a Committee of Supply, it was most desirable to establish some fixed principle by which they could try the Estimates that were about to be brought forward. As to the amount of salaries and allowances, then, it was only for the House of Commons to tell, in the first instance, upon what scale the reduction should be made. The principle of Mr. Addington, of Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Percival, in increasing the quantity of salaries, had been, that there was depreciation in the value of money; but this could be no longer brought forward as an argument. Now it was acknowledged on all hands that the people were borne down by a burthen they could not long endure—it was universally allowed that some reduction must be made; it accordingly only remained to show the principle upon which that reduction could be effected. At this point then he would beg to read his resolution, because some explanation of it might be necessary. The hon. Gentleman here read his resolution, which was to the following effect;—"That whereas subsequently to the Act 37 Geo. 3rd, for the suspension of Cash Payments by the Bank of England, large augmentations have from time to time been made in the Salaries and Pay of Persons employed in the Civil and Military Service of the Country, on account of the diminished value of money; and whereas the alleged reason of this increase has, for the most part, ceased to operate, in consequence of the Act 59th Geo. 3rd, which has restored the metallic standard of value,—it is expedient that, with a view to relief from the present excessive load of taxation, all such augmentations should now be revised, and every possible reduction effected, which can be made without the violation of existing engagements, and without detriment to the Public Service."
The first question which would be, in all probability, asked him was, what did he mean to exclude by these exceptions? In the first place he would say, the King's Privy Purse, the Salaries of the great officers of the Crown, and the Expenditure on the royal Establishments. These, he conceived, they had no right to touch—they
446
could not do so without violating a solemn and sacred engagement, because these grants had been made in commutation for the revenues of the Crown lands, and the more oppressive portions of the royal prerogative. In stating this opinion he was supported by the authority of Mr. Fox, who had declared that such a proceeding would be extremely dangerous, as it would place the King under the control of the Parliament—or, in other words, under that of the minister of the day. He might next be called on to explain what he meant by introducing the expression "military" in his exceptions. In answer to this, he would state that he considered the contract with the sailor to be a sacred contract. A man entered the service under the promise of certain pay and contingent advantages, and he certainly ought not to be disappointed. For his own part, to prevent the necessity of impressment, and to induce the sailor to prefer the service of his Majesty to that of the merchant, he had rather see the pay raised than lowered. Now, as to the Army—he also considered that our engagement with the soldier was sacred, and he therefore could not approve of any reduction in the pay or other emoluments of the soldier, which was retrospective. The same feeling he, of course, entertained with respect to the officer, though he did think that the half-pay list had of late years been too much used as a mode of granting pensions. But what had been done could not be undone, and he was satisfied to leave matters as they were. But with regard to the superior military officers, there was a great distinction to be observed. The salaries of some of these officers appeared to have been raised altogether at pleasure. No reason had been assigned, He wished to advert to some instances of this nature; he would, however, in the first instance, entreat the indulgence of the House. He was not much versed in the science of public accounts, and had, consequently much difficulty to contend with in his statements, and might possibly fall into error; but, if so unfortunate, he begged them to believe that he would be guilty not of a misrepresentation, but simply of an inadvertence. In 1797, the salary of the Governor of New Brunswick was 1,000 l. a year.; it was, at that moment, 1,500 l.; in 1797, the Governor of Prince Edward's Island had 800 l. a year; he has now 1,000 l. At the same period the Governor of Nova

447
Scotia's salary was 500 l. a year; it has since been raised to 1,000 l. The Governor of Port Jackson had, in 1797, 1,000 l. a year; it has been raisd to 2,000 l. And he might close the list, by observing that the Governor of Sierra Leone had the enormous salary of 2,000 l. a year. He would next beg to direct the attention of the House to the recommendation made to Parliament, on the second report of the last committee, which, he was grieved to say, still remained a dead letter. It had been recommended to reduce the regulations, with respect to enlistment, to the same form in which they had existed before 1806; and notwithstanding this positive recommendation of the committee, a whole session had been suffered to elapse, and nothing had been yet done. He would now lay before the House a statement of the expenditure in 1828, as compared with that of 1797:—The expenditure on account of the interest of the debt and its management in 1797, was 11,500,000 l.; in 1828, it was 27,366,000 l. In 1797, the pensions on the consolidated fund amounted to 180,000 l.; in 1828, to 305,580 l. In 1797, the expense of the courts of justice was 31,000 l.; in 1828, it was 148,000 l. The payment on the consolidated fund, in 1797, was 119,000 l.; in 1828, 566,000 l. But this was not a fair comparison—1797 was a year of war, and therefore ought to form no criterion. He would therefore look at 1798, in which it would be remembered that from a jealousy of France, our military establishments were kept on a most efficient footing. In 1793 the expense of the Army amounted only to 2,005,000 l., including half-pay; it was now upwards of 8,000,000 l. In 1793, the expense of the Navy was 2,450,000 l.; it was now near 6,000,000 l. In 1793 the expense of the Ordnance was 459,000 l.; in 1829, it was 1,400,000 l. The entire expenditure in 1793 was 5,300,000 l.; and in 1829 it was 15,500,000 l. In 1793 wheat was 50 s. a quarter; in 1830 it was 55 s. a quarter. One bushel of wheat, therefore, at that time, went as far as three now; and for one hour's labour that paid the taxes then, three are now required. He then read an extract from the Finance Report, recommending a reduction of the expenditure in the Army and Ordnance departments, and advising a return to the regulations respecting enlistment which prevailed before 1806. He was afraid he
448
was fatiguing the House. He would, with its permission, however, make a few remarks on the revenue. He thought the time was come when the gross amount of the Assessed Taxes and Customs should be carried to the public account. These returns now amounted to nineteen millions, and there was a per centage of near 6l.; in 1810 the per centage was only 4l. 9s. The salaries of public officers, too, had been raised in an extraordinary manner since 1821. There was one to which, as a sample, he would call the attention of the House. He did not wish to be hard upon the humble clerk, but he thought the extravagant salaries of the higher officers might be advantageously diminished. Now the case to which he alluded was, that when the father of his honourable friend, the Member for Northamptonshire (Lord Althorp) was First Lord of the Admiralty, he was contented with a salary of 3,000 l. a year; and this was at a time when we sent Nelson to annihilate our enemies at the Nile, and Duncan to conquer at Cam-perdown—and at a time when we had fleets on every sea in the civilised world; and yet now, in the year of profound peace, my lord Melville received 5,000 l. a year. Thus it was that now sixty per cent more was paid than had been granted to Lord Spencer. He would next refer to a paper for which he had moved in 1828. It related to the number of persons employed, and the comparative amount of their salaries in the years 1797 and 1827. In 1797 there were sixteen thousand, two hundred and sixty-seven persons employed in the civil service connected with the Revenue, and their salaries amounted to 1,374,561 l. Theaverage salary, therefore, of each man, amounted, in 1797, to 84 l. In 1827, there were twenty-two thousand, nine hundred and twelve persons employed, whose gross salary amounted to 2,755,000 l., while the average salary of each was 121 l. Thus, it appeared, there was an increase of one-third in the number of persons, and that fifty per cent was added to the amount of salary. But it was, at the same time, curious to observe the difference in the price of wheat now, and at a more remote period. And here he would observe with Mr. Horner, that although it was usual to take the precious metals as the standard, yet that bread-corn was the real standard; and in this he was borne out by Mr. Locke, who had declared, that the wheat

449
was, in fact, the standard by which all things must be ultimately determined. Now, in 1810, wheat was 105 s. a quarter; it was at present 55 s. a quarter;—five hundred thousand quarters, therefore, in 1810, were equivalent to one million quarters at present. It was, consequently, obvious, that there was great unfairness in our having salaries doubled, while we have our standard at but half its former value. "I am not (continued the honourable Baronet) one of those who view without the utmost jealousy in 1828 the elevation of the Duke of Wellington to the highest office in the state? I had observed with deep regret his opposition to the government of Mr. Canning, stated to proceed from an irreconcileable difference with respect to the Catholic question, and differing from the hon. Member for the county of Hertford (Sir J. Sebright), I did not think that a military education was the best preparation for a statesman seeking to administer the affairs of a free people. I remembered what the historian had said, that he who had been trained amidst arms, and had obtained a consummate knowledge of his art, might be disposed to transfer to the cabinet the doctrines of the camp, and recognise no sub-mission but implicit obedience. A little reflection, however, led me to hope that he who had acquired a knowledge of the people in every clime, and circumstance of danger—who had never failed to lead them on to victory—must, more than any other, respect that nation whom he had proved to be the lords of human kind. I was not altogether disappointed in these expectations. In the first Session the noble Duke supported a Bill for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which had been introduced by a noble friend of mine (Lord J. Russell), who thereby added another to the many obligations which the people of this country are under to his family. He also conferred the merited honours of his profession upon a distinguished barrister (Mr. Denman)—an ornament to this House, whom I should again wish to see amongst us. In the last Session he carried a measure which Mr. Pitt declared to be the key-stone of the Union; which Fox, though he ably advocated, never ventured to bring forward; which hurled from power Grey and Grenville, because they attempted to bring it forward; which Grattan, the warm-hearted champion of the
450
Irish, would have died to accomplish; which, because Mr. Canning could not accomplish, he died from chagrin and despair, so deeply did he feel the effects of bitter calumny and gnawing care. This bolder minister, however (nothing daunted by the fall of his predecessors), effected a religious peace on the solid base of equality of civil rights. All these are great obligations, but political gratitude is short-lived. Events press upon events—day by day we are called upon for decision—we cannot, we must not, lag behind. If the fund-holder, the political economist, the lawyer, Whig and Tory, are to rally under the banners of the Wellington Government, the time is come when, on the part of the tax-payer, it is necessary to form another party to reduce the burthens of the country. The noble Duke has a receipt for destroying party. He takes Lord Rosslyn from one party, an Attorney-General (Sir J. Scarlett), from the ranks of the old Opposition, a Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer from the ranks of the Danai, and he then drops amongst the traders to pick out a tame elephant for the Board of Control." The hon. Member concluded with saying, that he was willing to act with the hon. Member for Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull) in any object which he believed conducive to the public good; he would not be deterred from what he considered to be the duty he owed to his constituents—he asked nothing at the hands of Ministers—the only obligation he owed was to those who had sent him here, a free representative—who had conferred upon him the exalted honour of addressing this night a House of Commons, which, with all its faults, he considered as the noblest assemblage of freemen in the civilized world.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, though he admired the talents, ability, and eloquence displayed by the hon. Baronet, it was not his intention to follow him through the various topics on which he had been pleased to dwell. He would confine himself strictly to the limits which the duty of his office imposed. Instead of following the hon. Baronet, therefore, through those various subjects in a speech, which were, in fact, a condensation of all the topics which had been discussed last Session, he would address himself simply to that object which he had no doubt the hon. Baronet was most anxious to attain, although he had made such slight mention of it. He did not take the same view of the salaries of

451
1797 as the hon. Baronet did. His Majesty's Government had pledged itself to support all advisable reduction; and he thought he might say they had already given proofs of their desire to carry these promises into effect. He would boldly assert, that every principle of reduction which Committees of this House had recommended for the reduction of the public expenditure had been rigidly carried into effect. [No, no.] In the year 1797, the Committee appointed to examine the public expenditure, after a most laborious investigation, came to the result of recommending the utmost practical retrenchment, especially the abolition of sinecures and reversions of offices. He would shew that that recommendation had been carried by the Government into the fullest possible effect. They had abolished the two Chief Justices in Eyre: the Clerks of the Pells both in England and Ireland; receiving 3,000 l. a-year each, and their deputies receiving 1,100 l. a-year each. They had abolished in Ireland the office of Auditor of the Exchequer, paid by a salary of 4,000 l. a-year; and they intended to abolish the same office in England as soon as a vacancy should occur. There were twenty-three other offices which they had abolished since 1807, making in the whole since the recommendation alluded to, thirty-two offices, reversions, and sinecures which had been abolished. He would now show that the Government had paid the greatest attention to the recommendations of this House as to the regulation and management of the public revenue, and had done so with the strictest intention of making economy and retrenchment the basis on which their regulations should be founded. The first office he would refer to was that of Commissioner of Barracks, which had been abolished, and the duties transferred to the Ordnance. The next was that of Commissioner of Transports, which had been abolished, and the duties transferred to the Navy Pay Office. The third was that of Commissary in Chief, which had likewise been abolished, and the duties transferred to the Treasury. The office of Storekeeper General was abolished; the Board of Customs in Scotland, the Board of Customs in Ireland, the Board of Excise in both countries, and the Board of Stamps in Scotland, had all been abolished. The effect of these various abolitions was, that the number of Com-
452
missioners which had been fifty-nine, was now reduced to twenty-eight. He therefore, asserted that the Government had had no other desire than that of abolishing every useless item of public expenditure. The Commissioners, whose number was thus diminished, had been paid by salaries from 1,000 l. to 1,400 l. a-year. Thus were the public offices regulated up to 1820. In the month of June 1821, an Address was carried in that House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, praying that a minute examination might be directed into all the branches of public income and expenditure. He would now read a few words of the Treasury Minute, in order to show the House that the object of retrenchment had neither been blinked nor over-looked by the Government, and that the Government had never failed to carry into the most rigid execution the recommendation of that House [loud cries of No, no, from the Opposition]. He should show that what he had stated was strictly correct; and he did not doubt that the hon. Member for Cumberland would then find that the Address voted by this House in June 1821 embraced nearly all the objects now proposed. The efforts at reduction were first made by the Government in 1797; the same system had been followed in 1822; and although it had been impossible for them to do all that was desired, yet he thought the House would allow, when they considered the different manner in which business was now conducted in the public offices, that the salaries of the public officers were now reduced as nearly as possible to the standard which the hon. Member for Cumberland proposed to adopt. It might naturally be expected that he should begin with that department with which he was more particularly connected. By a Treasury Minute dated in January 1822, it was directed that every office should be restored to the situation in respect of the number of persons employed, and of the emoluments they received, in which they were in 1797, unless some adequate cause could be shown to render an alteration from the state of the office at that period necessary. That wherever an increase of business rendered it necessary to preserve an establishment created or enlarged since that period, the emolument of the officers should be assimilated as much as possible to the standard of that year. That if any office created since 1797,

