Sitting of 12 November 1830

MINUTES.
The House, in a Committee of Supply, voted 5,255,5281. to make good the sum voted in the last Session of Parliament.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. GUEST, various Accounts of the quantity of Iron imported into, and exported from, the United Kingdom, in the year 1829:—On the Motion of Mr. ELLIS, of the Money paid on account of the Savings Banks, and on account of the Reduction of the National Debt, by terminable Annuities:—On the Motion of Mr. JEPHSON, the Contract Prices at Kilmainham Hospital, from the earliest period at which they could be made out:—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the Expense incurred in taking the last Census for Ireland.
Petitions presented. From J. Ingram Lockart, complaining of the return for the City of Oxford:—From John R. Deene and Henry Shirley, complaining of the return for Winchilsea:—By Mr. H. SUMNER, from Hylton Joliffe, Esq., complaining of an undue return for the County of Surrey. By Sir J. BOURKE, from Fish Curers and other persons interested in the Fisheries in Ireland, praying for a continuance of the bounty. For the abolition of Slavery, by Mr. C. DUNDAS, two from Berkshire:—By Sir R. VIVYAN, fifty from Cornwall:—By Mr. HODGSON, from Cheltenham:—By Mr. EGERTON, from Stockport:—By Colonel DAVIES, twenty-one from Worcestershire:—By Mr. GUEST, from Devonshire:—By Mr. HODGES, from Canterbury:—By Mr. E. B. CLIVE, four from Herefordshire:—By Lord ALTHORP, twelve from Northampton, and one from the neighbourhood of Russell-square:—By Mr. SANDPORD, five from Somersetshire:—By Mr. WILKS, from Birmingham, Lancaster, and Crouch End:—By Mr. CURTEIS, three from Sussex:—By Mr. DUNDAS, two from Yorkshire:—By Sir R. PRICE, three from Herefordshire:—By Sir R. HERON, thirteen from Hampshire and other places:—By Mr. SCHONSWAR, two from Hull:—By Sir W. GUISE, five from Gloucestershire:—By Mr. BETHELL, from the West Riding of Yorkshire:—By Mr. LAWLEY, from Alcester and Stratford-upon-Avon:—By Mr. TYRRELL, three from Essex:—By Mr. JOHN WOOD, from Kirkham:—By Mr. BENETT, eight from Wiltshire. By the same hon. Member, from Hindon, for the repeal of the Malt Duties. By Mr. LEADER, from the Inhabitants of Athlone, for the Emancipation of the Jews. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Parish of Kilmore, in the County
of Wexford, complaining of Distress, and praying for the Repeal of the Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland.

IRISH CORPORATION FUNDS.
Mr. Leaderpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Athlone, praying for an inquiry into the distribution of Corporation Funds in Ireland. The hon. Member observed, that he knew no subject which more deserved the attention of the House. In consequence of the mismanagement of the funds in question, half a million of people were in a state of utter destitution. He had ascertained that the value of 10,000 l. a year was given by the Crown in land to the Corporation of Kilkenny, the members of which consisting of a very few individuals, actually divided it entirely among themselves.

NEWSPAPERS AND STAMP DUTIES.
Lord Morpethpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Manchester, praying for the abolition, or considerable reduction of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps and Duties. At present those Stamps and Duties constituted two-thirds of the entire cost of every newspaper. The consequence was, that the newspaper press was monopolised by a few persons, who thereby acquired great power of promoting their own ends by misrepresentation. To reduce the duties would increase the Revenue, in consequence of the much greater number of newspapers that it would cause to be circulated; and at the same time it would give increased employment to paper-makers, printers and others. His hon. friend, the member for Dover, had last Session intimated his intention of making a motion on this subject. He begged to ask him if he meant to make such a motion in the present Session? He owned that he thought it would be highly expedient to adopt a proposition, which, while it was calculated to increase the Revenue, was also calculated to diffuse that sound political and religious knowledge which was most essential to the maintenance of good government and social order.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that it was decidedly his intention to bring forward the Motion to which his noble friend alluded, after Christmas.

DISTRESS.
Mr. Benettpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Mere and other places in Wiltshire, complaining of the great Distress under which they

427
were labouring, which they attributed principally to the change in the currency, and praying to be relieved from taxation. The hon. Member characterized the petitioners as a most loyal and well-disposed set of people, and expressed his conviction, notwithstanding the temptation held out to them by what had taken place in another part of the kingdom, that they would not only refrain from outrage, but would be most active in repressing it.
On the Motion for bringing up the Petition,
Mr. R. Grantwished to know what his Majesty's Government intended to do in the way of the remission of taxation. An idea had gone very generally abroad, that it was intended to repeal the duty on Seaborne-coals. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was in contemplation?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that his right hon. friend had, the other evening, stated, that great inconvenience must always attend premature disclosures of that nature. He was sure, therefore, that his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, would not attribute his declining to answer the question to any want of courtesy.
Sir M. W. Ridleyhad hoped, after what passed last Session, that a remission would have been proposed of the duty on Sea-borne-coal. He still hoped, that the result of the motion of the hon. member for Limerick would tend to the attainment of so desirable an object. He was aware that this was not a time at which an extensive remission of taxes could be expected, and, therefore, that hopes ought not to be held out which could not be realized. It was his firm conviction, however, that a great advantage would arise from remitting the taxes which pressed on industry, such as the duties on Seaborne-coals, soap, candles, the house and window-tax, and putting on a tax which would apply to the richer classes.
Sir John Wrottesley Sir John Wrottesley, judging from the Report of the Committee, was of opinion that a repeal of the Coal-tax would be beneficial only to the great coal-owners. From the monopoly enjoyed by these proprietors of mines in the North, he did not think it probable the public would gain anything by a remission of the duty. The people would be far more benefitted by a repeal of some of the assessed taxes.
Mr. Belldeclared, that he did not
428
consider hon. Members had any right to interfere with the coal owners in the management of their own affairs. He denied that the coal owners enjoyed a monopoly, but on the contrary there was a great competition amongst them.
Mr. Tennysondefended the conduct of the coal owners, but agreed with the hon. Baronet in thinking that a reduction should be made in the assessed taxes.
Sir R. Wilsonobserved, that he was prepared to support a Property-tax, if all practicable reduction in the indirect taxes and in the assessed taxes should prove insufficient to afford relief to the people.
Mr. Gordonprotested against hon. Members at his side of the House encouraging the Ministers to lay on a Property-tax. Let that House take off the taxes first, and then they would force Ministers to reduce the establishments. This was in his mind the proper course to pursue, and not the reverse, as had been maintained by hon. Members. He contended that the House ought to interfere in the arrangements of the great coal-owners to promote the public good.
General Gascoyneasked if it were the intention of Government to re-appoint the China Trade Committees?
Sir R. Peelsaid, the best mode of answering that question, was to give notice that on Monday next he would move for the re-appointment of that Committee.
Mr. Benett Mr. Benett, before bringing up the Petition, observed, that all taxes affecting production and industry should be removed in the first instance. He declined saying anything respecting a Property-tax. —The Petition laid on the Table.

ENGLISH PENSION LIST.
Mr. Gordonasked the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was his intention, previous to entering upon the discussion respecting the Civil List, to lay before the House the details of the English Pension-list?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his hon. friend must be aware that the details of the English Pension-list never were given.
Mr. Gordonreplied, that as his right hon. friend had, upon the present occasion, given many papers which were never given before, such as papers referring to the Scotch Establishment; and considering the declaration made by Government, that they intended to lay all information

429
before the House, he trusted the details of this List would not be withheld.
Mr. Humebegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman, that when he made a similar demand in 1828, it was objected to upon the ground that the details could not be brought forward until there was a new settlement of the Civil List. He did not think a single shilling should be voted until all the information that might be required was laid before the House.

CIVIL LIST.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he considered it would be convenient that previously to the House resolving itself into a Committee to take into consideration that part of his Majesty's Speech which referred to the settlement of the Civil List, he should state the course he intended to pursue. He did not expect the House to come to a decision that night on the Resolutions he should propose. After proposing those Resolutions, and stating his views respecting the future Civil List, which would be in great part matter of detail, he would lay before the House the various necessary documents in a clear form, so that hon. Members might be able to put themselves in full possession of all the information they required before they came to a vote on Monday next.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen spoke to the following effect:—I rise, Sir, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of recommending to the House to fulfil the assurance given to his Majesty, in answer to his gracious Speech from the Throne, that we would cheerfully provide all that was necessary for the support of the Civil Government and the honour and dignity of his Crown; and, Sir, if ever there was an occasion on which a proposition of this nature might dispense with all argument or recommendation upon the part of the individual who moves it, I am sure this is the occasion. I am confident there is not one of those I now have the honour of addressing—that there is not a single man in the country, who will not be forward in the anxious wish to promote the comfort of the Sovereign and the dignity of the Crown. The people of England, always attached to monarchy, have heretofore not only maintained their Sovereigns in comfort and dignity, but have ever been desirous to uphold the Throne in honour
430
and splendor, for they feel a reflected pleasure and glory in the splendor of the Crown. And, Sir, well convinced am I that there never was a period at which a warmer affection or more sincere attachment existed upon the part of the people towards their Sovereign than at present, and this I feel secures to me the universal consent of the people in making such a provision for the Crown as the circumstances of the case require. In asserting this, I do not, however, want to protect my proposition from that examination which is the duty of the House. No, Sir, I am prepared to meet that examination, and to meet it with confidence; although, undoubtedly, objections will be raised against it, and objections of a very different character. On the one hand I may be told that I am not dealing with sufficient liberality; and on the other, I may be reproached with not having a due regard to economy. Yet conscious that I am steering a middle course—avoiding a niggardly parsimony on the one side, and an undue extravagance on the other —I feel that I may submit my proposition in the confidence that it will receive the approbation of the House. Sir, in bringing this subject under the consideration of Parliament, I stand, in some degree, in circumstances different from those under which any individual made a similar proposition in former times. The circumstances under which the settlement of the Civil List has before been made, conferred in themselves, credit upon former Parliaments, and, in the last instance, were highly honourable to the King who lately sat upon the Throne of these realms. To some of these circumstances I must direct the attention of the House, being convinced that they ought to be well considered by us, now engaged in settling the affairs of his present Majesty, for whose dignity and comfort we are called on to provide. The first of these peculiar circumstances is, that in making a proposition of this kind to the House, I am fortunately at the same time able to state, that during the whole of the last reign there was no period at which Parliament was called on to provide for debts incurred upon the Civil List. This is the first time, since the institution of the Civil List, that it was possible to call on Parliament to recollect, that no debt had been incurred since Parliament had last made the arrangement. If the hon. Members of this