453
were no longer necessary, or that the emoluments might be reduced, such abolition or reduction should be made. The whole range of the public offices was included in this Minute, which he would now show had been carried into full execution. That was the effect of the new regulations upon the Treasury establishment with respect to the payment of salaries. At the time that Minute was made, the minimum amount of salaries in the Treasury was 46,000 l., the maximum 64,000 l. Under the new regulations, the minimum amount was 41,000 l., the maximum 48,000 l., so that upon the whole there had been a gross reduction equal to thirty per cent. The same principle had been applied to all the other offices. He would now examine how that Minute had operated upon the different classes of public servants at the Treasury. The effect of the reduction was, that the salaries of the junior clerks fell twenty-six per cent—those of the assistant clerks, forty per cent.—of the senior clerks, thirty per cent.—and of the chief clerks, twenty per cent. How had it affected the superior officers? He should show that it had affected them in more than the same proportion. When he compared their salaries in 1797 with those of 1821, he found that they enjoyed more in the former than in the latter year; so that if the hon. Member's proposition were adopted, their salaries would rather be increased than diminished. The salary of the First Lord of the Treasury was then the same as now. The Junior Lords received the same in that as in the present year; and the salaries of the Secretaries to the Treasury were now just the same sum that they were in 1797, but they had undergone before and since that time several variations. In 1769, 1770, and 1771, the salary was 3.700 l. a year; in 1779, 1780, and 1782, it was together with emoluments (which he conceived to be much more objectionable than a fixed salary), equal to the sum of 5,100 l. a year. In 1797 it was 3,400 l.; in 1800 it was 4,000 l.; and in 1821 it was 3,500 l., at which sum it stood now. [hear, hear] As he held an office which was not subject to the proposed reduction, he thought he might be allowed to put in his voice against the reduction of the salaries of those men who had deserved well of their country, but who would be seriously affected by a diminution, which injustice to them ought not
454
now to be made. This brought him to the position in which the officers of the Treasury were now placed by the adoption of the two recommendations made by this Mouse. It was fair that he should show the difference of duty performed by the officers of the Treasury at the present time and in 1797. It was the custom (he ought first to inform the House) to register the papers connected with the business of the Treasury. In 1797 the officers registered four thousand six hundred papers, but in 1827 they registered twenty-seven thousand papers. When this increased duty was performed by the same number of individuals in a department, the heads of which had only the same salary as in 1797, and in which the subordinate officers (who performed the most labour) did ten times more than the amount in 1797, he thought he had made out a fair case to induce the House to deliberate long and maturely before they fixed such a loss upon men who were so little able to bear it. He would now proceed to the offices of the Secretaries of State. They received the same salary as in 1797, namely, 6,000/. a year. In 1782, however, they had 8,000 l. a-year each: and, before 1797, the Under Secretary had 2,000 l. a year; and at that sum, after undergoing in the meantime variations of increase and decrease, it now-stood. The same reduction had been practised with respect to the office of Secretary at War, and there were some curious circumstances connected with that subject. It would appear that the number of persons employed in the Secretary at War's Office had increased since 1797, but the payment to them had diminished. In that year the persons employed there were fifty-eight, and the salaries paid 36,000 l, a year; but in 1821, the numbers were ninety-nine, and the salaries paid 33,000 l,; so that with an increased amount of labour, the expenditure was considerably diminished. The Deputy Secretary at War at that time had a salary of 2,500 l. a year, but his perquisites had sometimes amounted to 14,000 l. The chief clerks at that time received 3,000 l. a year. The whole establishment had been since twice reduced, and the Deputy Secretary now received a fixed salary of 3,000 l. while the salaries of the chief clerks had been finally reduced to 1,200 l, 1,000 l., and 900 l. a year. At the Horse-Guards, reduction to

455
the extent of about thirty per cent had taken place. In the offices in Ireland there had been a great saving effected, both in the number of persons employed and in the salaries paid to them. He would mention only one department, by way of sample. In 1818, the gross number of Custom-house Officers employed in Ireland was so great, that it had been reduced 2500 l.; and without going into a detail of their different salaries, he would just state that the reduction since that period amounted to no less a sum than 237,678 l. In the reductions which had thus been made, he claimed some degree of merit for the department with which he was connected. It often happened that, of the officers whose establishments were thus reduced, some were put upon a superannuation allowance, while others formed what was called the Redundant list—in other words, a body of officers, capable of being employed to fill up any vacancies that might occur in the reduced establishments. If the Government were inclined to abuse the patronage they possessed, they might put new persons into the vacancies thus occurring, and leave the old officers still upon the Superannuation Allowance or the Redundant List. So far, however, had the Treasury been from acting upon any such rule, that no less than three hundred and seventy-three persons had been taken from the Redundant List of two thousand five hundred, and put into vacancies that had occurred since the reduction was made, by which a saving of 37,000 l. had been effected. This fact showed the principle on which business was now conducted. He would mention another fact of the same kind. The Board of Customs in Scotland had been abolished in the course of last summer, and the Superannuation allowance of one of the Commissioners was 720 l. a-year. The office of the Comptroller of the Customs at Quebec had since become vacant; and it would, no doubt, have been very agreeable to the noble Duke at the head of the Treasury to have given away the office in the usual manner: but it having been intimated to him that the retired Commissioner was a person fit to be appointed to the situation, and was willing to accept it and go out to Canada, the noble Duke conferred on him the office, to which was attached a salary of 1,500 l. a year, and thus saved the
456
country the 720 l. a year superannuation allowance. That act was followed up the very next week by one of an exactly similar kind. An office with a salary of 1,000 l. a year became vacant, and the noble Duke selected another of the retired Commissioners for that office. He stated these facts from his own personal knowledge of what had occurred in the Treasury, but there were other Gentlemen in that House connected with other offices who could state other instances of the same kind. The difference between the old and new systems was much greater than many people imagined. A land-waiter at the Customs, under the old system, had a greater salary than the Commissioners had now. The object of the old officers was to collect as much as possible, and to hide the sources from whence they obtained it. The object of the officers under the new system was to do every thing with fairness and openness, to conduct their business with advantage to the merchants, while the public revenue was benefitted and secured. The House must not judge only by the value of the money paid to these officers, but also by the value of the labour given by them. While the salaries of the officers of the various establishments were reduced by the Treasury Minute he had read, no reduction, but rather an increase, had taken place in the value of the necessary articles of life. He was not possessed of a minute and accurate account of the price of the various articles of life at that time and at the present, but he believed, he could give them a statement which came pretty near the truth. In 1822, when the reductions under the Treasury Minute took effect, the leg of mutton was to be purchased for 6d. a pound, but in 1830 the price was 8d. a pound. [No, no, from the Opposition] He believed he was right, and that such would be found to be the relative difference of price at the two periods. In 1822 the shoulder of mutton was sold at 5d. per pound, but its price now was 7d. per pound. [renewed cries of No, no, no, from the Opposition] Hon. Members might dispute his statements; but of this he was sure that there had been an increase, not a diminution in the price of some of the articles of life. The price of the common articles of life had not come down in the proportion that had been stated; while, on the other hand, it was to be observed that the

457
business of the offices was conducted in a much more efficient manner than it had been formerly. This, he thought, must be evident to all who were acquainted with those offices; and he would therefore, save the House and himself the trouble of any detail on that point. Having stated thus much, having shown that since 1821 the salaries had been reduced, on an average, to the extent of twenty per cent, he had proved, he thought, that the salaries paid were not larger than was consistent with the duties which those who received them had to perform. Something having been said relative to Ireland, he begged, before he sat down, to be allowed to say a few words on that subject, as in the prosperity of Ireland he felt that he had a deep stake. It had been stated by a right hon. Gentleman, on a first night of the Session, that distress did not prevail in that country; upon which the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Spring Rice) and the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Connell) had made statements to the House for the purpose of refuting that position. At the despondency expressed by the hon. Member for Limerick on the subject, he (Mr. Dawson) must confess that he was somewhat surprised; nor could he account for it unless the hon. Gentleman had either taken the hon. Member for Clave for his oracle, or had himself most suddenly changed his opinion. For himself, he could venture to say that he had never known more mercantile or trading activity in Ireland than at the present moment; and only a short time before, he had actually received the congratulations of the hon. Member for Limerick, in a conversation that took place between them on the subject. Mr. Latouche had also borne testimony to the same fact; and he (Mr. G. Dawson) believed that the hon. Member for Limerick had documents in his possession which illustrated the same position. The reason that the hon. Member for Clare had given for taking upon himself to assert that there was distress in Ireland was a most curious one: the hon. Member said that he did so from his professional knowledge. But how a lawyer (for he presumed that the professional knowledge to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, was his knowledge of law) could ascertain such a point from his professional pursuits was beyond his comprehension. If the question had related to
458
some professional point there was no man to whose opinion he would more readily bow; but in the present case he really did not see any reason for attaching any great weight to the professional knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. But though he (Mr. Dawson) knew that great distress did exist in Ireland, yet he knew that it proceeded from other causes than those which had been stated. One great source of distress was the gradual decay of the coarse Linen Manufacture in Ireland, which had been caused by the success of the linen manufacture in Scotland and Yorkshire; but with respect to the agricultural interests of Ireland, there was no distress at present. He would not trouble the House with any further observations. The forms of the House prevented him from moving an amendment to the proposition of the hon. Member for Cumberland; he might meet it by moving the Order of the Day; but as he did not wish to get rid of it in that way, he would let the House negative it, and he would then move the resolutions which he held in his hand, and which he would read to the House. The hon. Member then read the resolutions, which were as follows:—
"That his Majesty was graciously pleased to assure this House, in reply to an Address of this House of the 27th June 1821 (that his Majesty would give directions for a minute inquiry into the several departments of the Civil Government, as well with a view to reducing the number of the persons employed in those departments, which from the great increase of business was augmented during the late War, as with reference to the increased salaries granted to individuals since the year 1797, either in consideration of the additional labour thrown upon them during that period, or the diminished value of money), that his Majesty would give directions as desired by the said Address.
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House an Account of the progress made in such inquiry, and of the measures adopted in consequence thereof.
"That it is the opinion of this House, that, in all the Establishments of the Country, Civil and Military, every saving ought to be made which can be effected without the violation of existing engage-

459
ments, and without detriment to the Public Service."
Mr. Crokersaid, he rose to mention some facts relative to the department to which he belonged. In 1797 the salaries of the Admiralty Officers were 14,140 l.—
Sir James Grahamapologized for interrupting the hon. Member, and observed that, in speaking of the Admiralty, he had adverted solely to the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which in 1797 was 3,000 l. but was now 5,000 l.
Mr. Crokerbegged his pardon. The hon. Baronet had assumed that the gross amount of salaries of persons employed in the Civil Service was, in 1797, 1,374,000 l. and in 1827, that the amount was 2,788,000 l. The hon. Member who had just sat down answered that part of the hon. Baronet's speech generally, but there was one point to which he wished to call attention. As he had said, the whole amount of the salaries of the Admiralty Officers in 1797 was 14,140 l.; in 1827 it was 25,600 l. This was a great apparent increase, but if hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble to look to the Report of the Finance Committee of 1797, they would find that the amount of the salaries then was 14,140 l. but there were gratuities and other emoluments which made in the whole a sum of 27,000 l. a-year, showing an increase of 2,000 l. a-year in 1797, as compared with the present period. He stated this fact not upon any authority of his own, but from the Seventh Report of the Finance Committee. In 1797, the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty was 3,000 l. a-year, now it was 5,000 l.; the salaries of the other Lords were the same then as at present. The salary of the First. Secretary to the Admiralty in 1797, was 5,400 l. now it was only 3,000 l. The salary of the second Secretary was then 1,921 l. a-year, now it was 1,500 l. The salary of the Chief Clerk in 1797 was 1,446 l. a-year, now it was 1,150 l. The difference on the three offices was between 5,000 l. and 6,000 l. a-year, by which a sum of 2,000 l. a-year was saved to the public. Looking to the other naval departments, they would rind the same result. He was not, however, enabled to place the salaries before them in the same satisfactory manner; for the Finance Committee of 1797 had confined its labour to the Admiralty, without making any Report as to the expenditure of the
460
Navy Board. He found, however, that in addition to 33,000 l. a-year for the Navy in 1797, there was a further sum of 10,000 l. a-year for fees, so that the expenditure was very nearly the same as at present. It was quite obvious that the expenditure of the Admiralty Office was much greater in 1797 than at this time. The salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty was 3,000 l. a-year at the time that Lord Barham held the office; and he, on going out, thought that the sum was not sufficient, considering that the person filling so important an office must always be liable to great expense, and called upon to exercise the rites of hospitality to a degree that perhaps might, be beyond his means. At the same time Lord Barham, from motives of delicacy, said nothing on the subject so long as he himself held the office; but, on retiring from it, when a change took place in the administration, ha left a recommendation on the table to the effect that the salary should be increased to 5,000 l. a-year. The recommendation fell into the hands of Lord Grey, by whom it was laid before the King, and acted upon accordingly.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he must advert to what had fallen from the hon. Secretary (Mr. G. Dawson). If he (Mr. Spring Rice) were capable of dealing with the House in the manner represented by his hon. friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, he should be wholly unworthy, not only of presenting him self there, but any where else. His hon. friend had told the House that he (Mr. Spring Rice) had stated in a private communication, that distress did not exist in Ireland, while his hon. friend would now represent him as acting in subserviency to some person or persons, and asserting that distress did exist there. He could only say that never was any representation more unjust or unfounded. Not only had his hon. friend totally misrepresented him, but he appeared to be driven to the necessity of inventing facts to sustain the course of argument he had pursued. He (Mr. Spring Rice) had not implicitly adopted the opinions of the hon. Member for Clare nor of the right hon. Member for Kerry. On the contrary, he had stated most distinctly that he differed from them both. While he had stated that there was, generally, less distress in Ireland than in England, he had stated at the same time that the great interests

461
in Ireland were suffering greatly. What was the evidence adduced by his hon. friend in support of his statement? The only evidence brought forward by him was the testimony of a gentleman who, in the interval, was unfortunately lost to the country—he meant Mr. Latouche. With respect to the facts which he (Mr. Spring Rice) had stated, as to the exports of Ireland, he was positive they were correct; and these went to show that Ireland was improving. He had not drawn his information from the same source as his hon. friend; but he pledged himself to bring down to the House, on Monday next a statement containing facts which his hon. friend had suppressed, for the purpose, it would seem, of casting a stigma upon him. He now wished to say a few words upon the immediate question before the House. The resolutions moved by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, came nearly to the same conclusion as the resolution moved by his hon. friend the Member for Cumberland. Without saying one word as to the expediency of making any alteration in the currency—a measure which he (Mr. Spring Rice) could never sanction—his hon. friend had still gained a pledge from Parliament that all the public establishments should be pared down to the lowest possible limits. For his own part, he should rejoice to see the two subjects of currency and retrenchment placed on a separate and distinct footing. He should like exceedingly that, when the House came to the consideration of these important questions, they should all be able to unite for one common object, and in the discharge of one common duty, to exert themselves to relieve the distresses of the country.—He did not wish that those who might vote with him on the subject of the currency should differ from him on the subject of retrenchment. He desired to take each of these questions by itself; and the able statement of his hon. friend relieved the House from the necessity of mixing up both questions. He himself would not vote with any man who should propose an alteration of the standard: he was, however, glad to see that, without reverting to a silver standard, to the issue of paper, to effects similar to those which the Bank of England had produced on the monetary system of this country, they were still able to give efficient and real relief to the people. He hoped that the
462
statement of the Secretary to the Treasury would be duly borne in mind. He well recollected, and the House would also recollect, the patient attention paid on the memorable nights when the Estimates were brought up, some Sessions since; and he trusted that the same practice would still continue, and that each Estimate would be narrowly watched and thoroughly examined by the House. With regard to what had been said by his hon. friend the Secretary for the Treasury, in reference to him (Mr. Spring Rice), he could only say, that he felt no personal anger on the subject, though he felt a great deal of personal regret. If there were any one quarter in the world from which he was least prepared for such an attack, it was that from which it had proceeded.
Mr. G. Dawsonexplained. He was afraid that some expressions painful to the feelings of his hon. friend might perhaps have escaped him; he was most anxious to take the earliest opportunity of stating that, neither remotely nor otherwise, had he the slightest intention of accusing him of making any statement which he did not believe to be grounded on fact. He had, however, felt some surprise, after the conversation which he and his hon. friend had had upon the subject, that his hon. friend appeared to differ from him so materially, taking a view of the question which he (Mr. Dawson) could not admit. There was not one man in that House, on either side, of whom he was less disposed to say any thing unkind than of his hon. friend. He had long known him, and no one could more admire his talents and his merits.
Mr. Spring Riceexpressed himself quite satisfied with this explanation; but he must say, at the same time, that, if he had not felt strongly on such an occasion, he should have been unworthy of appearing either in that House or elsewhere.
Sir George Warrenderconsidered that the Ministers of the Crown were still more urgently called upon than the hon. Member for Cumberland to come forward, on an occasion like the present, and to propose some practical measure of relief. It was, however, most satisfactory to know that the Representatives of the people were not insensible to the distress which prevailed. He found that, since the year 1797, judicial salaries had increased by at least 100 per cent; and his only object