431
House will refer to the documents which are accessible to all, they will find that I am perfectly justified in this assertion. Upon the death of Queen Anne, Parliament had to provide for a considerable debt incurred on the Civil List—a debt amounting to 500,000 l. On the death of George 1st, Parliament had to provide for a debt incurred upon the Civil List, to the amount of one million. Upon the death of George the 2nd, Parliament had to pay half a million on account of debts incurred upon the Civil List, which had been granted to that Monarch. During the reign of George the 3rd, which extended over so long a period, and in which the events were of a feature so stirring and peculiar, the debts on the Civil List amounted to something between three and four millions. I repeat, therefore, I stand before the House in a peculiar and fortunate situation, in consequence of there now being, at the close of a reign, no debt to defray upon the Civil List granted to the late King. I say, Sir, these circumstances are honourable to the Parliament by which the original arrangement was made, for it proves that it formed so accurate an estimate of what was necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown, that it became, for the first time in the history of this country, possible for a Monarch to confine his expenditure within the limits assigned him at the settlement of the Civil List. And further, Sir, it is to the credit of that Parliament that it was not only by the liberality of the grant that it succeeded in producing a result so highly to be applauded, but also by the system it devised, and the regulations respecting the expenditure it adopted; for, without a system, and without regulations, never could the object have been effected; and therefore is that Parliament entitled to praise for adopting those particular regulations which led to the happy result I have already stated to the House. Nor, Sir, can we omit to offer the just tribute of praise to the prudence of his late Majesty, in having thus carefully limited himself in his expenditure within the sum granted to him by Parliament, and in having so availed himself of the wise regulations made by Parliament, as to avoid incurring debt which all his predecessors, since the institution of the Civil List, had uniformly incurred. I say, Sir, in the next place, there
432
is another peculiarity attending the proposition I am about to make, which, whatever may be the feeling of the hon. member for Middlesex and his friends respecting the observations I have recently made, ought to call forth the approbation and thanks of this House. We stand, now, in the situation of having surrendered to us, by his Majesty, a greater revenue—greater in the value of its amount, and greater in its numbers of various heads—than Parliament ever had at any former period when a settlement of the Civil List was called for. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to surrender to us, not only the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which were also surrendered to us by the Sovereigns his predecessors, and which, at this present moment, amount to a sum not less than 800,000 l. per annum, but his Majesty has also given up to us the casual revenues of the Crown, the Droits of the Admiralty and Droits of the Crown, the West-India Duties, and all the other casual revenues of the Crown, which were heretofore left to the peculiar and personal distribution and control of the Crown. The value, Sir, of these concessions is sufficiently apparent from the papers on the Table; but I feel it is not so much for the amount of the concessions that his Majesty is entitled to call for your approbation, as because he now surrenders to you, in surrendering these casual revenues of the Crown, that portion of his revenue which a Monarch could, with the greatest facility, command, in the event of cases arising wherein he was desirous of applying his revenue to purposes which Parliament might not be disposed to sanction. In conceding, therefore, these revenues, the Monarch has deprived himself of the power of applying money to purposes of which Parliament does not approve. His Majesty, consequently, has not only consulted the feelings of the people on the subject of the expenses of the Crown, but also their feelings concerning the objections which might be made to the power of the Sovereign to use his revenue for purposes contrary to the wish of Parliament and to the national liberties. Sir, in making the proposition I am about to submit to the House, it will be my object to avoid all possibility of incurring debt on the Civil List after the arrangement shall have been sanctioned by Parliament. I hold, Sir, that debt,

433
incurred after the settlement of the Civil List, is of all things the most disadvantageous to the Crown, and offensive to the people. In the first place, the very name of debt carries with it the idea of misconduct in the quarter in which it may arise. I do not say in all cases debt in itself implies impropriety of conduct, or deserves reproach; but I do say, that in all cases the existence of it attaches, to some extent, an imputation of misfortune, of imprudence, or misconduct, and, therefore, that it is not just in the House to make it in the most remote degree necessary for the Monarch to incur debt, and thus render him liable to the imputation I have mentioned. Sir, if there be any advantage in a permanent Civil List (and that there is great advantage we must all admit), it is that, having once given a Civil List to the Crown, we are thenceforth not under the necessity of investigating the private conduct and personal expenditure of the Monarch—which, however agreeable it may be to some individuals—is, to honourable men, and men who really take an interest in the country's welfare, one of the most disagreeable and the most painful tasks which can ever be imposed on Parliament. Therefore, Sir, 1 consider that the Parliament to which I have already alluded acted well and wisely—and that we shall now act well and wisely in making it the foundation of the Civil List, that there shall be no necessity for incurring any debt by the Crown. The first point, then, we shall have to decide is, what amount for the Civil List is necessary. And, Sir, in cases of this kind, I look upon it as more safe to be directed by experience of the past, than to be guided by calculations of the future. I have, therefore, rather formed the plan by reference to past experience than upon any calculation respecting the future, which I have to submit to the House, making however such changes as the altered circumstances of the Crown seem to render necessary, and bearing always in mind the necessity of keeping the expenditure of the Crown within the bounds prescribed by Parliament. Sir, if we look to the papers on the Table, we may find a statement of what was the full amount of the sums his late Majesty derived from the country for the purposes of the Civil List; and I will, in the first instance, state them to the House, that it may form a just comparison of those sums
434
with the amount I shall ultimately propose to them for the use of his present Majesty. By the Civil List which was voted at the commencement of the last reign, the Sovereign enjoyed an allowance for England of 850,000 l. and for Ireland of 207,000 l. At that time it was thought adviseable to leave the hereditary revenue of Scotland untouched, and that amounted to 109,000 l. So far down all were fixed allowances for the hereditary revenues of the Crown in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Besides these permanent revenues, the Droits of the Admiralty and the Droits of the Crown were left in the power of the Sovereign and they may be taken at an annual average of 32,600 l. A compensation for additional diplomatic expenditure was allowed amounting to 22,300 l. and the total of these various sums will amount very nearly to 1,221,000 l. which was the expenditure during the late reign, for the purposes of the Civil List. Now, Sir, it is my intention to remove from the new Civil List certain charges heretofore imposed upon it, to which I shall advert at a future period. For the purposes of comparison it is necessary that these should be deducted from the sums allowed to his late Majesty. Therefore, on account of them, I take off 166,000 l. in answer for charges which will not be made in the new Civil List. This will leave in round numbers about 1,055,000 l. But now, Sir, as to my Resolution, it will be not for grants for the different parts of the kingdom, but for one general grant for the whole kingdom. And on the subsequent arrangement I shall assign classes, for the purpose of presenting a clear view of the different heads of expenditure. What I propose for the purposes of the new Civil List is 970,000 l., making a difference between the sum now granted and that allowed to his late Majesty of 85,000 l. [Cheers.] Let not the hon. Member who cheers suppose, that this is the only saving and economy which will be effected; for if he will listen to me a little longer, 1 will satisfy him that it is far from being the amount of saving and economy which we propose to submit to the notice of the House. In the first place there will be a saving to the State of 38,500 l. a-year, which was paid to his Majesty when Duke of Clarence. There will likewise be a saving of 15,000 l. upon civil contingencies. This, then, will be an immediate saving to the State of upwards

435
of 138,000 l. upon the Civil List. But, Sir, besides, in the formation of this Civil List, it is to be considered that large payments are made on account of pensions, which, though it is not possible to get rid of them immediately, will fall in with the lives of those who now enjoy them; and that there are officers, for whom although we now continue to provide, yet it is our intention that their places, when once vacant, shall not be again filled up. And, Sir, from reductions of this nature previously ordered, and others lately agreed upon, we have a saving in prospective amounting to 13,049 l. In the next place, the Irish pension list will be reduced from 50,000 l. to 40,000 l. per annum; making altogether, when these reductions shall come into effect, a pecuniary saving of 161,000 l. But, Sir, as I said before, this sum does not present a fair picture of the economy we propose to apply to the Civil List. I need not inform the House, for all men must be aware of it, that there are expenses incident to the situation of his present Majesty from which his predecessor was exempt. The Sovereign, in the present case, is blessed with a royal consort, who shares the affection and respect of the people with his most gracious Majesty. I am sure, Sir, the House would not feel it proper to diminish the amount of the allowance which, for a considerable time past, has been invariably granted to the Queens of England. In the reigns of George 2nd and George 3rd, 50,000 l. a year was allowed the Queen for the maintenance of her household, and I can see no reason why we should for a moment hesitate to assign to her present Majesty the same allowance which the previous Queens of England uniformly received. Nor, Sir, is the expenditure which the Queen occasions to the Civil List limited to the sum allowed by Parliament for the maintenance of her household. It is obvious that the King, like every other individual, must, when married, add to his expenses in every branch of his establishment. And if the House is disposed to feel surprise that we have not announced a greater reduction in the Civil List, I beg hon. Members to consider the different circumstances under which the two Monarchs are placed, and to take into account the expenses of the Queen, not only for her own household, but also the increase created by her presence in the general establishment—a difference which,
436
by reference to calculations made on former occasions, I am sure I do not over-estimate in naming as an additional expense fully equal to the allowance of her household, and the maintenance of her dignity. The 970,000 l., therefore, I have proposed, includes 100,000 l. for the expenditure occasioned by the presence of her Majesty, and if this be taken into account the comparison between the Civil List we propose for his present Majesty, and that granted to the late Sovereign, will turn out very favourable to our proposition. There is also another branch of expenditure, which formerly was thrown on the public, but from which it is now free, and the amount of which is not inconsiderable. On the death of George 3rd, in conformity with the previous practice of making a provision by way of compensation for the servants of the preceding Monarch, pensions were granted to his servants, and this not upon the Civil List of his successor, but on the Consolidated Fund. On the death of George 3rd, 21,000 l. was charged upon the Consolidated Fund to pay a compensation to officers in his household; and 19,000 l. upon the death of Queen Charlotte was charged upon the Consolidated Fund for a similar purpose, making altogether a charge upon the public of 40,000 l. which the country thought it proper and expedient, and honourable to take upon itself. On the present occasion, however, his Majesty takes the whole compensation to the servants of the late King upon himself. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to adopt into his own service, as far as possible, all the servants of his predecessor; that is to say, all who were capable of performing the duties of their stations; and, therefore, he has considerably reduced the amount of compensation for which it is necessary to provide. But, Sir, notwithstanding this reduction, there is a charge of between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l. remaining, which his Majesty will himself provide for, and thus relieve the public from a charge imposed upon it in all former reigns, and which, in the last reign amounted to 40,000 l. In calculating, therefore, the economy applied to the Civil List, we must not forget, Sir, these two last circumstances—I mean the whole provision for the expenditure occasioned by the Queen, and the compensation to the servants of the late King, for whom it is indispensable to provide. Such, Sir, being the saving we intend to effect, I shall