463
in now rising was to know, from some one of his Majesty's Ministers on the bench below, whether any further addition was contemplated? It would be recollected that, at the close of the last session, a proposition was brought forward to increase the salaries of the Scotch Judges; and it was satisfactory to see upon that occasion with what alacrity it was rejected by the House, and immediately withdrawn.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. G. Dawson) could not contradict the statement which he (Mr. O'Connell) had made on a former night. The hon. Member had given as his authority Mr. Latouche, who, on his return to Dublin from London, stated, at a meeting of the Society for the Improvement of Ireland, that the people of Ireland were not suffering in the same degree as the people of England; and, when contradicted upon this fact, he replied that the increase of the Excise tended to establish it beyond all doubt. He (Mr. O'C.) then told him that his argument was founded on the resource of the desperate, namely, on the drinking of spirits, the increase of which could never be considered as a proof of national prosperity. His professional duties placed him in constant communication with merchants and others who were acquiring estates in Ireland, and from whom, and other clients, he had ample opportunities of obtaining information as to the real state of things in that country. To show to what extent distress prevailed there, he needed only say that one gentleman, who had a rent-roll of 4,000 l., received only 100 l. as the last gale.
Lord Morpethsaid, the Motion of his hon. friend, the Member for Cumberland (Sir J. Graham) would at any time have commanded the attention and support of the advocates of economy; but when it came before them coupled with complaints of the overwhelming distress of every class in the country, then, indeed, it must prove irresistible. Whether, however, they adopted the Motion of the hon. Baronet, or were content with the Resolutions intended to be proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, it was plain that the House was about to give a new pledge to the country of its determination to prosecute a system of retrenchment and reformation in every branch of the public expenditure. Some hon. Members recommended as a remedy for the distress, that the House
464
should commit a deliberate breach of faith, and violate the legislative enactment by which it bound itself to maintain a metallic currency; others went still further, and advised an equitable adjustment with the public creditor. In his opinion any proposal of measures of that kind would come before them with better grace after every fair, just, and honourable means of relief had been exhausted. Of these means economy in the public expenditure was one of the most evident, as well as the most laudable. In the earlier years of his life, although his feelings and his judgment led him to wish success to that party in whose cause he was now embarked, he confessed he had entertained a strong prejudice against the apparent niggardly course they seemed disposed at all times to adopt with respect to the public expenditure. The experience of a very few years had, however, altered his opinions; and he was now willing to acknowledge that economy, in the management of the public money, was the highest political wisdom. In adopting such a sentiment, he could not but be forcibly reminded of the eloquent exertions in its support which marked the whole political life of one so much missed in that House, and so much lamented in private—he meant the late Mr. Tierney [hear]. The unsparing and disinterested labours of that able and eloquent man, in the service of economy, did more credit to his life, and cast a greater lustre on his memory, than all the glories and successes of those other distinguished men, who, though more honoured, were not more useful; who, though more fortunate, had not been more meritorious. He could not but think that this feeble tribute to his merits would not be unacceptable to those who had so often been enlivened by his wit and enlightened by his wisdom, and that it was not impertinently or inappropriately introduced into the discussion on a subject which had so often engaged his most earnest attention. He was determined to support the men of every party, whether Whig or Tory, in their labours to procure retrenchment and a diminution of taxation; and he hoped, when the Estimates of the year were brought before them, that they would be framed on such a scale as to justify the expectations of the House, and restore to the Government the confidence of the people.
Mr. Humesaid, he should prefer the Motion of the Secretary to the Trea-

465
sury to that of his hon. friend the Member for Cumberland, as being the least shackled, and as repeating the pledge of retrenchment which the House had given in the year 1821. He needed only to bring to the recollection of the House what took place in the year 1821, and the great benefit that resulted from it. In the following year a reduction, to the amount of 2,000,000 l. was effected, and 2,000,000 l. more might have been taken off the year after, if the same attention had been paid to the expenditure of the country. But from the years 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, and up to 1827, so far from any thing being done in the way of reduction, a gradual increase took place. As to any constitutional control over the expenditure of the country, it had been altogether abandoned by that House for the last three or four years. Most of the Members absented themselves instead of being found at their posts, and many who had hitherto most shamefully neglected their duty were now most unreasonable in demanding reduction. The establishments were now much larger than they were in 1822. The question was not as to whether salaries should be reduced or were reduced from 20,000 l. to 15,000 l. a year, but whether the recommendations of the Finance Committee had been complied with. The question with the Finance Committee was, what the duties of the several officers were as compared with the amount of remuneration. The main object was to bring the salaries of the several departments to as low a scale as could be consistent with the due discharge of the public service. Individuals in every establishment of the country were infinitely too well paid, and we now felt the ruinous effects of former profusion. There could be no solid objection whatever to apply to the Crown for relief. When his Majesty wanted money, he never hesitated to come down to the House of Commons and ask for it; and if the people of England were weighed down by distress, it was perfectly consistent with their duty to the Sovereign that they should call for a reduction of expenditure. If they did not look at the situation of the country with boldness, and act with resolution, it would be utterly impossible that it could continue to bear the burthens with which it was oppressed. Expenditure had been for years on the increase. To show the manner in which the Ministers supported their professions of economy, he
466
would ask the House to look at the late arrangements with respect to the Stamp-Office. It was found that out of eight Commissioners, there were not three who could be persuaded to meet each other for the transaction of business. Well, the Board was broken up, and it was supposed that Ministers would avail themselves of the event, and as three were found sufficient for the conduct of business, that no more would be retained. But what did they do? They discharged and pensioned the whole of them, and then appointed a new Board, more numerous than the former, and at a higher salary. So, in like manner, the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope was allowed a salary of 20,000 l. a-year until within a very recent period. He now had only to observe, that he would suggest to his hon. friend the expediency of withdrawing his resolution, and of leaving the question in the hands of the hon. Member opposite, whose proposition appeared likely to answer the purpose.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, he was apprehensive that this resolution, if adopted, would not have the effect of relieving the great distress under which the country now laboured. The measure adopted in 1826 had had, as he had then foretold it would have, a most prejudicial effect on all the great interests of the country; and they all, from that period to the present, had continued to decline. He considered the whole of the distress to have been caused by the measures relative to the currency.
Mr. W. Duncombesaid, he could not agree with some hon. Members, that the course pursued by Ministers was that which was consistent with their duty, as responsible servants of the Crown. He thought they were very ill-advised in describing the distress in the qualified manner they had done. Instead of blinking the question, they ought, to have come down to the House, and acknowledged honestly the extent of the evil, and proposed effectual measures of relief. He thought it highly important at the present crisis that a country party should exist in that House; but, in saying that, he would not be understood as wishing to separate the landed interest from the manufacturing and commercial interests. He maintained the same sentiments on that point which he had ever professed—namely, that no one class could flourish unless the other classes were prosperous. But at present all classes laboured

467
under a general depression and stagnation. There were none, however, who were so much entitled to commiseration and sympathy as the industrious and laborious classes of all denominations. The artisans, the labourers, and the operatives were those whose case was deserving of the most anxious and the most immediate consideration, constituting, as they did, the wealth, the strength, and the stability of the country. They were now suppliants at the doors of Parliament; and it was the duty and the interest of that House, as it was in its power, to relieve them. It was particularly incumbent on his Majesty's Ministers to take the whole state of the country, and more especially the condition of the labouring classes, into consideration.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, that in voting as he had done, in favour of the Address, he wished to protest against being understood to doubt the extent of distress in the country, or to deny that it was severely felt. For himself, he had no connection with Ministers; and, at his time of life, after having been for four or five and forty years in that House, he wished for nothing but happiness;—he meant the happiness of the people and the prosperity of the country. He considered it his duty to weigh the merits of his Majesty's Ministers, and of those who con tended with them. These Gentlemen said, that they wished for economy and retrenchment. Now on that point he wished to try them fairly. What, he would ask, was the condition of Ministers? Were they the authors of the mischief? Were they the promoters of the French war, which was, in fact, the source of all the evil? He was one of those who voted during Mr. Pitt's Administration, on the question of the French War, and he had foretold the calamities which had since befallen the country from that cause. He was not attached to any party in that House. He was an independent man, but was it to be expected that he should support those who wished to get into power by proclaiming the grievances of the country? He would not support Ultra Whigs or Ultra Tories. His Majesty's Ministers had, in his opinion, done great things for the nation. They had passed two great measures, the most important of which was that of Catholic Emancipation. He would, therefore, trust to them to do what was necessary and beneficial for the country. He
468
wished for economy and retrenchment, but he would look for it amongst the higher powers. The enormous expenses of the Crown ought to be looked to. The cost of building palaces, and other severe additions to the public burthens, ought to be curtailed. But he gave great credit to the present Administration for their conduct. They had not bowed down to the Crown, as some of their predecessors had done. Who, he would ask, were the authors of the French war? The landed proprietors; and the consequence was, that they had benefited in their incomes; for estates of 2,000 l. a-year were raised to 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. They now wished to retain the war prices, but those prices could no longer be continued. He could relate an instance of the eagerness with which the effects of war upon the prices of agricultural produce and stock was looked to; it occurred in his own neighbourhood; towards the close of the late struggles in France, when Bonaparte had returned to France, though his return was not generally known, a farmer of some consideration near Doncaster was driving sixty pigs to market, and he met a man who asked him "Have you heard the news?" "No," he replied, "I have heard no news—the war is over, and I am going to make the best bargain lean for my pigs."—"Oh Napoleon," said the other—or Nap, as he called him, "Nap is comeback to France." "Is he indeed? Oh, then, I'll drive my pigs back again." [laughter] This was a positive fact, and it shewed the desire to obtain the war prices. He meant to act an independent part. Let any one point out to him better principles or better measures than those of the Government, and he would readily adopt them. But let the Ministers be fairly tried. Were the distresses of the country owing to them? What could they do to relieve them? They were not possessed of Aladdin's lamp, and could not convert, distress into prosperity by magic. Some Gentlemen wished for a paper currency instead of gold. Nothing should induce him to vole for such an arrangement. It would only make a fictitious and base currency, without anything stable to support it. It might allay the evil for a year or two, but it should then come on with augmented severity. He should support the measures of Government until he saw something better proposed in their stead.
Mr. Peelsaid, I do not conceive that

469
the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, is disposed to press the Question to a division. So far as I can collect, he is inclined to rest satisfied with the Motion of my hon. friend; and I am therefore relieved from the necessity of making many observations which it would otherwise have been my duty to offer to the House. But the hon. Baronet, in the commencement of his Speech, made a direct appeal to me to which this may be the most convenient time to give some answer. From what I could infer from the outset of the hon. Gentleman's Speech, I did not expect that he would have entered into the general question of the Currency and the measures which might be proposed for establishing it on what he would conceive a proper footing. I thought that the hon. Baronet's motion assumed that the currency, as at present established, must be so maintained, and assuming that the currency was to be so maintained propounded that certain reductions should be made. This is not perhaps the most convenient or fitting opportunity for going into the consideration of that question, and I shall, therefore, not answer in detail the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to me. But I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not from any desire to shrink from the discussion of the question when the proper opportunity shall present itself. When the regular notice shall have been given, and the attention of the House called to the subject in the necessary form, I shall be prepared to approach it with all the deliberation which its importance demands. But I cannot let even this opportunity pass without remarking, that in the very able Speech which the hon. Member had addressed to the House, he has made admissions with repect to the currency, which tend to relieve me from the responsibility of the introduction of the Bill of 1819. For, if the hon. Baronet is prepared to act upon the just and wise principles which he has to-night laid down, were an occasion again to arise similar to that upon which the Bill of 1819 was passed, the hon. Baronet would be bound in consistency and principle to give to me his entire and cordial support. Sir, I beg to declare that whenever I approach the discussion of this great question, considering its delicacy, its complication, and, above all, its importance, I shall forget all political, or rather
470
all party considerations; I shall be inattentive to that violent declamation which ascribes to the measures to which it is opposed the character of iniquity, cruelty, robbery, and fraud. I will ask the House patiently and liberally to consider the position in which we were placed in 1819; and, being content to adopt the principles which the hon. Member for Cumberland has laid down, I will call upon the House to pronounce whether there was any alternative to enable us to avert the evils which then impended, other than that of adopting some measure similar in principle to that of 1819, and the infallible consequence of which must be the infliction of considerable distress. Sir, it was not the measure of 1819, but, as my hon. friend who spoke last has properly and truly said, the measures which preceded the Act of 1819, which imposed the necessity of some decisive measures, and to which must be attributed the evils which have occurred since the change of the currency. We had to consider whether we should revert to a metallic standard, or whether we should continue to maintain an inconvertible Currency. If any standard were adopted, the infliction of some distress was inevitable. But the hon. Member says, that he would establish the Civil List on the scale on which it was in 1820, because the faith of Parliament was pledged to it. I entirely concur with the hon. Member in this sentiment, and I cannot state in terms sufficiently strong the value and importance which I attach to an adherence to national faith. But I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if it would be fair to adhere to engagements made by Parliament to the Crown in 1820, can he refuse to abide by engagements made during the progress of the war with the public creditor? I fully concur in the necessity and propriety of maintaining the national faith inviolate; but I affirm that no engagements made in 1820 are more sacred than the compacts made with the public creditor during the war. I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that, at the time when every loan was made, there was a distinct intimation to the persons advancing their money, that, within six months after the termination of the war a metallic standard would be restored; and the hon. Gentleman, I dare say, will admit that it would be difficult to maintain that, because the national creditor advanced his money in a depreciated paper currency, he is not