437
now advert to the arrangements, under which we propose to place the new Civil List. I know, Sir, that on this point there is a great variety of opinions, and I remember that a noble Lord opposite, early in the opening of the Session, expressed a hope that the Civil List now to be presented to the public, would be confined merely to the personal expenses of the Monarch. I, however, after much deliberation, and after weighing maturely all matters connected with the question, must say, that it appears to me not expedient to separate the private and personal expenses of the Monarch from those incurred in his capacity of chief of the Government of the State. First, it is difficult to draw the precise line between the charges incurred by the Monarch in his individual capacity, and those incurred in his public capacity as the person administering the Government of the country; and if it were possible, I do not see that it would be advisable so to separate them, as long as the Civil List can be regulated in such manner as to present a fair, full, and distinct view of the expenditure. I cannot see the particular use of separating these two branches of the Civil List; I do not, therefore propose to withdraw from the Civil List all those charges which have hitherto been considered as belonging to the head of the civil expenditure. I have been anxious to avoid one of the classes of objections now applicable to the Civil List, namely, that which relates to the difficulty of finding the amount of remuneration given to civil officers, whose salaries are paid partly out of the Civil List, and partly from other quarters; and I have, therefore, endeavoured to remove from it those salaries which have been chiefly paid from other quarters, and the difference of which only has been paid from the Civil List. By the plan which I now propose to adopt, the whole salary of every particular officer will be made to appear in each of the particular funds from which it is chiefly paid. Where the larger portion of the salary is paid out of the Civil List, I have annexed to it those smaller portions which are paid from other funds, so that those who may wish to see what is the amount of any particular salary can see it at once, by reference to the Civil List expenditure, without being obliged to have recourse to more than one set of papers for information. I also think the present mode of making deductions from several payments,
438
with a view to form particular funds, is very inconvenient; there is something not very easy to apprehend in the payment, on the one hand, to a particular officer of a very considerable salary, and, on the other, in taking from that officer, at the time of making the payment, a considerable sum to be applied to future and other purposes. I propose, therefore, that all charges and deductions from all salaries shall be omitted in the statement, and that the salaries shall be stated at the precise amount, so that the Civil List shall shew to the public what, is the actual amount applicable to the particular services to which the several payments are made. I have stated that I propose to transfer to the Civil List the payment of those salaries the larger portion of which is now chargeable on that branch of the expenditure; and I also propose to transfer to other funds those salaries, only small portions of which are now paid out of the Civil List. The first of the latter class is the salaries of the Judges. But a small portion of these salaries is now paid from the Civil List, the larger portion being paid from the Consolidated Fund. These salaries I therefore propose to transfer entirely to the Consolidated Fund; and if there was any choice from which fund those salaries should be paid, I should think that it would be freest from objection that the emoluments of these officers should be derived from a fund the least liable to the control of the Crown. I propose the same thing with reference to the Speaker of the House of Commons—I may say, with reference to all the other payments of salaries standing on the same footing. In the same way there are certain charges, of which by far the greater amount is defrayed by annual votes of this House, but some portion of which is also taken from the Civil List. These I propose to withdraw entirely from the Civil List, for the purpose of adding them to the several funds from which the greater portion of their amount is now paid. These three several sorts of payments will amount to 166,000 l. which I shall withdraw from the vote I intend to ask as the vote for the Civil List. Such are the principles of the arrangements which I submit to the House as the foundation of the plan of the new Civil List; but perhaps the House will pardon me if I go a little more into detail on the several classes into which I propose the Civil List shall be divided, These classes

439
will be ten in number. The first class will consist of his Majesty's privy purse, and of her Majesty's establishment. This class, instead of being 60,000 l., as under the late King, will now amount to 110,000 l., a sum which was always charged so long ago as before the reign of George 1st.; the difference between the present and the last Civil List being altogether occasioned as I have already stated by the presence of her Majesty the Queen. The second head or class of expenditure is that of the salary of the great officers of the household—of the household establishment—and of the officers connected therewith. This makes up a sum of about 140,546 l.; and that sum will comprise salaries which before were to be found under other heads. Among these are the gentlemen pensioners, and certain officers of ceremony, which appear to me better placed here than elsewhere. Under this head there will be observed some reduction of amount from that which was stated for similar charges in the former reign. With respect to the household itself, the third head of the expenditure, there will not be any actual reduction of expenditure—I mean in the bills of the tradesmen who supply his Majesty. I know that the hon. member for Middlesex will say that there ought to be some reduction in that respect, having regard to the present value of provisions, which is much less than when the last Civil List was framed. I acknowledge that there has been a decrease in the price of provisions, and in all the necessary articles of life, since the last Civil List was agreed to; but while I admit that to be the fact, I must at the same time remind the hon. Member, that some increase is necessary on account of her Majesty. I have, therefore, in addition to the expenditure of his Majesty, brought in, under this head, that of the Queen; and I think that if the bills now paid are carefully compared with those formerly charged, there will be found to have been an actual reduction, although that reduction is not at once apparent, on account of the cause of increased expenditure to which I have already referred. The amount of this class of expenditure will be 210,500 l., a sum which exhibits an apparent increase on the former Civil List, but which, in reality, is less, since the present estimate includes the expense of Messengers, and other items of the Civil Department, which I have thought it more convenient to place here,
440
instead of letting them remain under other heads of expenditure. The fourth class consists of the Royal Bounties, Charities, and Special Service Money, and these come more nearly within what are properly called the particular expenditure of the Crown. The amount here is the same as before, 22,250 l. The fifth class consists of the pensions on the Civil List. This item was fixed by Mr. Burke at a sum of 95,000 l., but in the present Civil List it will amount to no more than 74,200 l., the difference between the two being those charges which are deducted from the Civil List, and carried to other heads of expenditure, on the principle I have already mentioned. The sixth class comprises the expenses of Foreign Missions and Ministers of State. I have stated, that in weighing the different arguments for excluding these charges from the Civil List of the Crown, my feelings have preponderated in favour of retaining them under this head of expenditure, and I therefore present them to the House as part of the expense of the Civil List; and whatever opinions may be entertained on this point, I have no doubt that, with respect to the amount required for this head of expenditure, the House will be satisfied with the sum which is now proposed for the payment of this particular service. Under the former arrangements of the Civil List, the third class, with which the sixth class now corresponds, comprised not only the expense of Foreign Missions, but also the salaries of a portion of the present Consular Establishment; and the House will also recollect, that in addition to those who were then Ministers at Foreign Courts, with salaries, we have been latterly called on for additional Ministers to the new States of South America, and that these Ministers were, of course, not provided for in the Civil List of 1820. This class of public servants, with which we have now to deal, comprises the representatives of the King in all parts of the world, but does not comprise the Consular establishments, for reasons which I will presently state. In the former Session of Parliament, when the question of Diplomatic Expenditure was under consideration, I stated, that endeavours were making by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department to bring the present expenditure for twenty-five ministers,—the increase in our Diplomatic Establishments having been rendered necessary by the

441
change in the circumstances and conditions of several States both in Europe and America,—within the amount which was provided for eighteen Foreign Ministers. This class will show, that what I then stated to be under consideration, has been now done. In every foreign mission (with, at least, only two exceptions) a great reduction of expense will be found to have taken place. The amount is now stated at 140,000 l., which was 165,000 l. in the preceding year; and that year itself exhibited a diminished expense, as compared with the sums required for preceding years; and when the detail of these estimates has been examined, I think that the House will agree with me that the Government has been disposed to bring down these charges as low as was compatible with the rank of the individual employed, and the nature of the service he was engaged in. If, in examining these items, persons will inform themselves of what are the emoluments of other Ministers resident at the same Courts, they will find, though there are many circumstances which necessarily render our Ministers more expensive than other foreign ministers at the same place, and though Englishmen are more disposed to travel and visit foreign countries than men of other nations, yet their charges are not superior, nor, in some instances, even equal to those of other Ambassadors. I have said, that there are two exceptions to the great reductions we have made. The first of these is Paris; the other Petersburgh. They are stations where a great expenditure is required beyond that demanded at any other Court, so that we do not propose to withdraw from those Ambassadors the emoluments which they how enjoy. The reductions of which I have spoken cannot, indeed, be immediately accomplished, so that the diminution of expenditure will not come into full operation till the 1st of January in the ensuing year. The reduction of salaries, however, is not the only economy which we have effected. It will appear that the extraordinary charges, which are a great source of diplomatic expenditure, are now about to be brought within very narrow limits. Take the question of outfit, for instance, which in former Civil Lists was stated at 76,000 l., and which is now estimated only at 47,000 l. The expense of half outfit is also reduced from 50,000 l. to 30,000 l. On other charges there are likewise deductions, as in the cases of
442
absence on account of private affairs, and in the allowances for conveyance of baggage, which are now reduced within very narrow limits. The details of what I have stated will be found in the papers I have laid on the Table—papers which show that we have, in fact, adopted that economy which this House desired, and which the Government promised. With respect to the payments to be made in future on account of the Consular Department, I propose that a considerable alteration shall take place. A sum of 30,000 l. was formerly paid for the expenses of the Consular establishment out of the Civil List, and 60,000 l. from a vote of Parliament: I propose that, in future, Parliament shall provide all the expenses of the Consular establishment by an annual vote. One of the reasons for my proposing this is, the change in the regulations of that establishment which may at any time take place. A change in our Consular regulations was recommended to Parliament, not only by merchants, but by hon. Members, who had no especial interest in the recommendation, and who were actuated by no feeling but a desire for the good of the country. That change led to a great increase of expenditure in the Consular department, and it appeared to the noble Lord at the head of that department, that that expenditure should be brought within our more limited means, and that it would be advisable to make its amount an item of the charges that were annually to be submitted to the vote of the Parliament. The total amount of this class of Civil expenditure is now stated at 186,000 l. for the charges of Ministers on service, and for the pensions of retired Ministers, including all the Consuls formerly residing at foreign Courts, together with those new Consuls now appointed to Greece and South America. The seventh class consists of the small charges on the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown, which always have been defrayed out of the Civil List, on which humorous remarks have sometimes been made in Parliament, but which are still necessary to be maintained. These charges amounted to 13,700 l. The eighth class relates to the salaries of the great Officers of State, who are now paid out of the Civil List. Among these are the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Commissioners of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this

443
class is to be included that portion of the salaries of Public Officers, which is now payable out of the Civil List of Ireland, and out of the Consolidated Fund, so that the effect of this arrangement will be, that all these salaries can at once be seen from these papers. This class will form an item of 24,000 l. The ninth class is the Civil List of Ireland. That Civil List amounted to 207,000 l. in the reign of his late Majesty; but it is now reduced to 125,000 l., and even part of that consists of charges for offices, the duration of which is limited to the lives of the present occupants and my plan embraces a proposal that will effect a further reduction from 50,000 l. to 40,000 l. With respect to the last class—the Civil List for Scotland—I do not think it will be found liable to any objections. It chiefly consists of a provision for the hereditary Officers of State in that kingdom, for the support of the Universities there, and for the payment of the Professors at those Universities—charges which have always been borne by the Civil List of Scotland, and which are so moderate in their amount, that I am confident, when they come to be examined by the House, every one will be convinced of our disposition to reduce the expenditure within the narrowest limits. This class amounts to a sum of 51,000 l. The Civil List, on the arrangement thus proposed, will amount to 960,000 l. of which an accurate estimate will be found in the papers I now lay on the Table. It is quite obvious that in submitting an estimate of this nature, it is impossible not to leave an opening for some future contingency; and, adopting as a principle that which was acted on in 1820, I shall propose to take a vote for a sum above the estimate, in order to meet these contingencies. I shall, however, only increase the vote so far above the estimate as will be necessary to preserve the Civil List from debt. In proposing, therefore, the sum of 970,000 l. I shall propose a small excess, which is not more than necessary, because the Crown, having now surrendered the Droits of the Crown, and the Droits of the Admiralty, has withdrawn from itself the means which were before at its disposal, and it is not therefore unreasonable that a small additional vote should be given to meet those contingencies, which, in the best state of the Civil List, must be liable to occur, and which, during the late reign, rendered
444
a provision of this sort absolutely necessary. I have thus gone through the statement of the Civil List, which I am now about to submit to the approbation of the House; and I think I have shewn that a considerable saving has been effected under the new arrangement. I may, perhaps, be permitted to state more in detail what that saving is. In the first place, there is an immediate saving of 138,900 l., and then there is a contingent saving of 162,000 l., and moreover it should be borne in mind that the Civil List has provided for charges which exceed, by the sum of 100,000 l., those which were to be defrayed out of the Civil List of the former reign; yet have we been able to reduce the whole sum to the extent I have stated, at a time when, from particular circumstances, the Civil List is burthened with additional charges to the amount of 100,000 l. I cannot doubt that the House will be satisfied with this statement. I know that there is no disposition in this House, or in the country to refuse what is necessary to maintain the dignity and splendor of the Crown. I know, indeed, that the proper splendor of the Crown is endeared to every class of the people. If this is the case, whatever may be the character of the Monarch on the Throne, I am sure that that sentiment is now more than ever warmly felt by the whole people of England, when both the Monarch and his Consort possess all the characteristics which can endear them to the hearts of their subjects, and when the people unite, as they have done, in the strongest expression of attachment to the Sovereign, whose conduct, whether examined in the relations of domestic life, or in his public character, deservedly recommends him to the best affections of the people. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That for the support and maintenance of his Majesty's Household, and the honour and dignity of the Crown, there be granted to his Majesty the annual sum of 970,000 l. during his Majesty's life, and that the said Revenue shall be made payable out of the Consolidated Fund." The right hon. Gentleman observed, before he sat down, that he did not mean to press for a vote that evening.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he could not vote on this question without making a few observations on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. In remarking upon this proposed provision for the Civil

445
List of his Majesty, it was not necessary to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the minute details of his plan. Indeed, it would be impossible for him or others to do so immediately after hearing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The subject into which he had entered was too extensive to be at once disposed of. He did not think it possible for that House, or a committee of the whole House, to go sufficiently into detail on this subject, to be able to satisfy either the public or themselves. He was of opinion, that it was absolutely necessary that those minute details into which the right hon. Gentleman had gone, should be examined in a Select Committee. He was convinced, that if the House attempted to examine the details of the right hon. Gentleman's plan, as they were now stated, it would be found that the Members could not clearly understand them, and could come to no satisfactory result. The right hon. Gentleman's plan, instead of being a simplified statement of the demands upon the Civil List; was a statement more complicated than ever. The right hon. Gentleman had added to the difficulty by his plan of borrowing from one fund to pay to another, for the purpose of lessening or increasing, according to circumstances, the amount of the Civil List. As far as he had been able to follow the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, he had not been able to approve of it in any degree. It would be difficult for the country to understand what the House voted if Members should consent to the vote in the form in which it was proposed, the right hon. Gentleman had placed in it so many items of expenditure which did not in the least belong to the dignity, comfort, or splendor of the Crown. What was the consequence of this? Why, that if the Civil List was voted in the manner now proposed, the House would appear to be giving to the Crown 970,000 l., when, in point of fact, all that the Crown would receive would be found to be comprised in the three first of the classes into which the right hon. Gentleman had divided the whole scheme. He should be inclined to say, that the Civil List of the Crown should extend only to those branches of expenditure which related to the Monarch himself. He could not conceive what addition it was to the splendor, dignity or comfort of his Majesty, to have money paid to him for the mere purpose of
446
being paid out again, for matters which did not appertain to his Majesty personally, but to the diplomatic service of the country. He did not know why the expenses of Ambassadors, like the charges for Consuls, should not be annually brought under the view of Parliament, in order that Parliament might know that the Ministers really practised the economy that was demanded of them. One inconvenience among the rest, that would arise from the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's plan, was, that if the change he proposed took place, the House would be in a great state of confusion, part of the supplies of expenditure being taken from the Civil List, and part from the annual votes of the year. In like manner he must say, he could not understand why the great Public Officers, the Lords of the Treasury, and the other Officers of State, who had been named together with the right hon. Gentleman himself, should be charged upon the Civil List, when their salaries might as well be paid with other branches of expenditure by an annual vote of that House. It appeared to him that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was one which, instead of giving a clear account of the items in the Civil List for the present reign, continued all that confusion which had previously existed, with the exception only of a few trifling Amendments. As the vote on this question was not to be taken to-night, he would not detain the House further than by repeating, that he could not approve of the plan now brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir H. Parnelladdressed the House in support of the observations of the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat. He was compelled however to acknowledge that like the noble Lord he felt the greatest difficulty in following the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The saving he mentioned was very trifling, and the House ought to recollect that the estimate of the Civil List for 1820, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, was founded on that made in 1815, which was monstrously extravagant. The expenditure of the country was then altogether too large; and prices were much higher than at present. It seemed to him impossible for the House to come to a decision on the merits of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, without having a further inquiry than it

447
was now possible for them to make. He thought that the House ought to make a separation between the public and the private expenditure of his Majesty, and not appear to grant him a revenue which was, in fact, to be consumed by others. The necessity of each particular item of expenditure ought to be distinctly shown, and it ought to be kept distinct from every other. From the want of that separation in the grant of former Civil Lists, much confusion had arisen, and much of that extravagance which had drawn the country into the state in which it was now. It was utterly impossible for any individual Member of that House to know, from the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, what was the expenditure of money for the maintenance of the Government and for the public service. Until the separation he had alluded to had taken place, nothing like a fair estimate could be made; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had the opportunity of simplifying the matter, had increased the confusion in which it was before involved, the House had little reason to feel the satisfaction which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to anticipate. He said, therefore, that a fuller inquiry was necessary, in order to lay the foundation of a general improvement of the manner in which public accounts were laid before the House. Although that might appear to some a trifling matter, he was of opinion that it was really a matter of importance; and unless something was done to simplify the statement of the public accounts, the House would perpetually be encountered by difficulties, in their attempt to effect that retrenchment which the country expected at their hands. If the public accounts were suffered to be made out in the slovenly way they were at present kept, no man could understand them; and it would be impossible for them to have an effectual control over the public expenditure. He hoped, therefore, they would proceed with caution, and require from the Government the appointment of a committee, to examine into the details of the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Humecould not let this discussion pass without expressing his great regret at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. He confessed that the speech he had heard, much disappointed him, as, he believed it would disappoint the whole
448
country. When they heard the gracious declaration of his Majesty on the subject of economy, he submitted that the House must show their respect for it, by calling on the Ministers to act in accordance with that declaration. He was perfectly prepared to do all that was necessary to promote the comfort of his Majesty, and to uphold the dignity of the Crown. He was prepared to do that to the fullest extent which the present state of the country would allow, and to act towards his Majesty with the utmost possible degree of liberality. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the course they had a right to expect, even on his own showing; for he had referred to reports of committees as the ground on which he submitted his proposition. Reports on this subject were made in 1803, 1812, and 1815. He would not read them, but he would state the subject of them to the House. While each deplored the gradually increasing charge of the Civil List, they all declared that that increase was unavoidable, because the price of every necessary of life, and every article of expenditure, had increased. The reports referred to the private knowledge of each Member for a confirmation of this fact, and then declared that the increased charge of the expenditure was occasioned by the increase of price of every thing in the country. From that statement of the cause of the increase, what was now to be expected from the right hon. Gentleman? Why, that he should decrease the expenditure of the Civil List, at least in the degree in which the necessary articles of life had decreased in price. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman took the data of 1816 for the formation of his present plan—a year, in which the expenditure of this country was most profligate and extravagant; and asked the House to continue that expenditure, with the exception of some very paltry reductions. Why did he ask this? Because his Majesty had graciously made certain concessions of his hereditary revenues; but when he alluded to that subject, he ought to have stated what were the concessions made by William 4th, above those made by George 4th? The paper he (Mr. Hume) held in his hand consisted of thirteen items, which William 4th proposed to give up beyond those given up by George 4th. Those items might be found at page 180 of the Parliamentary