471
entitled to reclaim his advances when peace is established, and the restriction upon the Bank removed. Sir, the hon. Gentleman admits that the chief difference between him and me is, that he would take a silver and gold standard, while I take a gold one alone. The present is not the occasion, but the time will come when I shall have an opportunity of stating the reasons which induced the Committee of 1819 to prefer a single standard—and that a standard of gold—to a joint standard; and I can assure the hon. Baronet that if the only difference of opinion between us be, that he would take a joint standard in preference, twenty out of the twenty-five per cent of distress, which he attributes to the restoration of a metallic currency, would have been imposed by his proposition of a joint standard. Sir, another admission was made by the hon. Baronet, of no less importance, and equally true, but not more true than the former, which is this; I trust we shall ever remember the eloquent and impressive sentiments in which the warning was conveyed, which indeed, ought always to be present to our minds. Says the hon. Baronet, "You may issue your Small Note Currency as you did in 1822, and its convertibility into gold will be no security against the evils of which it will be productive. But, as the year 1825 followed that of 1822, if you adopt the same course, the same consequences will ensue, the same languor will follow the same excitement, and similar calamities will be again entailed upon the nation." Sir, I concur, in every portion of the hon. Baronet's sentiments on this point, and revert to my original position, that there is, in fact, no material difference of opinion between us, and that I am entitled to claim, for the Bill of 1819, the hon. Gentleman's candid support, and his powerful advocacy.
There is also another point in which I concur with the hon. Member—namely, that the re-issuing of a small paper currency, although nominally convertible into gold, would only give a temporary and precarious relief, and that any benefit which it could confer, would be dearly paid for. The cheapness of the currency would produce a temporary advantage, but would ultimately occasion the departure of the whole gold currency from the country. Experience has told us that gold and a small paper currency cannot co-exist in a
472
country like this. To raise an immense superstructure of paper nominally payable with gold, would be pregnant with danger; such a state of things might go on for two or three years, but it would end in the departure of all the gold from the country—in excessive and violent changes of funds and other property, and in a sudden panic and simultaneous demand for gold. It would then be no answer to say "We are solvent; give us time, and we can discharge all our obligations." The reply would be, "We have a right to gold at once." There would be a simultaneous rush for gold, and a general bankruptcy and ruin would ensue. A general rush to the public funds would instantaneously take place, and at the same time a simultaneous contraction of the paper currency, and a re-acting of all the calamities of 1825. These considerations ought to induce gentlemen to approve and support the bill of 1819, because I believe that such as I have described would be the consequences of a small paper currency, even though it were nominally convertible into gold. Sir, I conceive that the motion of my hon. friend has a clear claim to the preference of the House, because I feel that, before the House comes to a resolution which would seem to imply that nothing had been done for the relief of the popular burthens, it would be right that the House should be in possession of some account of what the Government has actually done. The hon. Gentleman will also sec that his Motion is calculated to excite extravagant hopes which cannot be realized. He has alluded to the increase of military pay, but, Sir, the pay of the army has not been increased since 1797, and when the hon. Gentleman alluded to those military officers whose pay has been increased, he appears to me to have made rather an injudicious selection. He has spoken of the Governor of New Brunswick, the Bishop of Nova Scotia, the Governor of Sierra Leone, and another, all of which are civil appointments, although they may at times be held by individuals possessing military rank; but the places themselves are civil offices. I believe also that the hon. Gentleman will find that, acting on his own principles, nothing could be done which would effect any material reduction of taxation in that way. The motion of my hon. friend calls for an account of what has been actually done, and the House can

473
then apply it to the Estimates. Sir, I must beg to protest against an inference drawn by a noble Lord who has intimated that this resolution is extorted from his Majesty's Ministers by the speech of the hon. Member. I would refer to the resolution passed in this House in 1821, on a Motion of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, (Mr. Bankes), praying his Majesty that every possible reduction might be effected in the extensive establishments necessary for the maintenance and defence of the kingdom, and more especially in the army and other great institutions essential for the supervision and regulation of the national concerns. Knowing that the Crown acted on this resolution, we can have no objection that the House of Commons should place upon record a resolution recommending that every reduction and retrenchment consistent with the national engagements, and with the advantage of the public service, should be made.—Sir, a great deal has been said on the subject of having taken the advice of different parties in this House. Sir, I am not conscious that there have been any accessions to the Government, in which there have been any compromise of principle, and I confess I see nothing disgraceful in a man, when he approves of the conduct and measures of Government, giving that assistance which may tend to render those measures effectual for the service of the State. For those who compose his Majesty's present Administration I may be permitted to say, that our intention is to persevere in performing that which we feel to be our duty to the country. We are aware of the state of party in this House, and are not ignorant of the consequences which may arise from the combination of parties here. But, let these consequences be what they may, it is our determination to pursue our path firmly and conscientiously. In the course of the last year we performed a great duty, by acting in contradiction to the opinions we had previously entertained, and the course which we had long thought it our duty to pursue. I then thought, and I do still believe, that that step was imposed upon us by a positive and overwhelming necessity, even though, by carrying it into effect we forfeited the confidence and the attachment of many in this House. But, Sir, I cannot now, even to conciliate the good will of that party, or any member of it, say that I repent the step that we have
474
taken. I solemnly declare that subsequent events have convinced me that, by that course, we averted from the country great and awful calamities, the pressure of which would now be felt in aggravation of the distress which is described as universal and severe. Had Parliament refused to grant that long-agitated question of Catholic Emancipation owing to our perseverance or obstinacy, or whatever other name may be given to it at this moment, Ireland and England would be in very different situations from what they now are. I firmly believe that from the settlement of that question have resulted greater benefits than I contemplated, and greater dangers have been averted than any one could have foreseen. There have certainly been individual acts of atrocity which were a disgrace to those concerned in them; but it is not from individual acts that we are to judge of the character or condition of a nation, nor can we form a just or accurate estimate from the exaggerated accounts of those acts of violence, even where they are not altogether destitute of foundation. But I see in the condition of that country the elements of future religious peace and national prosperity. The upper classes of society are falling into an oblivion of past animosities as rapidly as can be expected in so short a time, and the example of those classes is fast extending through the great body of society. Deeply as I regret the loss of the confidence which a portion of the Members of this House have withdrawn from his Majesty's Government, and clearly as I foresee the possible consequences which the combination of parties may lead to, I yet cannot purchase their confidence by expressing a regret for what has occurred. I say this with no feeling of hostility or asperity. I had at the outset a perfect knowledge of the painful consequences which might arise to me individually, and in my public capacity, from proposing the measure of Catholic Emancipation; but if the same junction were again to occur—if the business were to be transacted over again—with still greater deliberation and determination, and with increased preparation to make any personal sacrifice that might be necessary, I would this very night give notice of a Motion for the introduction of such a measure. Sir, we made that concession and that sacrifice for the public good, and for the public good alone; but we have

475
made and we will make no concession and no sacrifices for the purpose of maintaining ourselves in office. We will uphold the established institutions of the country with such salutary and well considered Reform as change of circumstances may render necessary, and so far as shall be consistent with the preservation of the permanent interests of the country. We will propose such measures of retrenchment as can be effected with advantage, but will propose none which cannot be maintained consistently with the honour and just influence of this nation; and I Say with confidence, but with perfect respect, that, whatever may be the consequence of the combination of parties in this House, there is a sufficient fund of good sense prevailing in the country, without reference to ultra Whig or ultra Tory, which will ultimately sanction and confirm the course that has been pursued, and which it is our intention to pursue. [The conclusion of this speech was delivered in an expressively animated manner: and was received with loud cheers.]
Mr. Attwoodsaid, that he must declare, whatever other resolutions were adhered to, that the right hon. Gentleman had now abandoned the grounds upon which he brought in his Bill of 1819. On another occasion he doubted not that he should be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman of the real character and tendency of that Bill, and to make him sensible that there was no principle of national faith which called for the introduction of the metallic standard and the maintenance of salaries at the rate to which they were raised during a depreciated paper currency. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman—supposing that Bill had never been passed—on what scale would the salaries of the servants of the Crown be at present? They would, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, be twenty-five per cent lower than they are, and the public burthens would of course be lessened in the same degree. He did not inquire at present whether the public servants were overpaid or not; the only question was, whether the Bill of 1819 was necessary to vindicate the national honour. He could not entertain the same confidence which Ministers professed they felt in the permanent nature and unchangeable character of their standard, when he found that they were, notwithstanding the admitted alteration of value
476
in almost every article of use or consumption, unwilling to assent to a reduction of their own salaries on a scale corresponding with the depression of the means and necessaries of life. Nor could they plead, in mitigation of their resistance to that which might fairly be termed an equitable arrangement suited to the times, that their salaries had not been augmented in value, from time to time, by the secret operation of the standard adopted, and the alteration of the currency. It was confessed they had been raised and lowered at different periods; of course, contracts had been formed during the prevalence of the higher, and others during the prevalence of the lower, standard. Those formed in the higher, it would not be equitable or just to discharge in the lower, nor to discharge those in the lower formed in the higher standard. There was a great difficulty, he admitted, but something must be done. That difficulty he felt jointly with others; and, in the votes he had hitherto given, or should give, in respect to the present money-system, he professed that he should be actuated by the recollection that the greater number of contracts now in existence had been formed in the higher standard. This had hitherto been his motive in sanctioning by his vote the existing state of things, for purposes of a practical nature, and this, he was resolved, should be his motive, out of respect to existing contracts, and the faith pledged to individuals, until a period of improvement arrived, to which he and most mercantile men looked forward with hourly increasing anxiety.
Mr. Secretary Peel,in explanation, begged to say that an inference had been attempted to be drawn from his declining to enter into details, which was totally unfair—namely, that he had admitted that an alteration had taken place generally, about the period of 1819, to the amount of 25 per cent, or upwards. He begged to say that he never had, either in words, or tacitly, made any such admission, and he was satisfied, neither the hon. Member who last spoke, nor any other who concurred in opinion with that hon. Member, could prove that any such depression then took place. Whilst thus availing himself of the privilege of explaining, he would take this opportunity of saying that he anticipated great advantages from the improvement of the banking system,

477
though decidedly opposed to the issues of notes for a less value than 5l. Indeed, he hesitated not to confess that he hoped and trusted the day would soon arrive, when all the present restrictions on the banking system would be removed.
Mr. Saville Lumleybriefly stated, that he was apprehensive that a standard of gold with a paper circulation was now ill adapted to effect the objects meditated.
Sir James Graham,in reply, observed that he never for a moment could have argued in favour of, or been solicitous for, an inconvertible paper currency. The result of resorting to such an expedient would possibly, if not unavoidably, be an issue of assignats. In his mind the decision of 1819, as to the resumption Of a gold standard, was injudicious, and unsuited to the condition of this country. It appeared as if the article of gold had a tendency to become scarcer, while silver had a contrary tendency. Our standard being gold rendered debts more onerous; and, as this country owed more debt than any other, it was worse calculated than any other for a gold standard. At a proper period, he pledged himself to prove that it would be eminently beneficial to the nation to introduce a different standard—namely, that of silver, which, having a tendency to become abundant, would render the consequences of our past engagements, and the debt, less onerous. He must disclaim having any objects of his own to carry in the proposition he now submitted, or in the opposition he sometimes found it his duty to give to men in power. His ambition was fully satisfied in representing a large and populous county of England. Nor was it true that he was desirous to upset the Duke of Wellington's government. He believed the Duke was, both on account of his profound judgment, and the vigour of his measures, the fittest man in the country to hold the helm of affairs; and he thought that, after the noble Duke had well weighed the temper of the House, his conduct could not fail to be influenced by the very general opinion prevalent among all ranks in favour of a change in the standard. If it should so happen that Members were sent back to their constituents, he believed they would find that out of doors the popular opinion ran very strong in favour of an issue of small notes. The sentiments of his constituents he had reason to believe, were
478
decidedly in favour of the present Government, because they believed that a better could not be founded on its ruins. They thought, however, and so thought he, that to adopt wholesome and salutary measures was within the power of the Legislature, and that it was the province and duty of an effective Government to recommend their adoption to the United Parliament. He professed himself satisfied with the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw his own Motion, and adopt the resolutions proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. G. Dawson'sresolutions were afterwards adopted, and the Committee of Supply appointed for Monday.

MINUTES.
The EARL OF HUNTINGDON took the Oaths and his Scat.—Mr. Sneyd, from the Bank, presented an account of all Exchequer bills and other Government securities purchased by the Bank, or advanced for the public service, in the year ending 5th January 1850: an annual account of Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt; And also; copy of all applications made to the Bank of England for advances to Government, for the year ending 5th of January 1830, with a copy of the minutes of the Court of Directors thereon:

COAL TRADE.
The Marquis of Londonderrypresented a petition of Peers and Commoners, proprietors and lessees of coal mines near the rivers Tyne and Wear, praying for the renewal of the inquiry on the subject of the Coal Trade, which was read, and ordered to be on the Table. His Lordship then moved that the Committee appointed in the last Session, to take into consideration the state of the Coal Trade in the United Kingdom, together with the duties of all descriptions and charges affecting the same, as well in the port of London as in the several other ports of the United Kingdom, and to report to the House, be revived.—In making this Motion, he said, he should not have taken that opportunity to address their Lordships on the subject, had he not been honoured by

393
being intrusted with the petition he had just presented, embracing one of the largest interests of the country, and an interest they were especially called on to support. He had, as their Lordships would recollect, called their attention to the coal trade last Session—a discussion took place—a Committee was appointed, and a large body of evidence was collected, and laid on their Table. This trade embraced nearly all the wealth of the north of England; and the task of again calling their Lordships attention to it might have fallen into abler hands, but into none more zealous; and he should think it his duty to endeavour to persuade their Lordships to re-appoint the committee of last Session, to continue and prosecute the investigation into every part of the trade. Odium had been thrown on the coal-owners, as if they were the cause of the rise of price, particularly during the late severe season; but the fact was, that the coal-owners of the north received no more when coals were high-priced in the market than when they were low. The best means to prove all these points was to have an examination. Coals were never sold at the pit's mouth for more than 16 s. a chaldron, and to the consumers in London they were now charged 50 s. All the difference between 16 s. and 50 s. allowing 10 s. or 11 s. for freight, was engrossed by the extraordinary charges laid on the coals between the pit's mouth and the consumer, in the shape of duties and imposts levied in the port of London. To rectify these abuses, he would call on their Lordships to institute an inquiry. The coal owners laboured under a grievance—not an imaginary grievance, like that partial distress which was felt at one place and not at another—and into this grievance they wished their Lordships to examine. The noble Duke at the head of the Government had already given his attention to the subject, and had seen the profligate waste which occurred about the mines when he was himself in the north. He had seen immense heaps of coal burning to waste in every part of the country. If their Lordships would only establish that coals should be sold by weight instead of by measure, all that waste he had mentioned would be spared. During the recess he had noticed that some petitions had been presented to the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, which he did not mean to refer to with any view of
394
refuting their statements, but only to state that the coal owners were so certain of proving their case before their Lordships, that they did not think it necessary to reply to those petitions. Their Lordships would recollect that a bill was before them last Session for forming a railway to bring coal to the Tees—which was thought so improper, that a noble Lord opposite considered it necessary to move certain resolutions in order to prevent similar bills being passed through that House. When the bill for making the Clarence Rail-way was passed, in which the noble Marquis (Cleveland) took a great interest, it could not be carried into execution, and it remained a dead letter. It was proposed to raise three hundred thousand pounds, but not one hundred thousand pounds could be raised; the parties to the bill then went to the Lord Mayor and Common Council, and asked them to subscribe to open up their field of coals. The City of London, however, knew its interest too well to subscribe, because they knew that it was altogether a job. The Clarence Rail-way Bill was in fact a dead letter. He only mentioned this fact to justify the coal-owners for not having noticed the matter at the time. He had also observed that his noble friend had received some communication from the Coal Committee of the City of London, and he hoped that his noble friend would communicate that to the coal-owners, whose wish it was, to have every facility given to inquiry. He should not have addressed to them at such length, had, he not had the honour to be intrusted with the petition that represented as much wealth, respectability, and talents as any petition to which their Lordships' attention had ever been called. The petition was signed by several noble Peers, by several Members of the other House, and by a number of opulent and respectable men. His Lordship concluded with moving the revival of the Coal Trade Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had no objection to the re-appointment of that Committee, and that it should continue its inquiries, and carry them forward to a conclusion. He would give every attention to the subject; but as his noble friend knew that he had another Committee to attend, that on the East-India affairs, he hoped care would be taken to call the Committee together on days when the

395
Members could attend. As for the communication he had received from the City of London, his noble friend could not expect that he was to state that to the House. He could, however, assure their Lordships that there was nothing in that communication inconsistent with the inquiries of the Committee.
Motion agreed to.

SETTLEMENT OF GREECE.
Lord Hollandsaid— I was, I confess, my Lords, disappointed and surprised on the first day of the Session, to learn from the Lords Commissioners Speech that the pacification and final settlement of Greece was not yet in such a state as to enable his Majesty's Ministers to lay the papers connected with this subject before Parliament. If I were at first disappointed, a very little reflection, in my own mind, allayed my disappointment; and this disappointment was more allayed when I further reflected—considering, as I do, that the proceedings, in this case, were anomalous; that the delay might be considered as an auspicious circumstance, tending to make the final settlement of Greece more advantageous to Europe in general and to this country, and more honourable to his Majesty's Crown. And why, my Lords? For this reason. The unexpected delay occurring in the completion of these arrangements just at the meeting of Parliament, enabled and invited Parliament to express its opinion, as no explanation has been afforded it of the state of the negociation, as to the principles on which it will consider the settlement of Greece advantageous to this country, and honourable to his Majesty's Crown; and I now call on you, my Lords, to seize this opportunity of declaring your sentiments and recording your opinions. The Motion with which I shall conclude, will be to call on your Lordships to admit those principles which I stated on a former evening; and they are so true, that in them all your Lordships must concur. At least, they are so obvious to my mind, that there is no Peer, I believe—and, indeed, no man of sound mind—who will not acquiesce in them; and it will not be necessary for me to take up much of your Lordships' time in bringing you to agree to the sound principles contained in my resolution. But it is not enough to show that these principles are true—your
396
Lordships must also be satisfied that the situation and circumstances of England, as well as the duty and interest of the Crown, make it right and proper now to act on them. I must fairly acknowledge that it is not sufficient to induce Parliament to adopt a proposition, unless it be also shewn that it be expedient. I readily admit, that more is requisite than to prove the truth of my proposition. My resolution may contain sound principles, just and prudent in their application; but it may not be necessary or useful that Parliament should at this time say anything about them. I am bound, I admit, not only to prove that these principles are just, but that your Lordships would, by the expression of your opinion, promote the advantage of the Crown and be of use to the country. To this part of my subject, therefore, I shall more particularly direct your attention. My Lords, in doing this, I am aware that calling on your Lordships to express an opinion on this subject, implies a degree of distrust in his Majesty's advisers, either in the intention or capacity of those intrusted with the the conduct of the negotiation. I fully acknowledge, and, moreover, I will own, that my distrust rests on the grounds of general observation on the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, which observation does not give me confidence in them, particularly as to their conduct in our foreign relations; that it is from distrust—from distrust founded on observing the conduct of his Majesty's Government, particularly their conduct in managing our negociations—and I feel that it would not be fair in me, it would be disingenuous, not to speak explicitly and openly and freely on the subject. I think, in general, it is neither very Parliamentary, nor very fit nor proper, to make the reasons why an individual distrusts his Majesty's Ministers, a subject of discussion. But it is fair that I should state my opinions sincerely; and, therefore, it is necessary that I should say a word or two on the subject. In doing so, (and I mean not to speak but with sincerity), I may say many things which are irksome and disagreeable to particular persons. But I can assure your Lordships, that in expressing myself bluntly, honestly, and sincerely, I have no intention to offend any individual. I can assure your Lordships, and your Lordships will believe me, that in expressing distrust of his Majesty's advisers,

397
as to their foreign policy, it is not done with a view to disturb them in the possession of power, or to establish any systematic opposition to them. To this Government I do not profess any direct or great hostility, nor do I give it any direct or systematic support: to remove them from office is not my object. I gladly acknowledge that his Majesty's present Government has on one important subject done the State great service, I am ready to acknowledge this—though I do not feel that overflowing gratitude which some persons express—but, I may repeat, I can assure your Lordships that I have no wish to place other persons in the situation of the present Ministers; for I expect that they will yet do greater services. Though I distrust these Ministers, I do not move my resolution with any view to remove them from their situation. To the present Government I feel an obligation; because whatever may be their opinions and systems, when they see that the opinions and feelings of the people and of the country are made up against them, they give up their own system, which is a course that deserves commendation. When they have ascertained the temper of Parliament and the feelings of the people, whatever line of policy they may before have resolved to act on, they manifest a laudable deference—they discard all their former professions—they turn round against all their former precepts; and, with a justice and moderation I admire, they do that which is right with a calmness and firmness I can never too much applaud. But when not forced into any particular line of conduct—when there are many paths before them—when, from the inactivity or apathy of the public they are allowed to choose their own course, they generally choose that which is wrong. I have no hostility to the Ministers—I do not wish to put others in their place—I have no such views; I do not "assault" his Majesty's Government; but I wish, from seeing what has been their conduct, that Parliament should admonish the Ministers, and by their voice direct them in that path from which, unless they are admonished, they are sure to go wrong. It is on this ground that I think it necessary, at this the eleventh hour, to call on Parliament to admonish the Ministers, and direct them in what they have to perform. To the first objection which might be made to my Motion, therefore, I have this
398
Reply:—It must be granted to me in argument, that the Ministers do need the interference of Parliament; and, also, that when Parliament interferes, they take the correction willingly—they swallow their physic like good boys, and deserve praise. [laughter] It is necessary, however, that your Lordships should enforce good advice; and it will be impossible for you to adopt my resolution without finding the Ministers fully prepared to admit and adopt it. My Lords, I rest my objection to the conduct of the Ministers upon the results of that conduct in foreign affairs. In the first place, I cannot help remarking, that whatever may be the final pacification of Greece, if it shall be such as I am most anxious to see—if that unfortunate country shall at length have a good Government; it is obvious that if this can now be accomplished, it is demonstrable in argument that the final pacification of that country might have been obtained heretofore more to the honour and advantage of Great Britain, and with less risk to the tranquillity of England, and less risk to the tranquillity of Europe. Immediately after the battle of Navarino, and before the rupture between Russia and Turkey, and before the successes of Russia in Roumelia and Bulgaria, it is obvious that it might have been then achieved by the exertions of the three confederated powers in a better and more efficacious manner than after the war between the two powers, and after the success of their ally in Bulgaria and Roumelia. This is so plain a proposition that it is not necessary to prove it. It is merely a statement of facts of common and plain sense evident to every man. It is only necessary to call to your Lordships' recollection how his Majesty's Government stood at the period when the noble Duke made his first appearance in this House as First Lord of the Treasury. I must call him the First Lord of the Treasury, as that other name sounds, in my opinion, neither English nor constitutional; but if I must use it—when he made his first appearance in the House as Premier, what was the situation then I ask, of Great Britain? She then stood as she always ought to stand—noble and commanding. She was, if not above all her compeers, not excelled by any—she stood the first and foremost of the great powers which had entered into a great confederacy for the benefit of mankind, and for preserving the repose of Europe. And what were the

399
circumstances which placed her in this situation? First, France, which we must always consider as most emulous of our glory—I will not call her our rival—had only recently acceded to the confederacy, induced to do so more by an unwillingness not to be of the party than from any great and comprehensive views of the general good. Russia had consented, and great praise is due to the Government of that day, and to the noble Duke for the part he took in signing the protocol. Russia consented to make a sacrifice of her own interests to our views, and shewed the great value she set on our co-operation by entering into a cordial and friendly alliance. My Lords, our possessions in the Mediterranean, in the vicinity of the theatre of war, gave us a command—gave us a considerable degree of influence—more than either of the other confederates. But above all things, the great respect which the Greeks had never ceased to profess for this country through their long five-years' struggle, secured Great Britain a paramount influence in the confederacy. It was seen in many respects by Russia and France—it induced them to place their squadrons under the command of a gallant English Admiral—and they had reaped the advantage they foresaw—which every body would reap who placed confidence in a British Admiral—they reaped glory and conquest. That Admiral is a great commander. He is a man who will stand high in the pages of our history, and will be spoken of hereafter with great honour. That commander achieved a great victory with an inferior force; with a force even ludicrously inferior he long baffled a superior force; and finally, by as successful an action as is on record of the British navy, he achieved a glorious victory, which elated all the other parties, and seemed likely immediately to promote the views of the three confederated powers concerned in the engagement. Such was then our situation. Look, my Lords, at the contrast now. Let us look at the language and conduct of the Government of the present day. In the first place, as to their language. When the news of that victory reached England, your Lordships will recollect that the present Cabinet had recently been formed, and when the country was to be informed of this victory the vocabulary was ransacked for an ungenerous word to express distrust and disgust of that victory. That word
400
introduced it into the King's Speech that they might tarnish the laurels of the only British commander who had, in modern times led a combined and confederated was even put into the sacred mouth of his Majesty; the Ministers introduced it into the King's Speech—he said the Ministers, for the word was theirs—they force to as great a victory as I ever recollect in our naval annals. It was only in this country that this victory was called "untoward." The French King spoke of it in very different language; and the Emperor of Russia distinctly and directly approved of it. The Ministers called it "untoward." But why, when it was so well calculated to promote the great end the confederates had in view, and even bring the affairs of Greece to a happy conclusion? In this manner, then, my Lords, were the prospects of Greece blighted—its hopes disappointed, and its expectations frustrated by that single word "untoward." I am not, as I have already said, in the possession of any papers: neither have I any information by which I could lay before you the exact succession of the dates of those events which I have mentioned, or to which I may hereafter have occasion to refer. It is not from any official documents, or from any thing more than common rumour, that I state a blockade of the Dardanelles was proposed; but whether I have it, or have it not from such sources, it is a matter of public notoriety, announced in the newspapers. In this it was understood the British Administration acquiesced; Russia was the active party, France did not object. But it was maintained that the permanent blockade was not to be agreed to; for the Turks would be more likely to yield to the wishes of the three allied powers, if they would only sit still with their hands before them, and let those said Turks commit every conceivable cruelty they chose upon those unfortunate beings whom they thought proper to designate as their subjects. There was a difficulty about this proposed blockade of the Dardanelles. If it had originated with the English, all that difficulty would have been removed; and if Great Britain had only been true to its ancient ally, as the Turks were called, the weakness and humiliation of the Turks would not have been exposed—not that I feel, I confess, as much regret at the misfortunes of the Ottomans as perhaps other noble Lords now in this House, Amongst

401
other causes of regret arising from the manner in which this extraordinary course of public policy has involved us is, that whereas we might have received the confidence and gratitude of Russia in the exercise of the discretion intrusted to us, we have, by an opposite policy from that which common sense and common prudence dictated, given her reason to suppose that we entertain against her a secret enmity, and thus added further causes of excitement to that hostile temper—if such exist—which it would have been for our honour and advantage to use every exertion to allay. But though we talked much of our ancient ally, our language almost the next moment was of the most discouraging character—the whole of our conduct, both to the Turks and the Greeks, was such as both were entitled to complain of—our language to the Greeks at the most critical moment was cold and freezing, sufficient to damp and chill the most ardent spirit. It reminds me of the hacknied passage of Virgil—as if profane hands were never to touch the symbol of wisdom—
"Ex illo fluere ac retro sublapsa referri
Spes Danaûm."
It then seemed as if the Greeks were in a worse situation than before. The noble Duke said no troops should be sent to them; but then they replied, if you do not send us troops, send us money. To this his answer was, practically, you shall have neither—no troops shall enter the country. But France and Russia advanced, saying to England, though you do not send troops, or send money, allow us to do it; instantly thereupon Great Britain interposes, saying, that to assent to any such principle as that one or two members of a triple alliance should act without the privity and consent of the third, was not to be for a moment endured; that to make such a proposition was nothing less than to propose the utter destruction of the whole treaty; it would be, the British Government alleged, contrary to the words and spirit of the bond. I do not know but that there is some colour for giving to the treaty that interpretation. It was perfectly true, that if one party obstinately held out, the others in good faith were not at liberty to move an inch—they must act together, or not at all; but what was to prevent one of the parties, by consent, enabling the others to do what the occasion demanded? Why should England say no money and no troops are to be sent put to Greece, because I am not in a con-
402
dition to send either? Here, then, was England assuming to herself the harsh and disagreeable office of saying to a poorer and a weaker country—one that had scarcely yet assumed the form of a State—True, you are in distress and difficulty—you are struggling with powerful enemies—you have looked up to me in an especial manner for protection and countenance in the hour of your adversity; but from me you shall receive none—not only will I not advance you a single shilling, nor send you one man for your protection, but I will interfere to prevent others doing so, however willing they might be; and willing they were, but England forbade it. At one time she held one language, at another time she adopted a different tone—she went through every note in the gamut; no instrument could play so many tunes. It was in vain that her allies proposed to send troops. No, said the noble Duke—not a man shall move. The French said, send your own troops. The noble Duke said, no. Then let us. Oh! that would be ten times worse—[No, no! from the Duke of Wellington]. I see the noble Duke denies my statement; and from the eagerness with which he does so, I am, I suppose, to conclude, that though wrong in that, I am right in all else, seeing that up to this time he has not expressed the slightest dissent. At length troops were sent; and when they arrived, our commander in the Mediterranean immediately, with the highest judgment and promptitude, took advantage of that favourable occurrence to negociate with the Pacha of Egypt, with a view to effect the recall of his barbarous troops from the Morea, and a treaty for their evacuation of that territory was signed; but the ink with which that treaty was signed had scarcely time to dry when that gallant officer was superseded in his command and recalled. The moment the French troops landed, Ibrahim Pacha quitted the Morea. Therefore the assertion was perfectly well founded that the French had cleared the Morea. But all that time a horrible warfare was going on in other parts of Greece, and the commander who had endeavoured to rescue Athens and the other districts exposed to that warfare, was recalled by the British Government. In the meanwhile an earnest remonstrance on the part of Greece was forwarded to Paris, but the effect of that was defeated. I will not say whether it was right or wrong, but this I will gay, that it produced