449
Papers of last Session. The first item related to the Droits of the Crown and Admiralty, and amounted to 1,229 l.; the second to Droits of the Admiralty, and amounted to 284 l.; the third consisted of the 4½-per-cent Duties, which he put down at nil, for the whole of them had already been transferred to the support of the hierarchy of the West-Indies. It was true, that if at any future period the expense of the Bishops of the West-Indies should amount to less than 21,000 l., and these duties should exceed that sum, the balance might be appropriated to the public accounts. On this point, in fact, there had been no concession, and for 150 years a large sum had been taken from a portion of the colonies, that the King might grant pensions to individuals whom he wished to favour. The next item was the Receiver General of Gibraltar, the nett receipts of last year being only 180 l.: this was a gift on the part of the Crown noble and liberal, and though the sum was small the principle was very important. He had had occasion at former times to complain of the manner in which the King had levied taxes at Gibraltar that he might put the proceeds into his pocket, and on an average of the last seven years the sum might amount to 9,000 l. or 10,000 l. The casual revenues of the Crown might amount annually to about 9,000 l., and the sum stated against the Receiver General of Green Wax, in respect of Green Wax, was 41 l. The Coroner and Attorney of the King, 104 l.; the King's Proctor, 8,164 l.; and the Commissioners of the Affairs of Taxes, 584 l. The Auditor of the Land Revenue of England, nil; the same of Wales, 75 l.; the produce of Spices, arising from the capture of the Molucca Islands, 309 l.; Inspector of Fines and Penalties, 864 l.; together with other items, amounting last year in the whole (as appeared by the Parliamentary Paper laid upon the Table pursuant to the Act 1 Geo. 4th), to only 24,000 l. Let every Member bear in mind that 24,000 l. was the whole sum relinquished under this head, exclusive of the revenues derived from Scotland. He, therefore, did not think, as far as regarded amount, that his Majesty was entitled to any great credit for what he had conceded; in principle, however, it was of immense importance that the King should divest himself of the power of interfering with these different
450
departments, small as they were, and that he should afford an opportunity of simplifying the public accounts, so that they might be laid before Parliament in a shape at once clear and intelligible. There he thought that the King had been well advised, and much good might be the result. No individual in this or in any former Parliament had regretted more deeply than he had done the complex manner in which the various items included in the Civil List had been stated. That Civil List had been the means of supporting a large aristocratical body—the odium of which the King was obliged to bear; he had been made to keep up establishments in no wise connected with his household, and in no degree contributing to his personal comfort or to his regal dignity, and merely for the maintenance of an aristocratical interest. He held in his hand the Act of 1 Geo. 4th, in which the payments out of the Civil List were separated into eight divisions, and the House would see, when properly examined, how small a portion actually belonged to his Majesty's household. He allowed all the first class, amounting to 210,000 l.; but what had the second class to do with the King's household, consisting, as it did, of payments to the Speaker of the House of Commons— to the Judges of the King's Courts—to the Barons of the Exchequer, and to the Justices of Wales, amounting to 32,000 l.? These were unconnected with the comfort of the King and the dignity of the Crown, and ought to be voted by Parliament. The third class related to Ambassadors at foreign Courts, and what had they to do with his Majesty's household? Only this —that if there were by chance any overplus—any sum not required—Ministers took good care that it should be applied in some wav or other. Why did he say so? Because, by 1 Geo. 4th, any sum not appropriated out of the 206,000 l. there set apart, was to be returned to the Exchequer. Mr. Canning, indeed, in three years, had taken great credit to the Government for returning to the Exchequer two sums—one of 7,000 l., and the other of 13,000 l.—under this clause, but his successors had not effected a saving even to that extent. The fourth class in the Act was a most important branch, including-the Lord Steward's department, and those of the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Robes, the Surveyor of the Works, &c. The sum granted for these officers in 1820

451
was 215,000 l., and in the last year it was 221,000 l. Under Mr. Burke's bill of 1786, the whole amount so appropriated was 147,000 l., and to that scale we ought now to return. The fifth class was that of tradesmen's bills, which unquestionably belonged to the Royal household. One of the great abuses of the Civil List was, that the King should have the power to give away 200,000 l. or 300,000 l. in pensions; the public, indeed, provided the money; 90,000 l. for one class of pensioners, 50,000 l. for another, and 38,000 l. for a third; and he asked whether the country was in a condition to pay such enormous sums for such purposes? He was most anxious to lighten the public burthens, and he hoped that, if a committee were appointed, it would not fail to inquire into the pensions granted by his late Majesty. While distress and starvation were staring the people in the face, it was not the time to continue the dead weight of useless pensioners. Not one man in twenty of them deserved such a reward, which was conferred only from favour and affection. Henceforward the Crown ought not to have the power of granting a single pension, excepting out of the savings of the Privy Purse. When the public paid the money, the public ought to be satisfied that it was properly applied. What was the result of an examination of the present Pension-list? That Peers and Peeresses, their sons, daughters, cousins, kith and kin, who possessed parliamentary influence, were extravagantly paid for doing nothing. The time was come when there must be an end of that system; a cheap Government was now the one thing needful, and relief for the people, by cutting off all needless expenses, must be granted. At least it was clear that the pensions charged on the Civil List had no connexion with the Royal household. The next class in the Act 1 Geo. 4th included the Lord President of the Council, the Constable of Dover Castle, the Master of the Hawks, the Chief Justice of Ireland, &c. How were these offices part of the Royal house hold? What did the petitions with which the Table was crowded pray? Not that the King should be deprived of a single comfort, a single luxury, or of anything necessary to support the dignity of the Crown. They only besought the House to put an end to all unnecessary expenses; and upon this point he wished
452
to know why the Constable of Dover Castle was to have 4,000 l. a year out of the Civil List?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, across the Table, that that office had been abolished some years ago.
That may be, continued Mr. Hume, but I only know that I find the item among the payments of last year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas understood to add, that the office had been abolished prospectively.
Mr. Hume:—What, then, will the right hon. Gentleman say to the office of Master of the Hawks? Who keeps hawks now? I know not, but I believe that no man has any business to keep them. When the poor of the country are starving, is it a time for giving a pension to the Master of the Hawks? In addition to this, here is a list as long as a tailor's bill, of pensions altogether unnecessary, and which, of course, ought to be abolished. I submit, therefore, that all these items, instead of being glossed over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be submitted to the test of a committee. It is a question whether the nation can afford to pay some expenses of the kind that appear even necessary. We have heard declarations—nay, vows of economy—and what interpretation can be put upon that part of the King's most gracious Speech, but that he wishes every practicable retrenchment to be made? If his Ministers would but give his Majesty wholesome advice, there was no man in the kingdom more ready to follow it. I now arrive at the seventh class—the salaries of the Commissioners of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish the just salaries of all useful public servants to be paid; but is there any reason why they should be put upon the Civil List? National expenses ought to be paid out of the national purse. In the eighth class—occasional payments—the greater number ought indisputably to come before the House of Commons. I will state one or two of them. Here 1 find no less than 10,000 l. a year for what is called "home secret service," independent of the 50,000 l. paid for secret service generally. Then we come to "special service and Royal bounty;" but I apprehend that the King's liberality ought to be limited by his means. If those means are insufficient, and the object be a good one, let his Majesty come to Parliament, and he will not be sparingly dealt with, What con-

453
clusion, then, do I come to? This:—That the only items in Mr. Burke's Bill of 1786, and the only items at the present moment, that ought to be charged upon the Civil List, are the first, fourth, and fifth classes, viz.:—The Privy Purse for the King and Queen; the Establishment of the Household, and the Tradesmen's Bills for that Establishment, amounting to 291,000 l.; or, including 50,000 l. for the Queen, to 349,000 l. Last year, the charge under these three heads was the following:—For the Privy Purse,60,000 l.; for the Lord Chamberlain, and other Officers of the Household, 215,000 l.; and for Tradesmen's Bills, 137,000 l.—making in the whole only 412,000 l. out of the 1,120,000 l. granted for the Civil List. Not one shilling more, I contend, is necessary for the comfort and dignity of the Crown. On that ground, I contend, that this House cannot be prepared to vote the 970,000 l. now required, and that the Commons of England are bound to inquire, before they come to any decision upon the subject. If the sum necessary for the Royal Household were separated, as it ought to be, from other charges not at all connected with it, the King would be relieved from the odium under which he now labours—that so large a sum as nearly a million is annually required for his own personal expenses. Of this I am sure, that nothing but an investigation before a committee can enable this House to come to a vote, if it have any wish to perform its duty to the public. Let me remind it, that this is not the first, nor the sixth time, that hon. Members near me have contended for a diminution of the "Civil expenditure of the Crown: when they have so contended, they have been uniformly met with this answer—that a bargain had been made at the commencement of the reign, and that the compact having been entered into, it could not be broken. The proper time for making reductions of the kind is at the commencement of a new reign—that time is now arrived—a fresh bargain is now to be made; and when the Table groans with petitions, and will hereafter groan under a ten-fold weight of petitions we are bound to obtain the fullest information before we enter into a new contract. We ought not to allow ourselves to be taken by surprise in the ebullition of the moment, and with such a complication of accounts as renders them utterly unin-
454
telligible. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord (Althorp) will move for a Committee on an early day: and if the papers are printed and delivered tomorrow, I do not see how we can take them into consideration before Wednesday or Thursday. Without previous inquiry we cannot be prepared to say what sum ought or ought not to be granted, and without that inquiry we shall not do our duty to our constituents. At all events, I protest against the arrangement proposed—it is uncalled for and complicated, and will be received with disappointment, if not with indignation, by the people.
Mr. Brougham: I cannot pretend to say, that I have yet formed a decided opinion upon the great question before the House, but I am inclined to agree with my noble friend near me (Lord Althorp) that even after the promised papers are in our hands further information will be necessary. The subject is of the utmost importance in itself, and in connexion with others — in its constitutional relations, and, above all, on account of the interests it excites among our constituents. Until we have full knowledge, we ought not to proceed to anything like a final adjudication: I therefore am disposed to support the proposition of my noble friend for a committee, and the reason urged by my hon. friend (Mr. Hume) is precisely the ground on which I arrive at that conclusion. We are making an arrangement which is to last during the life of his Majesty, and however we may hereafter find that we have been in the wrong, we may be told—and justly told—that it is too late to reopen the contract: the bargain has been made, and until the demise of the Crown it cannot be altered. As I confidently hope, and earnestly pray, that that event may be long postponed, it becomes more and more our imperative duty not to enter, as it were, blindfold into such a permanent arrangement. The last arrangement was made, I believe, in the year 1815: the people are now more awake to their own interests, but I am sorry to say that they have not the same confidence either in the Executive Government or in the Parliament, which they evinced at the date I have mentioned. lean only say, that I heartily concur in the objections stated by my noble friend; the simplifying of the accounts would be a vast improvement.