403
a withering influence upon the victory at Navarin; it distracted the councils of the Greeks—it estranged their minds from that particular country which they had chosen for their ally and protector—that country which, at the moment most important to their success, recalled the gallant commander who had done them the highest services they had ever experienced at the hands of foreigners. I need not tell your Lordships that this had a most ruinous effect upon the fortunes of anew State endeavouring to establish itself in Europe. If it had been encouraged and supported as it ought, its original predilections and attachment to this country cherished, how different would have been the result, and how advantageous to England, I will leave your Lordships to judge. But Russia stepped in, and it was not with the most tardy, and, if I may so speak, unwilling submission that England admitted an interference obviously repugnant to the feelings of her Government. Was that, I put it to your Lordships, the conduct which ought to have been pursued by the Ministers of a great powerful and benevolent monarch, mediating in a conflict between violence and barbarism on the one side, and a suffering and Christian people on the other? In coming forward to censure the conduct which Ministers have pursued on this occasion, and throughout the whole of this interesting contest, I admit that I am bound to shew, by means of indisputable facts and just reasoning, that the conduct they have pursued is not worthy a great nation, or one professing to act upon principles of good faith; and I trust that, so far as I have gone, I have succeeded; and I expect that in what I have to go through I shall not fail to establish the positions for which I contend. I admit that we were bound to Turkey to a certain extent—that I acknowledge is true; and it is equally true, to adopt the language of a noble Lord when the Address was moved—that I am no lover of the Turk, but I am a lover of good faith—and I am a lover of fair dealing and of honourable character—and I never can bring myself to think that it is consistent with the honour and character of Great Britain to have behaved even to Turkey as she has done. Has not her conduct been that of deceitful and hollow friendship? Has not England towards Turkey been guilty of base and pusillanimous desertion? Has she not shrunk from the support of her ally in the moment of adversity and dis-
404
tress? On that memorable day, when the noble Duke took his seat in this House as First Lord of the Treasury, it was stated to us as historical truth that the Turk was our ancient ally, and not only our ancient ally, but one, the integrity of whose empire and dominions we were bound by the ties of interest and the faith of treaties to maintain. Yes, my Lords, that the maintenance of that empire in Europe was essential to the balance of Europe; and finally, that it was alike our duty and our interest to maintain that empire in such a situation as that it should be capable of defending itself. Towards the close of the same session similar language was held by the noble Secretary. He, indeed, did not dwell upon the antiquity of the alliance—there his reputation would have been at stake; as President of the Antiquarian Society he was not forward to contend for the antiquity of the alliance, for he had archives to refer to, and possibly he there found that this most ancient alliance was only of twenty or thirty years' standing. Still the noble Secretary, though discreetly suppressing any allusion to the remote origin of this alliance, repeated as emphatically as the noble Duke had done, that it was essential to the balance of Europe that there should not be any diminution of the power of the Turk, or any diminution of his influence in the affairs of Europe; and that it was the duty of his Majesty's advisers to do all in their power to prevent that diminution.
I will not waste the time of your Lordships with inquiries, at this time of day, into the justice or the folly of those opinions, for facts have before now pretty fully disclosed their true character as a policy unknown to the practice of British statesmen, and decidedly opposed to the dicta of all the great men of the last century. However, such were the avowed opinions of the responsible advisers of the Crown, and it now remains to be seen how far their conduct accorded with that opinion; and if, upon examination, they had not been found to act up to it, what opinion must be formed of their wisdom and their principles? It must be fully in the recollection of your Lordships, that not very long since a noble Lord, familiar with the affairs of the East of Europe, stated in this House, that the language of his Majesty's Government was the subject of unreserved discussion with the Ottoman Porte—that the Government of Constan-

405
tinople freely canvassed what was said in this House, and minutely weighed and canvassed the language of the Sovereign and the Ministers. From this the interference was obvious, that though the Turks might have found themselves engaged in a war with Russia, their ancient ally, England, would come to their assistance in the moment of need. The Turks might well think, though the formidable power of Russia might threaten them, that yet there was a great power—a great maritime power, whom she might always regard as her confederate whenever real danger was at hand. The Turk might say, I have a faithful and an ancient ally, in whom I may confide, who has declared herself bound by treaties and determined by interest to preserve the integrity of my empire in Europe, and who at the first moment of her interference will put my enemy to flight. Thus was the Ottoman Porte deluded—thus was it induced to persist in a ruinous course buoyed up as it was by the adulation and the praises of his Majesty's Government, but how grievously and fatally was it deceived, and at what a distressing moment was that deceit first felt, when the altered language and vacillating conduct of the King's Government announced to them that from their firm friend, their ancient ally, they had nothing to hope. In the blockade, for instance, of Treviso by the Greeks, it was alleged that that was out of the line of the proposed neutrality. Some noble Lords were great friends to a blockade, for the blockade of Oporto by Don Miguel had been acknowledged with almost breathless haste; and others were great lovers of a neutrality as was seen in the instance of Terceira. In the same manner his Majesty's Government sometimes supported the Greek, and anon gave encouragement to the Turk, and both were sufferers from her hollow friendship, and her substantial enmity. For my part, I never could understand the policy which made this country send an Ambassador to Constantinople, when the Porte would not consent to concession of any kind. Then look, my Lords, to the position to which the conduct of the British Government reduced the Ottoman Porte. After the Russians passed the Balkan, they made an offer of treating with the Turks—to that the Government of Constantinople sent no answer, good or bad, not even an attempt at an evasive
406
reply. The Sultan did that which Louis 18th did on the return of Buonaparte from Elba; he said, "I will never desert my capital, rather than do so, I will lay down my life at the gate of St. Denis. I will contest its safety to the latest moment;" with a great deal more talk of a similar kind. So when the Russians arrived at Adrianople what said the Turk? Why that he would die within the sacred precincts of St. Sophia, and how did all this end? Just as such boasting generally does, in complete submission—victory succeeded victory, and all this time what was passing in the mind of the Turk? He must have soliloquized somewhat after this fashion—"True I am in great jeopardy—I am encompassed with danger and difficulty—the enemy is at my gate; but then I have an old friend, an ancient ally, who has employed the strongest expressions which his language affords, to prove how strongly he feels bound to preserve the integrity of my empire by every obligation of honour and of interest—how necessary the maintenance of my Empire is to the preservation of the balance of Europe; and now, since I have lately become better instructed in the customs of the Christians, I learn that the preservation of that balance of Europe, is the sole and only reason for keeping up a standing army"—as he might easily have seen from the preamble to the Mutiny Act. He then might go on to say—"My ally and faithful friend has not, it is true, large armies at his disposal; but then he is master of a powerful fleet, and capable of transmitting assistance in more forms than one: and as a proof of the sincerity of his desire to afford me the necessary aid when the proper moment shall arrive, he has sent the brother of his Reis Effendi to consult with my Reis Effendi for the safety of my Throne and my dominions, and to give them the benefit of his advice and information. Besides, the mere name of my ancient ally will be, in itself, enough to intimidate the foe—like Achilles, his shout from the walls will suffice to put the hostile army to flight." Well, then, my Lords, the brother of the Reis Effendi goes out as an Ambassador, and, after a few secret communications, and so on, the British Ambassador gives his final advice, and what does that turn out to be?—After all that was said about ancient treaties, and the balance of Europe, and

407
the necessity of preserving Turkish influence in European affairs, what is the advice of the British Ambassador?—nothing more nor less than unconditional submission. One point still remained, which might be urged for the interest of Turkey—the mere nominal Sovereignty over Greece, and the payment of a small tribute. Yet even that point was struck out, and the interests of Turkey totally disregarded, and all this time the British Government told the Turk that they could not help what was going forward; and then when those hostilities ended in the perfect humiliation of the Turkish power, the Minister comes to Parliament, and says he has great satisfaction in announcing the termination of hostilities, and such a termination, too, in the annihilation of their old and faithful ally. Such are the speeches of his Majesty's Ministers. Now, my Lords, is not this a fair illustration of the conduct of his Majesty's Government in the position into which they have brought this country with relation to Turkey, and I should gladly be instructed as to the manner in which that position can be made to consist with the true interest of the country, the justice of Parliament, or the honour of the Crown, however convenient to themselves his Majesty's Ministers might have supposed it. Having occupied so much of your Lordships' time, I shall not now go through the various considerations that suggest themselves as to the manner in which these proceedings are likely to affect our relations with Russia. As respects France it was extremely ill-timed, calculated to excite the most injurious suspicions, and likely to alienate us from the Government and inhabitants of that country to an extent the consequences of which we yet severely experience. There is one observation with respect to Russia, which I cannot avoid making, that much stress has been laid upon our trade with the Black Sea. Now with the exception of Azof, which can scarcely be considered necessary to except, we had no trade with the Black Sea while it was in the hands of Turkey; but from the moment Russia got possession of it, we might be said to have the command of the Black Sea, for one ship of this country that before traded to the Black Sea, thirty-four were now found in its ports. The whole of our policy towards Russia has been, during this contest,
408
such as almost to exceed the bounds of credibility, did not the facts stand upon evidence the most unquestionable. Our conduct with respect to that country was the acme of imbecility. I will apply to this case the lines of a writer, Ausonius, who, though he writes in verse, is not very poetical, yet with some success he contrasts a wise and foolish man—
Quid prudentis opus? cui possis nolle nocere.
Quid stulti proprium est? non posse et velle nocere.
My Lords, the day will come when we shall rue the errors of which our Government have been guilty—when our treatment of France, a country that had throughout this affair, acted a generous as well as a friendly part—when our neglect of the opportunity of adding Candia to the territories of Greece; and when our omission to strengthen the young State, by means of Egypt, will react upon ourselves with a force of which no man can see the remote consequences. I think, my Lords, I have already laid sufficient grounds to justify the assertion that this Government has acted disingenuously. I now come to a part of the subject on which it is necessary that I should acknowledge I speak a good deal from conjecture. I have no private sources of information; no access to official papers; no man in the House has taken less pains than I have to ascertain what is going on. I really know nothing but what is derived from the current conversation of the day, and from the newspapers—for, my Lords, newspapers will continue to write, notwithstanding the prosecutions of the noble Duke. In this way these rumours have been put forth, to which I am anxious to call the attention of Parliament. They are to this effect:—that there is an intention to contract within still narrower limits the territory of Greece than even those within which it was at first understood that the boundaries of the young State were to be confined; and I the more particularly address myself to this, as there is at the present moment something very like civil war going on in Candia, of a kind the most disgraceful to humanity; and as, apart from other reasons, that island has Greeks for the major part of its inhabitants, I conceive that those who had to deal with the boundaries of Greece were guilty of an egregious error, in not negociating for Candia's being included within its limits.

409
But it was enough for us to have to execute the Treaty of the 6th July, and that even in doing that we had better do it, if possible, without plucking a feather from the Turk—to do him, in short, as little injury as possible. As to our conduct towards Russia, it was little less than downright madness; it was not fair with respect to any Government, and it was peculiarly impolitic with regard to such a one as that of Russia. The great principle, my Lords, for which I have been contending, is this, that we have been guilty of the grossest error in not securing to Greece a strong Government, and a territory sufficient for the maintenance of its own independence. The establishment of a weak power in the Mediterranean is worse than nugatory. The name of an illustrious Prince (Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg) has been mentioned in connection with this subject. The intellectual qualifications of that illustrious personage for the situation in question are well known. He has had the advantage of ten or twelve years' experience of free institutions in this country, and it is rumoured that he is still designated by the wishes of the people of Greece, as the individual most to be desired, and that he even was so before the Protocol of the 6th of July. Of this, however, I profess to know nothing, but the general rumour upon this subject is so strong, and the concurrent evidence in its favour proceeding from every quarter, that I cannot entertain any doubt as to the wishes of the Greek people. I believe that the Greeks have too much sense to adopt any other form of Government than that of a limited monarchy; but let us reflect upon the cruel situation of the head of that Government, if, before he takes upon himself that authority, the affairs of Greece, in the most extended sense, are not completely settled. Observe what is the present condition of Candia, in the nominal possession of the Turks. It is peopled by Greeks, who are now in a state of insurrection; the strong places are in the hands of the Turks, but commotions already prevail, and a general civil war is on the point of breaking out in the island. However wise, however prudent, however just, the new head of the Greek Government may be, he will be a stranger to the people, and you may compel him to adopt a line of conduct he would not otherwise choose. He must, in the first instance,
410
either connive at his own subjects carrying on clandestine intercourse with the insurgents in Candia, and then the predatory warfare, with all its outrages revolting to human nature, must be continued, for he must openly espouse the cause of his oppressed brethren and subjects. If such be his determination, what then, will be the consequence? Peace? No—a new war, which may embroil all the powers of Europe in the dispute, and then the Treaty will have to be re-settled, and all that has been done, having been undone, will have to be done again. The Sovereign of Greece may take a third course—he may say, "I will maintain a strict neutrality, and prevent the consequence of any assistance from my Empire." I suppose that he will be allowed to pursue vessels on the high seas, that have left his ports for the purpose of carrying arms or stores to Candia; and if he maintain that strict neutrality, what is it but folding his arms in apathy before him, and seeing his brethren in language, in manners, and in country, murdered and massacred by wholesale? If any, the slightest, suspicion be felt that such will be the situation of the Potentate of Greece, it is the duty and right of Parliament to interfere, and to express a decided opinion before the great work is attempted to be completed. There is another report which I have heard, and which I earnestly hope is without foundation. Perhaps the suggestion of that evil genius which seems to have hovered unseen over all who have interfered in this question—
Infert se septus nebulâ, mirabile dictu
Per medios, miscetque viris: neque cernitur ulli.
That care is to be taken that the Government of Greece shall be in a particular form—that whoever may hold the reins of authority, he is not to consult the wants and wishes of the people, but is to obey the dictation of others. That is the rumour; and any such intention I must deprecate. Some fears of the Pope or of the King of Naples (for I suppose Austria does not venture to stand forward and avow her own apprehensions on the subject), are supposed to have led to this determination. Such an abominable, such a disgusting principle of action, I hope in God will never guide the Ministers of this country. I do not, and cannot suspect them of it; but I think, nevertheless, that Parliament ought to interpose, in

411
order to put them on their guard, and to declare, in the words of my Resolution, that the Government of Greece ought to be established "with full powers to adopt laws and institutions suited to the wants and wishes of the people." I have gone a greater length than I intended into the statement of my views, and I have therefore to apologise to your Lordships; but I maintain the undoubted right of the House to adopt this course as the hereditary Counsellors of his Majesty. It was said that such a course was unprecedented. I thought I remembered instances of the kind, but I would not trust my memory, and looking through the Journals, I found precedents enough to overwhelm anybody. I shall not, therefore, further fatigue your Lordships by producing or explaining any of them; but I will conclude with moving, that it be resolved—"That no pacification or settlement of Greece will appear to this House permanently advantageous to the interests of Europe, or honourable to his Majesty's Crown, which does not give to that country a territory sufficient for national defence both by land and sea, and which does not establish therein a Government with full powers to adapt its laws and institutions to the wants and wishes of the people, and to protect its subjects from all foreign interference in their domestic concerns."
The Earl of Aberdeenrose and said,—I had hoped that the declaration in his Majesty's Speech, by which Parliament was informed that the King had concerted measures with his Allies for the pacification and final settlement of Greece, and the expression of a confident hope on the part of his Majesty that it would be in his power speedily to lay before Parliament the particulars of that arrangement, would have been sufficient to repress, for a time at least, the impatience of noble Lords to enter into a discussion of this subject. But the noble Baron having been unable to resist the temptation of such an inviting topic, has, in my opinion brought it before the House in a manner certainly most unusual, and which can only be justified by a well-founded suspicion of those whose duty it is more immediately to advise the Crown. To warrant such a proceeding, the noble Baron must suppose, with apparent reason, that we are either indifferent to the honour of the Crown, or unwilling to carry into effect the stipulations of Treaties by which we profess to be bound.
412
Now where, let me ask, is the proof to justify any such suspicion? What right has the noble Baron to entertain it, and how has any thing that has occurred since his Majesty was advised by his present Ministers led to any such conclusion? The noble Viscount who spoke on a former night (Goderich), interested as he naturally was in the execution of that Treaty, which now engages attention, and which your Lordships are desirous to be fulfilled, admitted, with the fairness and candour belonging to him, that the acquiescence of Great Britain in the French expedition to the Morea was a sufficient proof of the desire of this Government to see its provisions adopted. Had we not been disposed to attend to the spirit of that Treaty, most certainly by the letter of it, we might have forbidden the departure of a single soldier from France. We gave this proof, therefore, of our desire to see it carried into execution, and in the whole of our conduct we have afforded no ground whatever for the suspicion which the noble Baron entertains of our sincerity. But if his motion be extraordinary after the assurances from the Throne, and in the present state of our foreign negociations, it is still more extraordinary when we come to examine its real character and nature. By proposing a vote, that in constituting this new State we shall give it certain capacities, dimensions and powers, he sanctions an act of wanton spoliation on a friendly nation, without the slightest pretext to justify it. The noble Baron speaks as if there were some huge, newly-discovered continent to be partitioned, and forgets the real stipulations of the Treaty of London. He forgets that that Treaty does not profess to have in view the independence of Greece to any extent. It is a Treaty for the pacification of Greece. I see in it the expression of various motives operating upon the high contracting parties, not one of which has relation to the independence of Greece. If, then, from a change of circumstances, we have been able to deviate from the strict line of the Treaty, and uniformly deviating in favour of the Greek population, it cannot be said that we have been reluctant to carry into effect the stipulations of the Treaty of London. So much to the contrary has been our conduct, that we have gone beyond the expectations of the most sanguine friends of the Greeks: those who framed the Treaty never could have entertained

413
the shadow of a hope that we should have been able to go so far. The noble Baron also charged us with unnecessary and, as he contended, intentional delay in the execution of this work. Without wishing to object to the Treaty to which we are parties, and without wishing to criticise it too narrowly, I must request your Lordships candidly to reflect on the nature of that Treaty: observe how undefined it is in its object, how necessarily uncertain in its means of execution, and then you will be aware how extremely difficult it must be to give immediate effect to desires so vaguely specified. Recollecting who are the parties to the Treaty, and adverting to the progress made under it, your Lordships will admit that in two years as much has been done as could be reasonably expected in a work of this nature. But the noble Baron says that we are indebted for that progress to the arms of Russia; but he is greatly mistaken. There is, no doubt, not a shadow of doubt, that but for the occurrence of the war with Turkey, the object of the Treaty would have been more speedily accomplished. As it is, the result of the war will not have operated on the execution of the terms of the Treaty. The noble Baron has given a recital of facts, but so incorrect and confused, as to the time and manner in which events occurred, that it is very difficult to follow him; but he has accused Ministers of not giving immediate effect to this Treaty after the conflict in the Bay of Navarino. Although the noble Baron professes to be so imperfectly informed, I apprehend it is sufficiently notorious to all the world, that the present Ministers had nothing to do with the affairs of Government until some time after that event: when, too, he stigmatizes the conduct pursued towards the gallant officer engaged on that occasion, he may have heard, however imperfectly informed", that the present Ministers sent out an inquiry, and are not in any way responsible for the result. As to the gallantry displayed at Navarino, no man ever entertained a doubt—the doubt was as to the justification in taking such a step. The noble Baron has said, that when first the proposal was made to send French troops to the Morea, Ministers objected to it. They unquestionably did so in the first instance, and why? They objected because a plan had been already concerted by three powers, by which the same
414
object was to be attained by naval means—by means of a naval blockade. Were not Ministers, then, justified in objecting? Did not the convention between the English Admiral and the Pacha of Egypt actually effect the evacuation of the Morea before the arrival of the French troops? This fact establishes that we were right in resisting the expedition on the ground that it was not necessary, for means existed of accomplishing that object independent of any expedition. In one part of his speech the noble Baron has urged, in very strange terms, the necessity of extending the new State of Greece so as to include the Island of Candia; and having intimated that he would with pleasure have seen a Russian army in possession of Constantinople, of course he cannot be expected to feel any difficulty regarding-the transference of Candia. But looking still to the Treaty of the 6th July as our guide (for the noble Lord and I can never agree; we seem to be as opposite as different parts of the world) I say that I consider the honour of the Crown to be concerned in the execution of the engagements of the Crown. The noble Lord seems to have some notion that this new State should be of certain dimensions, and that to make them so the Island of Candia must be taken from Turkey. Upon that part of the subject, as well as all the rest, the noble Baron seems to be very imperfectly informed. The existence of any war at all in Candia is to be attributed to ourselves and to our allies: at the date of the Treaty of London that island was tranquil: a mountainous district in such part of the world indeed was always in that state of insubordination which is too frequent in Turkish provinces; but Candia, at the date of the Treaty of London, was as tranquil as it had ever been under the Turks. In the execution of the blockade it was found necessary to establish the blockade of Candia; and what was the effect of it? The Greek pirates were driven to take refuge with their brethren in the mountains; and this was the signal for excesses and the commencement of a civil war. By means of assistance of money and men from the Provisional Government of Greece, a war was kept up, which is not yet entirely at an end. That was a state of hostility, as I said, arising out of the Treaty of London and the conduct of the Allies. The noble Baron has also alluded to a report, if pos-

415
sible more inaccurate than most of those on which he has founded his motion; he has supposed that there is some intention to interfere with the establishment of the form of Government most desired by the Greeks, and this design he has gratuitously attributed to that demon that seems to haunt his Lordship's thoughts whenever he talks of foreign politics, and which he imagines has influenced us to adopt a course he holds in abhorrence. If he alludes to Austria, I can assure him that Austria has had about as much to do with the settlement of Greece as the noble Baron has had, or not so much, indeed. I deprecate any interference with the internal Government of the new State; for God's sake let the Prince and the People settle their institutions for themselves. We must not force our institutions upon them, but give them full liberty to act as they please, and to found a constitution for themselves adapted to their wants and wishes. On that head, therefore, the noble Baron need not be in any state of uneasiness. The noble Baron has not omitted to renew his charges, in consequence of the opinions expressed by my noble friend near me (the Duke of Wellington) and myself, upon the importance of preserving the Turkish Empire. Those opinions I have no objection to repeat; and I therefore regret the change recently effected in the relative position of that power, as compared with its neighbours. I do not regret it from any love of the Turks or of the Turkish Government—God forbid! I have seen and know the effect of the barbarous rule existing there: and nobody can be more alive to the horrors with which it abounds. But give me leave to say, that the improvement of Turkey may be purchased at too dear a rate; and I still think that the conquest of that country would be paying dear indeed for the amelioration of its condition. The power of Turkey has been considerably weakened, and it remains to be seen how it may be affected by the change, and whether the apprehensions entertained are warranted. The noble Baron treats these opinions with ineffable contempt—as notions not to be tolerated in a Member of this House; but surely he must have forgotten that they are not only not new, but that they have been always entertained by this Government. By no man have they been more strongly felt than by a right hon. gentle-
416
man for whom the noble Baron naturally feels the greatest regard and the highest veneration—the late Mr. Fox—who declared that he was not only most anxious for the independence of the Turkish Empire, but that he was ready to guarantee its integrity. With this authority on our side I do not think that the noble Baron is again likely to treat us with such supreme scorn because we profess the same opinions, not for the sake of the Turks, but for the sake of the peace of Europe.
The noble Baron has also drawn a humorous picture of the futility of our friendship and influence in the progress and termination of the late war: upon that point it does not become me to speak decisively; but with all the noble Baron's affectation of imperfect information upon that subject, I know that he has good sources of information, and to those sources I would refer him for better information upon this matter. He will learn from those sources whether the charges which he has made are sanctioned by the facts; whether he is right in supposing that we gave the Sultan any encouragement in his resistance to Russia; whether we encouraged Russia with one hand, while with the other we were stimulating Turkey to make resistance. Let him consult the sources of his information, and say whether he is right in making us responsible for the war. But I defy him to any such proofs. I maintain that so far from playing such a part, before and at the commencement of the war we saw the only result which could follow from it; but the state of things preceding the war, and the circumstance of there being no Minister at Constantinople, made communication with it very difficult. At the end of the first campaign, though there were many in this country who thought that the Russians had partially failed, we did not alter our tone; we still kept on in a style of urgent remonstrance and advice to the Porte to accept, by all means, the pacific overtures of Russia, and to conclude a peace. Therefore the obstinacy and infatuation of that Government having brought them to a pass which cannot be looked at with indifference by the rest of Europe, is it fair to lay at our doors such a result? The noble lord has also been pleased to characterise our whole conduct, upon this and other public matters connected with our relations with foreign powers, as disgraceful to the country, and calculated to lower

417
us in the eyes of the world. Our policy he deems to have been imbecile, puerile, and pusillanimous. Now these, though hard epithets, were mere assertions of the noble Lord unsupported by proof. The fact is, that upon the whole subject of our foreign policy, and particularly upon this, I feel greatly at a loss how to answer the noble Lord. These taunts, I am afraid, produce upon the minds of your Lordships a painful effect; and so they would upon mine, my Lords, if I heard them now for the first time. But ever since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, which is for the last twenty-five years, I have been so accustomed to those sorts of accusations, in peace and in war, when we were opposed to a single power—or, single-handed, strove against all Europe—or when, by the aid of my noble friend near me, were able to conclude a triumphant peace with our allies—that they have now little value in them. I do not pretend to answer these accusations, all I wish to say is, that upon the subject of foreign policy, I prefer the noble Lord's proofs to his assertions. I am afraid the noble Lord will obtain but little credit when he charges an Administration, at the head of which is my noble friend, with imbecility and pusillanimity. We are disposed to peace, and this is the effect of our position. For what is the advantage of the real power and inexhaustible resources of this country if they do not enable us to pursue a course which with feebler powers would be impossible? The noble Lord mistakes if he thinks that our conduct has been misunderstood by the powers with whom we have been in communication. Let him but apply to the best sources of information, and he will find that we have lost nothing with those powers by the temperate and even cautious policy which we have pursued; at the same time never losing sight of the honour of the Crown, in our determination to preserve peace. I ask you whether, if we had followed the noble Lord's suggestions, we could have got through the difficulties which we have gone through? This was our policy, and has been respected by those powers, who, the noble Lord, no doubt, thinks despise us, and by all the world whose respect we value. I can now only repeat to the noble Lord, that we mean to pursue the same policy; that we will, above all, abstain from that restless, meddling policy, which might embroil us in war with Russia, and
418
probably with all Europe also. The noble Lord, throughout his speech, seemed to feel that he had made a ground for your Lordships to act upon. He seemed to think it enough to justify his motion by a precedent; but these are not grounds enough for you to act on. Under these circumstances, then, in which this motion is brought forward, and feeling it to be impossible for me to explain the particulars of an arrangement which is promised in a short time to be laid before you—feeling it impossible, also, to correct the errors and mistakes of the noble Lord without committing myself to a statement of the whole case, I entreat your Lordships not to vote for this Motion, and thereby affirm a suspicion, unfounded and unwarranted, against his Majesty's Government, upon a statement which will be proved to be fallacious. For all these reasons, I think it my duty to move the previous question upon this Motion.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, he could not but contrast the professions of Ministers with their acts in relation to the invasion of Turkey by the Russians; upon the one hand they professed to avoid war, while upon the other they held out a positive threat, when the Russians were at Adrianople, that if they advanced to Constantinople they would sail up the Dardanelles. This step was hazardous, and exposed them to all the consequences of a war. He should support the Motion.
Lord Melbournesaid, in his opinion, the great question on the Turkish war was, whether the integrity of that Empire was worth preserving at the risk of a war with Russia? If, upon that question, Ministers had made up their minds in the affirmative, they ought to have pursued their object at all events. Such, he believed, was the view which the noble Duke took of the question.—But, if Government had decided not to abide the risk, they ought not, in any case, to have given the least encouragement to the Turks to resist, as, unfortunately, some expressions in the speech of the noble Duke, at the begining of the Session, had the effect of doing. He should not now discuss the question; but he wished to call the attention of the House to one important fact. Turkey had been represented as playing the most blind and stupid part throughout this war; but was this the fact? Towards Russia only was she undoubtedly blind; for immediately after

419
the noble Duke came into power, Turkey violated the Treaty of Akermann, which gave the Russians a right to go to war. But what was the conduct of Turkey towards this country and France?—She bore every thing. She bore the Protocol signed by the noble Duke; she bore the Treaty of July; she bore the expedition to the Morea. The only solution of this inconsistency was, that she was encouraged by this country and France to resist Russia. He did not mean to say distinctly that any pledge had been given—he would not impute such perfidy towards Russia to the British Government; but he fully believed that the Turks were given to understand that if they resisted they would be supported. His honble. friend, the noble Secretary, had taken credit to Ministers for going farther than the letter of the Treaty; but was it forgotten that circumstances, had very much altered since the making of that Treaty? With respect to Greece—he hoped that it would not be made a blot in the list of States, nor an encumbrance amongst the number of our friends, but a substantial and useful ally. He was glad to hear that there was no intention of interfering with the internal Government of the new State, but that it should be at liberty to adopt such institutions as it pleased. That was the right course for this country to pursue; and he was delighted with the distinct assurance that there was no intention of interfering with the internal affairs of this rising government.
Lord Goderichbegged to congratulate the Government upon the declaration which they had made of neutrality, as concerned the internal affairs of the new Government of Greece. He hoped, however, that our legitimate influence would be used to prevent any other power from shackling that people in the choice of their institutions. We ought to persuade them to adopt our own institutions, if it were only to show the world that we bear with them less as grievances than cherish them as blessings. Such a gift to the new State would be consistent with our national greatness and the public interest. He should support the Motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid,—My Lords, although perfectly satisfied with the defence of the Government which the speech of my noble friend has afforded, yet, as some things have been stated since he sat down, more particularly by
420
the noble Lord upon the second bench, whom, if he will allow me, I will call my noble friend (Lord Melbourne), I shall trouble you with a very few words upon this occasion. My Lords, his Majesty, in his Speech from the Throne, delivered upon the first day of the Session by the Lords Commissioners, stated to you, that he had concerted with his allies a plan for the pacification of Greece, and in order to carry into effect the Treaty of the 27th of July; and it was further promised that he would shortly lay before you all the circumstances necessary to enable you to form a judgment upon the course which he will pursue with respect to these transactions. That was the promise, and yet the noble Lord comes down and tells you, "don't wait for the communication which the King has promised in his gracious Speech to you; don't wait for the plans, but at once adopt the proposition as stated by the noble Lord, and resolve that the plan of the Ministers will not satisfy the honour of this country." That is the proposition which the noble Lord makes to you, and which he calls upon you to adopt, before you know whether or not the plan is irrevocably fixed, and without knowing whether the plan upon which you resolve will have any influence upon our proceedings for the future. But I ask whether this is a situation in which the House ought to place itself? or whether it is consistent with its dignity to come forward and enter into resolutions such as this, without knowing whether the Crown would alter one tittle of the arrangements which it had already made? The noble Lord alludes to the resolution of 1827; but what can be more ridiculous than that resolution, except that which the noble Lord moved to-night, and by which he would call on your Lordships to vote that you had lost all confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, and particularly in myself? To prove that, however, what does the noble Lord do? Why, he collects a pack of stories from the newspapers, and makes a statement with what I must term an absolute contempt for dates and facts. My noble friend (Lord Melbourne) seems to think that the Turks were encouraged to publish their Hatti-scheriff, or manifesto, or whatever it was, by the circumstance of my coming into power. Now, my noble friend may be well informed upon this subject; but if he consulted with the sources of his