455
This has been frequently called a trading nation, and every private individual keeps a check upon his expenditure and the dealings of his servants; he keeps an accurate and intelligible system of accounts; every merchant, without exception, does so, or he would soon find his way into the gazette. That in public affairs, so infinitely more important, a plain, rational, intelligible, certain, and natural system, should be superseded by a system unplain, irrational, unintelligible, uncertain, and not in the least natural, is indeed most extraordinary. The exigency for simple accounts, where even the interest upon the debt amounts to many millions, is ten-fold increased. The amount does not one jot add to the difficulty, for it is just as easy to keep a system of accounts where millions as where units are concerned. This is a point which every body knows, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I own I had some difficulty in following the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and I should, perhaps, say, that it was my fault if I did not find that my difficulty was shared by my hon. friends round me. It appears to me, that instead of taking this occasion to simplify matters, he has added to their confusion; he has talked of subtraction and addition, and added, apparently, only to subtract; for that novel course—novel with any body else—I, for one, do not see the absolute necessity. It seems to me to be most unreasonable, absurd, and unfair, towards the King, that he should apparently cost the country three or four times as much as his actual expenditure. It is well known among us, that the King does not spend nearly the half of the money we are called upon to vote; but out of doors it is generally thought that he consumes every farthing of it, and comparisons are every day made between the cost of a King of England and of a president of the United States. "See (say those ignorant of matters of finance of this kind) the difference between a Republic and a Monarchy: the President of the United States is paid 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a-year. and the King of England more than a million." This comparison is exceedingly unjust and inaccurate; but whose fault is it that it is made? Nor ought we to be much surprised that the people fall into a trap which year after year Ministers take so much pains to dig for them. Milton preferred a republic to a monarchy, because, as he
456
said, the mere trappings of a monarchy would fit out a republic; and what course then can be more fit or natural for us to take than to separate the trappings from the substance, and to take from the charge of the Civil List the expenses of foreign Ministers, and many others that have no sort of connexion with it? Do we take this course; and what is the course which we actually follow? We, in our wisdom, take a great deal of what is not trapping, and, by covering it with gloss and slime, we not only make it appear trapping, but we exaggerate it beyond its proper dimensions. Such a proceeding is most unfair to the King at all times: it is at all times bad policy, but most especially bad in times like these. The King is a popular and justly beloved Monarch; but we endeavour to make his people watch, maliciously watch him, and draw odious and unjust comparisons. It is our fault, not theirs; it is unjust and impolitic to the cause of limited Monarchy, and the blindness and blunders of statesmen are loading it with sins that do not belong to it. Another word as to my disappointment, and the disappointment of the country, regarding the surrenders and savings by the Crown. First as to the savings. It may be my error, but it seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made out the savings to be greater than they really are. When he talks of 130,000 l. or 140,000 l. let me ask him whether he deducts the expenses of his royal highness the Duke of Clarence? Of course we there must save 38,000 l. a-year, for he cannot be King and Duke of Clarence at the same time. We have just as good a right to deduct the allowances of the Dukes of Kent and York, but whether they have been deducted I know not. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman or any body else attempt to mislead the people: it may succeed for eight and forty hours, but no longer. Then as to the hereditary revenues of the Crown, I did hope, and I expressed my gratitude, founded upon that hope, that the Duchy of Lancaster would be included in the cession by his Majesty, I now find that it is not included. The King's speech turns out to have been constructed on a plan much the reverse of that on which speeches are usually made; they are generally intended to be understood, but the object here seems to have been to render the King's Speech un-

457
intelligible. It talks of foreign interference, and yet we have every day since been told that it means no such thing. Another part of it led me to think that the hereditary revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster were to be relinquished. This sense seemed expressed in the largest and most comprehensive terms that could be employed, and it forms my excuse for having formed unfounded expectations; "I place (said the King or he was made to say) without reserve at your disposal my interest in the hereditary revenues, and in those funds which may be derived from any droits of the Crown or Admiralty, from the West-India duties, or from any casual revenues either in my foreign possessions or in the United Kingdom." That is to say, "I surrender all my revenues, casual or otherwise, at home or abroad; "and the expression is so wide and sweeping that I had no doubt that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, aye, and of Cornwall too, were included. No doubt I shall be told by the Attorney General who was Attorney General for the Duchy of Lancaster, and who is full of that jealousy natural to a single Attorney General, much more to a double one—that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster are not the hereditary revenues of the Crown.—[Some Member cried, hear, hear!].—That cheer comes from a lawyer, I am sure [laughter. The hon. Member rose in his place.] The hon. Gentleman, I see, is a civilian; but his distinction shows, that he would have been an ornament to the profession. He means to say, that his Majesty does not receive the revenues to the Duchy of Lancaster as king, but as Duke; and that, from ignorance or inadvertence, I have put a wrong construction on the words, "I place without reserve, at your disposal, my interest in the hereditary revenues'' of the Crown. But let us recollect that the King is Duke both of Lancaster and of Cornwall; and thus an ignorant man —not the Duke of Wellington—might be misled by the expression I have quoted. If the framer of the speech really wished the people to understand him, he has pursued a very strange course; and I would advise him, in the interval of his public duties, to disport himself with a few grammatical exercises. The first page of the first grammar he could take up, would inform him, that "the use of speech is, to be understood by those who hear," If
458
I had meant to include the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, I should have used the very terms which it seems the author of this grammatical contradiction employed with the intention of excluding them. When his Majesty tells us, that he places without reserve at our disposal his interest in the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and in those funds which go into his possession from any casual revenues, at home or abroad, is it not natural for us to conclude that he gives up the hereditary revenues of the Crown from whatever source derived; and is it not the Duke of Lancaster who speaks as well as the King? His Majesty does not go down to Lancaster or Preston, to make one speech as Duke of Lancaster, and return to London, to make another speech as King of England. The distinction is a mere quibble, and if not made by a lawyer, give me leave to say it is worthy of the ingenuity of the most astute special pleader. The abandonment by the King in his Speech was an abandonment of the whole without reserve or exception. After what has passed to night, I do not say it was intended; it is a blunder in the King's Speech—a blunder by the Minister—a blunder arising out of sheer stupidity and utter ignorance of the meaning of language; there seems to have existed a total indifference whether the Royal Address was or was not understood, and whether it did or did not express the intention of the high personage by whom it was delivered. Giving satisfaction to the people was out of the question, and perhaps from the time of Charles 2nd or James 2nd to the present hour, there never was a speech from the Throne which produced in the country such a uniform and strong feeling of indignation. If any county Member differs from me, he has only to rise and assert that his constituents are well satisfied; and, no doubt, next Monday or Tuesday, he may again rise, and again assert that his constituents are also satisfied with the diminution of the Civil List, and with the vast improvement in the simplification of the accounts. Give me leave to add, that this question is of infinite importance to the stability of the Monarchy—to the character of the King, and to the character of Parliament, and I, therefore, hail with satisfaction the notice given by my noble friend (Lord Althorp), or by the hon. Baronet, the member for Queen's county (Sir H. Parnell), to take the, sense of the House on

459
the moderate, rational, and judicious course of referring this subject to the investigation of a Select Committee.
Sir Robert Peel: The observations of the hon. and learned Member seem to me to call for some reply—[Mr. Brougham here rose, as if to leave the House, but Sir R. Peel requested him to remain.]—It is certainly unusual for a Member to charge a Government with sheer stupidity and gross ignorance; and when a vindication is about to be attempted, for him to leave the House: but I do not ask the hon. and learned Member to remain in his place that he may hear my answer, but that he may listen to a charge against him of gross ignorance on his part. I did not think it right to accuse him in his absence, and I therefore entreated him to retain his seat. He asserts that Government have been guilty of gross ignorance and want of the common knowledge of grammatical construction—that they also had the intention to mislead, inasmuch as they have put into the King's mouth a proposal to resign all interest in the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and thus exciting an expectation that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, among others, were to be relinquished. The hon. and learned Gentleman contends that there ought to have been contained in the speech a distinct explanation that his Majesty did not mean to relinquish his interest in the hereditary revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster; and with a view to this point, it is material to refer to the language of former Sovereigns, when they have invited the settlement of their Civil List. George 4th relinquished his interest in the hereditary revenues of the Crown; but he did not en that account give up his interest in the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster; on the contrary, he expressly retained them, and in his Speech to Parliament in 1820, he said—"The first object to which your attention will be directed is, the provision to be made for the support of the Civil Government, and of the honour and dignity of the Crown—I leave entirely at your disposal my interest in the Hereditary Revenues." George 4th did not, nor did he mean to relinquish the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, and nobody supposed that he did mean it; therefore, it is not the gross ignorance of his Majesty's Government that is to be complained of; but the gross ignorance of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which has led him to
460
make the unfounded accusation. George the 3rd also in his Speech resigned his interest in the hereditary revenue; but he retained his interest in the hereditary revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Speech, therefore;, of his present Majesty, is in exact conformity with the Speeches of his predecessors, George 3rd and George 4th; and I contend with confidence, that the present Government are not chargeable with the gross ignorance, which belongs only to the hon. and learned Member. But it seems that the terms "casual revenues" imply the relinquishment of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster."
Mr. Brougham: I contend that the words of the Speech imply everything.
Sir R. Peel: And I contend that they do not. I suppose, that, as a lawyer, the hon. Gent, will not deny that the construction of particular phrases is to be collected from Acts of the Legislature, and I refer him to the language of the Statute I George 4th, to establish that it was never intended that the accounts of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster should annually be laid before Parliament, like the accounts of the surplus revenues of Gibraltar, &c. which it was provided should be presented before the 24th March in each year. Here, then, is an Act of the Legislature, giving an express construction to the words "casual revenues;" and I think I have shewn that these words cannot be held to apply to the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster. I contend, therefore, confidently that his Majesty's Ministers cannot be justly charged with gross ignorance and stupidity for not including those revenues in words to which former Speeches and Acts of Parliament have given a definite meaning, excluding those revenues. It will be more convenient on a future occasion to discuss the proposition of the noble Lord for a Select Committee; though neither he nor the hon. and learned Member seems to have made up his mind whether that committee shall have power only to examine accounts, or to send for persons, papers, and records; but let me tell them that the distinction is most material. The whole speech of the hon. member for Middlesex shows that he would not be satisfied unless the committee had power to investigate the necessity of the most minute items of expenditure; nor do I see, whatever object the noble Lord may have in view, how that could be otherwise answered,

461
I beg to state, however, that at no period has Parliament yet thought fit to appoint a committee with such extensive powers to inquire into the Civil List; though I will reserve until the proper occasion my objections to the nomination of a committee, now first proposed, to examine every particular connected with the Royal Household, and the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown. 1 hold in my hand a statement of the amount of every bill for the last ten years, and it has been prepared in order that the House may be able to compare the estimate of the present year with the expenditure of the past. If, however, the House of Commons deems it consistent with propriety to ascertain whether it was fit, in every instance, that the money laid out should have been so expended, all I can say is, that such a course will spare the King's servants some labour; but I do not think it is well calculated to uphold the dignity of the Monarchy. There is no instance of the appointment of such a committee, excepting where a debt was incurred by the Civil List, and where resort was had to Parliament for the payment of it. It seems to me that the accounts already produced, and those that will be laid upon the Table this evening, contain so full an explanation of every item of charge, that I cannot believe the House will not be as competent to form its judgment upon every point on which its judgment will be required, as if a committee were to be named, with the limitations imposed on former committees on the same subject. On this question the House cannot possibly decide until it sees all the documents; but this I may say, that the King's Government would have been justly chargeable with an attempt to throw the responsibility of the settlement of the Civil List on the House of Commons, if it had not itself proposed the estimate of what it thought consistent with public economy, and a due regard to the comfort and dignity of the Throne. I apprehend that the House will feel that we have pursued a course both accordant with propriety and conformable to ancient usage. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains of the complexity of the accounts. Now, I cannot see how the accounts could be simplified by merely transferring some particular items from one account to another. Any man of sense, who will take the trouble of reading the Act of Parliament, will understand that those expenses have
462
no connection with the personal expenditure of the Sovereign. It may be right or it may be wrong to include them in the Civil List; but I, for my part, cannot understand how their omission could serve in the least to simplify the accounts. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that it is not fair to the monarchy to include in the Civil List expenses which are incurred for the public service, and not for the personal comfort of the Sovereign, or for the dignity of the Crown. But, Sir, for my part, I think it by no means expedient to separate the personal expenses of the Monarch from every other expense. Such an arrangement, at least, would be contrary to that which has been hitherto adopted, and which met the assent of Mr. Fox, and of many other eminent men who were usually opposed to the Ministers of their day, and equally alive to preserving the welfare and independence of the people, and the dignity of the Crown. It never before has been suggested that there exists any necessity to make a separation of those articles of expenditure which are applied to the maintenance of the splendor of the Crown from those which are applied to the service of the State. I am sure, Sir, that no arrangement could be made, of which mischievous and artful persons could not take advantage for the purpose of inflaming the minds of the ignorant and thoughtless. Look to the hand-bills which some designing persons have found means to circulate extensively, representing the Marquis of Bute to receive vast sums of the public money, while the truth is, that nobleman has never received from the public one farthing. The name of the noble Marquis is placed at the head of a list of persons who are described as receiving immense sums from the taxes. Now, Sir, I know that great dissatisfaction has been excited among the least informed of the people by those gross misrepresentations. But by what arrangements shall we be able to prevent mischievous men from making such statements, and ignorant and foolish men from believing them? Now in what respect is confusion occasioned by the present arrangement? and in what degree would simplification be effected by setting aside, in a separate account from every other branch of the public expenditure, 400,000 l. or 500,000 l. or whatever sum Parliament may see fit to allow, for the personal expenses of the Crown? The impression on my mind is, that such

463
an arrangement would be, for many reasons, inexpedient. And so far as public economy is concerned, it is of no consequence whatever upon what fund those other expenses (now included in the Civil List) are charged; for there is an express provision, that should any saving be effected in them, the sum saved shall not go into the Privy Purse, but shall be transferred to the Exchequer. As regards public economy, therefore, I say, Sir, there is no difference whether those expenses be placed in this account or in that. But further, Sir, as to this sum of 400,000 l. or 500,000 l., which is said to be voted for the personal comfort of his Majesty, I deny that it is intended to contribute to his personal comfort. It is voted to enable him to maintain that splendour, the maintenance of which is inseparably connected, not with the personal comforts of the King, but with the public interest. Is the office of the Lord High Steward, or of the Lord Chamberlain, or any other of the officers of the household, institututed for the personal comfort of the Sovereign? Certainly not. There are connecting links between the Throne and the aristocracy, and unite together the separate bodies which, without some such connection and mutual dependence might come into hostility and conflict. They are subservient to that dignity which the Sovereign should uphold for the honour and interest of the nation, and which he sometimes upholds with great inconvenience to himself. Therefore, Sir, I doubt whether it be expedient to make an entire separation of the expense of every public office from the Civil List, and to hold out to the people in a separate sum, the charge which they pay for the monarchy. I say it is a question rather of feeling, or at most of expediency, than of public economy. I believe that every man of intelligence in the kingdom is aware, that the Civil List does not merely include the personal expenses of the Monarch, but that it also provides for other branches of the public service. I cannot suppose that we should either dispel illusion or give satisfaction by the separation proposed. Even the advantages which are represented as likely to be attained by that arrangement do not seem to me of such importance as to counterbalance the inconveniences which would result from it. However, as this seems to me to be a question for the consideration of the committee—whether it
464
be a mere Committee of Supply, or a committee of more extended powers, such as the noble Lord (Althorp) has proposed, for that opportunity I shall reserve the further explanation of my view of this question.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that he not only forgave the right hon. Baronet for the charge which he had brought against him, but he also thanked him for having kept him (Mr. Brougham) to hear what he certainly had never heard before. He would not say that he was not grossly ignorant, but he was then, at least, less ignorant than he had been before that evening. Until then he had not known that there was any man who supposed that such a charge could be made against him. The right hon. Baronet, however, had charged him with ignorance—not respecting anything of which he (Mr. Brougham) had spoken, but respecting that to which he had not made the most distant allusion. He would ask, did any hon. Member hear him allude to the speeches of former Kings? yet the hon. Baronet had produced two Kings' Speeches to convict him of gross ignorance—ignorance of what?— of Kings' Speeches. He (Mr. Brougham) had complained of the phrase "without reserve," which occurs in the last Speech from the Throne; and the right hon. Baronet had endeavoured, in his speech, to show that the phrase "without reserve," in that speech, was used in the same meaning as the word "entirely" in the Speech of a former King. He (Mr. Brougham) knew well, that when the late King, in his Speech in 1820, placed the hereditary revenues of the Crown at the disposal of that House, those of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Duchy of Cornwall were reserved from that surrender. But what misled him (Mr. Brougham) and other lawyers, in respect to the meaning of the Speech with which the present Session was opened, was this: When Ministers came down to the House, and said in the name of the Crown, that his Majesty placed at the disposal of the House, "without reserve," his interest in the hereditary revenues, and in those funds which may be derived from his Droits of the Admiralty, &c. &c. or from any casual revenues, either in his foreign possessions, or in the United Kingdom—when he and many others heard that, they could not suppose that anything else was meant but that his Majesty gave up those revenues

465
unlimitedly and without that reservation of the revenues of the Duchies which had been made on the occasions referred to by the right hon. Baronet. Now, he would ask what pains had there not been taken to keep them in that error? Was that declaration in the Speech received like those of former Speeches? Did not he (Mr. Brougham) say in his remarks upon that Speech, that he stood up to discharge a pleasing office, in expressing his heartfelt satisfaction that his Majesty had tendered, unhesitatingly, not only his other hereditary revenues, but also those which he derived from Cornwall and Lancaster, and which the Crown had formerly been so loth to relinquish? But, good God! he would ask, was the surrender, which had been so much praised for its unreserved-ness and for the economy of purpose which it implied; was that surrender, after all, only the same as that made by a former King, whom nobody ever praised for economy, except, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That King's reign might be characterised by some, as happy and prosperous and peaceful, and what not; but if the English language contained one word more inapplicable than another to that reign, it was the word economical. But when the Ministers saw him (Mr. Brougham) and others strain their throats in the praises of the present King, for the unlimitedness of his surrender of those revenues, why did not somebody stand up and say "Don't be too thankful for small mercies. Wait, simpletons, until you see what you are going to get?" Far from that; when he (Mr. Brougham) expressed his gratitude for the surrender of the resources of the Duchy of Lancaster, there were in the House, besides the Ministers who had spoken, three Cabinet Ministers in reserve. Amongst them was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then prepared with his plan of "no surrender" and with all his plans of reform. Why, he would ask, did not that right hon. Gentleman stand up and say:—" Pooh, pooh! you poor deluded fool!—why do you waste your gratitude? There is no Lancaster nor Cornwall either to be given up." No, no. Not one of the right hon. Gentlemen opened even a corner of his mouth to correct the mistake. But when they saw that the Speech had led him into error, they left him and the House under the delusion until that night, when the speech
466
of the right hon. Gentleman came to disappoint their just expectations. He was not prepared to say what ought to be the powers of the committee to which the question of the Civil List was to be referred. He would not say that it ought to be such as never before was appointed— namely, with instructions to call before it the scullions of the royal kitchen, and the lowest menials of the household, as to items of the King's expenditure; but he was prepared to say, that there ought to be a committee instructed to inquire rigidly into those other expenses so improperly mixed up with the Civil List. With respect to the misrepresentation concerning the Marquis of Bute, he (Mr. Brougham) marvelled much at the inadvertency of the right hon. Baronet in not perceiving how much the case of the noble Marquis operates against his own argument. That nobleman is Lord Lieutenant of the country of Glamorgan. Now if it were found that in the accounts of that county all the expenses of its administration were set down to the name of the Marquis, would not such a discovery explain the pretences upon which the statements of the calumnious handbill are founded? And was it not to prevent a similar misstatement respecting the expenses of the King, that the separation of other expenses from the Civil List had been proposed? As to what the right hon. Baronet had stated respecting the assent of Mr. Fox to the arrangements adhered to by the Ministry, he (Mr. Brougham) did not know whether that great statesman had or had not given such an arrangement his sanction. But this he knew, that Mr. Fox was but twelve years old when the settlement of the Civil List was proposed in the reign in which he (Mr. Fox) took part in public affairs. Of what weight his opinions on such a subject could have been at that age, he was unable to say, and he also knew that Mr. Fox was dead more than twelve years before the settlement of the Civil List in the last reign. Why his venerated name had been introduced on the present occasion, he could not understand; perhaps Mr. Fox did at some time or other say something in which he might be supposed to approve of the management; and if the Members were informed of his opinion, no doubt it would have considerable weight with them.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that when the hon.