421
information a little more closely, he would find that the manifesto was published before the Parliament met, or I was in office. The offence, therefore, was not in any thing done here, or in the King's Speech, for that was sent forth some time before, the King's Speech being delivered the 29th of January. The truth is, though it was not published, that the Hatti-scheriff was delivered to the Grand Seignior long before the Ministers left Constantinople. Now, to charge me in this way with that with which I have nothing to do, is what, I must say, is something like being "too bad". The noble Lord alludes also to Navarino, and asks why we did not blockade the Dardanelles, and why other consequences did not follow with which I have just as much to do as I have with the Hatti-seheriff? The order was given by the preceding Government, and they acted very properly to show their determination to carry into effect the Treaty of the 27th July. I have followed their example; and have not advised the blockade of the Dardanelles, but accommodated myself to circumstances. Our principle was, to confine hostilities to the circumstances which rendered them necessary. I do not mean to reproach the noble Viscount for the measures which he has taken, but I will say, on the part, of the present Government, that they have not forfeited the confidence of the country, and that they could not, or ought not, to forfeit it by measures of which others were the authors. The noble Baron has brought a variety of charges against the Government, into the details of which it is impossible for me to enter without laying papers before the House of which they are not now in possession. This much, however, I will say, that there is not one of the acts alluded to by the noble Lord which I could not justify in the most satisfactory manner if brought before your Lordships in a tangible shape. But the noble Baron has reproached us on account of the Russian war. [Lord Holland.—No reproach on account of the war itself.] Well then, on account of circumstances that arose out of the war. Again, I would beg to remind him of the importance of facts and dates; the Ambassadors of the three Allied Powers retired from Constantinople in December, and I did not come into office until the January following.—From the time that I came
422
into office I omitted no opportunity of communicating with the Porte, and of doing all that could be done by the influence of this Government to prevail on the Porte to give to his Russian Majesty the satisfaction to which he was entitled; His Majesty's Government did all that they could, but in vain; and having failed in that object, it was impossible that they could prevent the war from taking place. It is quite a mistake to suppose that we had ever been deceived as to the result. For my own part, I never dreamt that it could have terminated otherwise, and I could produce many proofs, if necessary, to show not only that I thought all along that the war must come to that one result, but that it ought to have come to it in the course of the first campaign. I should have felt that I was abandoning my duty if I had not exerted myself all along with the Porte for the purpose of bringing about a peace. But the noble Baron says, "Oh! your language led to the war, and you ought to have been prepared to support your language with arms." On the contrary, I maintain that our language neither could have, nor was intended to have, any such effect. We were most anxious to prevent war. When I say that we were most anxious to prevent war, let me not be mistaken. I most firmly believe, notwithstanding the distress of this country, that there never was a moment in her history when she was more capable of embarking in a war for any legitimate object. I do firmly believe that there never was a period when our resources were more available, or her establishments so effective. No, I do not even except that period when, as the noble Baron has said, she was capable of contending against the world in arms. But, taking all this into consideration, there were still other questions to be asked. In the first place, would it be a just war?—It would not; for no one can deny that the first, insult proceeded from the Porte. In the next place would it be a politic war? We were engaged with Russia and France in the endeavour to accomplish the settlement of Greece, an object which the Parliament, if not the people of this country, had deeply at heart. We had to consider what the effect of a war might be upon that object; and, seeing that such a war must sooner or later embroil the whole world, we were bound to consider deeply all the consequences before we

423
meditated war. After all, the Turkish power still exists in Europe, and there is every reason to hope that the Sultan may so establish himself in a little time as to be able to act his part in the general system of European policy. The, noble Baron blames us also for not having carried on active hostilities against the Turks to fulfil the Treaty of the 6th of July. If there was any principle which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) with whom all these transactions originated insisted on more strongly than another, it was the principle that the Treaty should be carried into effect without any act of hostility. I know this to have been the case, for I received his first instructions when I was engaged in an Embassy respecting it, which were distinctly to that effect. But that is not all; the Treaty itself provides that we should not mix ourselves up with any of the hostile attempts of the parties. But the Government did contemplate ulterior measures, and the battle of Navarino was one of the results. And here again I would call upon the noble Baron to attend to facts and dates. It is true that an arrangement was made with the Egyptian troops for the evacuation of the Morea, and it is also true that troops were sent to compel the evacuation; but at the time the troops were sent, it was not known what arrangements were made upon the subject. Such, I can assure the noble Baron, was the train and order of the facts to which he has alluded. I say that throughout the whole of those transactions we were guided by the spirit of the Treaty, and of the declaration made by his Majesty to Parliament. Our object was a peaceable settlement of Greece, and not a disturbance which might promote the purposes of extensive empire. But again, the noble Baron has accused us of omitting to include the island of Candia within the new territory of Greece. This is hardly fair; the noble Lord knows as well as I do, that the Protocol of the 27th March did not include that island, so that Candia was omitted by the combined act of the Allies. The noble Baron should reflect, however, that, if we were resolved to give Candia to Greece we must first conquer it from the Turks. And, as I have said before, neither the terms nor the spirit of the Treaty could justify us in conquering any thing for the Greeks. For the reasons which I have already
424
stated, and which I could prove still more distinctly if I had the papers before me which will be at the command of the House, I shall conclude by moving the Previous Question upon the resolution of the noble Baron.
Lord Hollandreplied.—He was not disposed to press his Motion to a division. All that he should do would be to enter his Resolution on their Lordships' Journals, as a record of his opinions on a subject which he had much at heart. He wished to say one or two words in explanation of what had fallen from the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs respecting the sentiments of a distinguished relation of his on the policy of maintaining the integrity of the European dominions of the Grand Seignior. The noble Lord had quoted a passage from a speech of Mr. Fox as a proof of that great man having entertained the same views of policy with respect to Turkey with those at present acted upon by Ministers. Now, he believed he might say that no man was better, or so well, acquainted with the opinions, political and general, of that great statesman and lover of his country than he was; and from that knowledge he would take it upon him to assert, that so far from Mr. Fox wishing to protect the Porte against the aggressions of his neighbours, it was an earnest object of his to drive the Turks entirely out of Europe. He repeated that Mr. Fox had more than once expressed this his invariable opinion on the subject. [The Earl of Aberdeen here gave a sign of dissent] What, the noble Earl holds up his hand in dissent! Did the noble Earl pretend to know as much of Mr. Fox's opinion as he did? If his opinion be derived from a newspaper speech of Mr. Fox he would tell him unhesitatingly, from his knowledge of that stateman's opinions, that it was ill reported, and did not faithfully state his relative's sentiments. He knew of no speech of Mr. Fox, in which such a doctrine was even alluded to; and he knew of those in which a very different one was distinctly asserted. He could not be mistaken on this point. He had a perfect recollection of Mr. Fox's opinions on the Ottoman institutions. He remembered them particularly well, for he was familiar with them from his entrance into public life. At the time of the landing of the French troops under Buonaparte in Egypt, he remembered Mr. Fox observing that though England might be

425
injured by the success of the French arms, one great general benefit would follow from that success,—the expulsion of the Turks from Europe. In fact, such was the opinion of every man at the time; and he would go further, and affirm, that till it was asserted by the present Government that the integrity of European Turkey was essential to the balance of power, no statesman considered the possible expulsion of the Turk from the map of Europe but as a general benefit. The noble Duke had, in his stress on the importance of dates, not correctly interpreted what he had said respecting the blockade of the Dardanelles, and of the conduct of Government in relation to the Russian war. He did not hold the noble Duke responsible for acts arising out of the policy of his predecessors in office. He knew that the proposal of the blockade was anterior to his accession to power, and therefore could not charge him with whatever might be objectionable in carrying that proposal into effect. What he said—in fact, the gist of his whole argument—was, not that the noble Duke was the cause of the Hatti-scheriff document, or that he had urged Turkey into the war with Russia, but that the tendency of his observations respecting the belligerent parties since his acceptance of office, and of the King's Speech of last Session, for which he was responsible, was necessarily to buoy the Porte up with the expectation that England would not be a mere witness of her prostration; in a word, that the impression which Turkey received from the speeches of the noble Duke and his colleagues was, that England would throw herself between the combatants, as a shield to "our ancient ally." He had heard no answer to this part of his speech, and he was convinced that no satisfactory one in the negative could be given. With respect to the blockade of the Dardanelles, which he would say was too long deferred by the predecessor of the noble Duke in office, (whom, moreover, he would blame for instituting any inquiry into the circumstances that led to the battle of Navarino, which might imply a disapproval of that event)—he would remind the noble Duke of his taking credit to himself for acting strictly in obedience to the Treaty of July 1826, to which Treaty he told us that Russia had waved her belligerent rights, while we remained as neutral parties,
426
though, as the noble Duke had told us, we might, under the Treaty, have felt ourselves as no longer bound by its enactments. The noble Duke had taunted his resolution as ridiculous, because a different line of policy from that implied by it might be expedient. He could not see how that made it ridiculous, or how the possible fact of its being supported by ultra Whigs and ultra Tories affected its intrinsic merits. The noble Duke might be-whig him as much as he pleased—it was no great offence to be classed with such men as Somers and his illustrious associates, and he acceded to his proposition. It was no objection to it, to say that it would be pro tanto a violation of Treaty, for there was precedent for resolutions much more implying infractions of Treaty and interference with foreign States. After the Treaty of Utrecht, for example, had been signed, in the reign of Queen Anne, a motion of Address was made in that House, calling on her Majesty to interfere with a foreign power, the Duke of Lorraine, so as to prevent his harbouring the Pretender in his dominions. It was objected by the then Minister that the Queen had no right to interfere with the domestic affairs of a foreign Prince, when such interference had not been implied in the recently concluded Treaty, and that if then-Lordships agreed to the Address it could do no good; for though her Majesty, with her usual condescension, should declare her willingness to comply with its request, she could not; so that her assenting to the Address would be an idle embarrassment, she not having the means of enforcing it. Notwithstanding these plausible objections, the House of Lords—a most distinguished body, as the history of the times shows—passed the resolution. This precedent in point he thought showed that there was nothing very ridiculous in his Motion. He readily concurred with what the noble Duke had said of the arrangement that had been made to embark the French troops for the Morea, so as to compel Ibrahim Pacha to fulfil his engagement with Sir Edward Codrington, to transport his forces back to Egypt. The noble Duke's statement, that such was the fact, did not require with him the proof of dates. With respect to the island of Candia, he was willing to admit that its annexation to the Greek territory constituted no part of the Protocol. But be would ask simply, had that Protocol

427
never been departed from,—was it strictly adhered to by the noble Duke, or was it not? Was it not a fact, that the Greek line of territory extended from the Gulf of Volo to that of Arta? And, not withstanding, was it not also a fact that the line of boundary which had been since fixed upon, extended much further, namely, from the Gulf of Volo in the east, to a river, whose modern name he did not then recollect, but which was known in geography as the ancient Acheloüs, in the west? Was not this a departure—he did not mean to imply an injudicious one—from that strict adherence to the letter of the Protocol so much insisted upon by the noble Duke? Why not, then, in the same spirit, annex Candia to the new Greek State? Surely it was as essential to the main object of the Treaty of London, the pacification of Greece, as extending the line of boundary westwards. He was convinced that the distinction between pacification and settlement was one of mere words—that Greece would never be settled till Condia was an integral part of its territory,—that, in fact, no man with a Greek heart in his bosom would rest contented till he had thoroughly ensured the independence, and thence the prosperity, of his country. Why then not ensure that pacification or settlement, so much desired, by annexing Candia to the new State? What answer was it to say, it is not set down in the protocol? Had they not given up the Sovereignty clause in that protocol, thereby acknowledging that there could be no permanent settlement but in national independence. It was some satisfaction to him, in conclusion, that acquiescing with the Previous Question was not abandoning the principle of his resolution, and that the former did not imply a negative on the part of its proposers; but that it might be not discreet or prudent formally to avow the principles implied in his proposition. From the spirit of the admission made that night by his Majesty's Government, which he hoped he might add was in unison with the principle of his resolution, he was led to entertain sanguine expectations that the great powers, parties to the Treaty for the settlement of Greece, would enable the new State to be respectable if not powerful abroad, and happy at home. If the result of that night's discussion should impress the Greeks with the conviction that it was to the interference of England that they were in-
428
debted for the opportunity of being once more a free and noble people, it would not only add to the influence of England in those parts, but would increase the respect for the British name throughout the civilized world.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that what he had quoted as the sentiments of Mr. Fox, in relation to the policy of preserving the integrity of European Turkey, he would inform the noble Baron who had just addressed the House, he had taken from the most indisputable authority within his reach. The noble Lord had represented his distinguished relation as the invariable enemy of the Ottoman dominions in Europe, and stated, that any speech expressing a contrary doctrine must be a misrepresentation. Now he begged to inform the noble Lord, that the extract he had quoted was from no speech or report of Mr. Fox's opinions, but from his own letter, written with the deliberation due to an official document, for such it was. The occasion which gave rise to the following declaration of opinion on the part of Mr. Fox was a letter to him, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, from M. Talleyrand, dated April the 1st, 1806, in which the French Minister, among other matters, says, "The integrity and the complete and absolute independence of the Ottoman Empire form not only the sincerest desire of the Emperor, but constitute also the undeviating object of his policy." To which Mr. Fox replied in a letter, dated Downing-street, April 8, 1806, as follows:—"as to what relates to the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire no difficulty can present itself, those objects being equally dear to all the parties interested in the present discussion." Now, though this declaration did not amount to a pledge that Mr. Fox would guarantee the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, it went to show that the expulsion of the Turks from Europe was not, as the noble Lord had stated, an invariable object of his policy.
Lord Hollandsaid, he was not then able to determine how far the declaration, just read by the noble Earl, was inconsistent with what he had stated as the sentiments of Mr. Fox on the policy of protecting or discouraging the Turkish dominion in Europe. The matter was rather new to him, and he would investigate it before he would offer any opinion on its apparent discrepancy with what he had stated,
The Motion was then put and negatived.