467
and learned Member affirmed that a charge had been made against him, he seemed to forget that he had put them (the Ministers) upon their defence, and that no charge had been brought against the hon. and learned Member by him (Sir R. Peel), except in retort for a charge previously brought against himself. He had certainly dwelt upon one expression used by the learned Gentleman, in which he had charged the Ministers with gross ignorance. Throughout that discussion he had been altogether right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman altogether wrong, notwithstanding the ingenuity with which he had endeavoured to support his construction of the passage in the King's Speech alluded to. The revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall were never, he contended, understood to be comprehended in the phrase "hereditary revenues of the Crown." In surrendering the hereditary revenues of the Crown to the disposal of that House, his late Majesty King George 4th, had used the expression, that he surrendered them "entirely," and his present Majesty had said the same thing in other words— namely, that he surrendered those revenues "without reserve." The difference was only in the phraseology—there was no difference of meaning. The words of his Majesty's Speech were these:—"I place, without reserve, at your disposal, my interest in the hereditary revenues, and in those funds which may be derived from any Droits of the Crown or Admiralty, from the West-India duties," &c. &c. Now, he would ask if it were not clear that his Majesty would have enumerated the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall amongst the others, had he purposed to surrender them [no, no!]? As to the statement that Mr. Fox was only twelve years old when the question of the Civil List was discussed, the fact was, that Mr. Fox was in Parliament when Mr. Burke brought forward the act by which the Civil List was divided into the different classes of expenditure which it contains at present; and when that bill was before the House, Mr. Fox did not dissent from the arrangement. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) asked why the Ministers did not correct the mistake respecting the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. On the second evening he (Sir R. Peel) heard that mistake corrected by his right hon.
468
friend near him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House on that occasion, perhaps he was attending to his duties elsewhere; but he (Sir R. Peel) was in the House, attending to his duty, when the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. D. W. Harvey) asked whether the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, were included in the surrender, and it was distinctly answered that they were not.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that he had not been set right on the night before.
The Attorney-Generalwas sure that when his learned friend opposite (Mr. Brougham) considered what long speeches he was in the habit of making, he would not quarrel with him (the Attorney-General) for not remembering every thing that he (Mr. Brougham) might say there, and in other places, where he (the Attorney-General) had the pleasure of meeting him. Had he (the Attorney-General) supposed for a moment that his learned friend, or any other lawyer, could fall into the error of considering the Revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall included in the expression, "the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown," he (Sir J. Scarlett) would have immediately set him right.
Lord James Stuartwas glad that allusion had been made to certain placards, in which it was mentioned that a noble relative of his was in the receipt of a sum of public money, to the amount of 62,000 l. a-year, as it gave him an opportunity of utterly denying, in his place in the House, the statement on the placard. He begged to tell the honourable Committee that his hon. relative, (the Marquis of Bute), never received one single farthing from the public during the last sixteen years in which he had been in possession of his estate. As very considerable circulation had been given to the placard, and as it had been quoted in various newspapers of great respectability and great circulation, he felt that the Committee would excuse him in making the statement. He could not imagine who it was, or what class of persons, thought fit to indulge in such gross and infamous falsehoods, but he was sure every Gentleman in the House, and every man out of doors, would take pleasure in contradicting these assertions. The placard alluded to was extracted from a publication of some years back, entitled "a Peep at the Peers. "He knew this publication to be full of cross and infamous

469
falsehoods, not only as regarded his brother, but other persons.
Lord Palmerstonconsidered, that the observations of his right hon. friend (Sir R. Pee!) only further proved the unfortunate choice of topics which the King's Speech exhibited. He had heard it said of some person, as a great proof of ability, that he could speak off a King's Speech without preparation. And certainly, until he heard the Speech with which the present Session had been opened, he did not think that there was any great display of talent in such an exploit. But when he knew that eleven Statesmen had been employed in the production of the Speech so often alluded to in the discussion of that evening, he was enabled to appreciate the merit of the man who could compose a King's Speech without assistance or premeditation. For his own part, he (Lord Palmerston) knew that there were a great number in that House, who had supposed the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to be included in the revenues which his Majesty placed at the disposal of the House. He thought it would have been better for the Ministers (as some of them must have been aware of the general impression respecting that matter) to have come forward to correct the error, instead of relying upon an explanation of technicalities for their excuse. He would not then go into the details of the arrangements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that evening explained, for, on so short a consideration as he had been able to give the subject, it was impossible to make up his mind respecting it. But he saw with regret that the Government was not convinced of the propriety of a more simplified arrangement. In the arguments alleged by his right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel), he did not see any satisfactory grounds for adhering to the present arrangement. His right hon. friend denied that the change recommended was of any importance in regard to public economy; but he (Lord Palmerston) was of opinion, that when the expenses of the Civil List were to be settled for the whole reign, it must be of great importance indeed to public economy that the accounts should be considered fully; which he did not think could be done if the expenses were not brought forward under different heads. His right hon. friend expressed doubts whether it would be for the real interest of the Crown that the personal expenses of
470
the Monarch should be placed in a separate account from the other domestic expenses of the State, and he seemed to think that something was gained to the credit of the Crown by its personal expenses being hidden amongst numerous other charges. But no advantage, he was sure, could be gained by an arrangement in which the real state of the facts was kept out of sight. He believed that there was in the House and in the country every disposition to contribute to the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown with the splendor suited to that form of Government under which the country enjoyed so many advantages, and to which he was convinced the people were devotedly attached. In those estimates the personal expenses of the Crown ought to be separated from others which have no more connexion with them than any expenses which are brought before the House in a different manner. The result was, that when the House was called on to give 800,000 l. or 900,000 l. for the support of the Civil List, and any hon. Member objected that such a sum was too great, the Ministers turned round and replied that only one-half of that sum was really appropriated to the expenses of the Crown. The only advantage that Ministers could expect to derive from such an arrangement was, to keep the House from understanding the true state of the expenditure. He quite agreed with his right hon. friend, that it was not desirable that the House should go into minute inquiries as to details of the expenses necessary for the personal comforts of the Sovereign. Such inquiries would be revolting to the country, and were not desired by the House; and he was sure that had the Government set down in the Civil List only those expenses, to the investigation of which that strong objection could apply, the discussion of that evening would not have arisen. But of the contents of that List there was more than one-half, to the examination of which such an objection could not be applied. He was perfectly sure that, when they came to the details of that List, whether they should do so in a Committee up-stairs or in that House, there would be in all but one desire—to look with vigilance to all other expenses whatever, at the same time that they should allow the Sovereign all that could be necessary to support his dignity with the splendor becoming his Majesty and the nation.
Sir H. Parnelltook that opportunity of

471
saying, that although he had no desire to raise unnecessary obstructions in the way of the public business, he should feel it his duty (when the question of the Civil List should be brought forward on Monday) to move that it be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into the particulars of the Expenditure.
Chairman to report progress, and Committee to sit again on Monday.

WEST INDIAN TRADE WITH AMERICA.
On the Motion of Mr. Herries the report on the Bill regulating the trade of America with British possessions was brought up.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, that by this Bill, the old principle of protection, which he had hoped had been exploded, was renewed. When he looked at the duties on articles imported from North America and the United States, he saw clearly what the object and intention was. He could not look at this as at all a measure of policy, inasmuch as the effect would be to give a misdirection to capital—to raise up certain interests which ought to be left to their own resources, and which, on some future occasion, we should again be called upon to protect. All these duties were for the benefit of the West-Indies, but opportunities would occur for their consideration at a future period. The whole system was one of error, which ought not to be perpetuated, as it would ever afford a strong ground of objection. The entire Colonial system required the most minute attention, as there was nothing more productive of expense, exclusive of the shackles it imposed upon commerce. He would not then occupy the time of the House further, but he must enter his protest against the whole proceeding.
The Resolutions were read, and on the question that the first Resolution be read a second time,
Mr. Keith Douglascontended, that the present schedule bestowed no boon upon the West-India interests, for that, before 1825, the trade between the Colonies and America was not incumbered with any duty, and the Colonies would not be better off now than before that year. In fact, the duties laid on by Lord Goderich were less than those now proposed. In justice to the colonists, some protection ought to be afforded to the West Indies, which were subject to duties, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the Crown, and they were imposed, just as suited, the political
472
views of the mother country. Justice should be done to all parties, and without due protection to the West Indies gross injustice would be rendered.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that scarcely had his hon. friend uttered his prediction, relative to the West-Indies, than it was fulfilled by the Representative of that interest who had just spoken. He, however, in the name of the people of England, must protest against any duty upon sugar, which was an article of the first necessity. Were the West-India interest not satisfied with protecting duties to the amount of a million and a half, but they must require fresh imposts in addition? The Colonies were most expensive encumbrances, and there was no end to the outlay required in their favour, for, in addition to all these duties, they would have fortifications, canals, &c. to provide for.
Mr. Jephsonalso protested against the present Colonial system.
Mr. Herriessaid, that he did not consider it necessary to go again over the ground which he had so recently passed, by repeating the remarks which, on the introduction of the measure, he felt it his duty to offer to the House. The proposed schedule had been treated, although it contained a plan, more liberal than had previously existed, as if it were a departure from the principles of what was usually termed free-trade. The only objection he had heard to it related to the principle of the Bill; and if he rightly comprehended the objection, the measure had been as completely misunderstood, as could well be conceived. It had been stated, that the schedule now introduced by Government, was an innovation on the recognised system. Such was not the case. The object of the measure was not to impose, for the first time, the duties which the schedule contained. It was the sequence of an amicable termination to a long controversy; and the arrangement had been concluded on terms which involved no departure from those principles (either in respect of our trade, or of our colonial possessions) which his Majesty's Government professed. The Ministers had not acted in opposition to the abstract principles of free-trade, but they were not bound to follow them so closely as to lead to consequences of an injurious character. He knew nothing so dangerous as that sort of philosophy which called for the unqualified adoption of those principles.

473
If he were accused of not acting up to general abstract principles, to that accusation he pleaded guilty. Abstract principles might be good in themselves, but nothing was more likely to plunge a country into danger and difficulty than to legislate on them without reference to the state and relations of the country. It was the duty of every statesman, however unexceptionable such principles might be, to regulate the application of them according to circumstances, and not, as was to be inferred from the hon. member for Bridport's doctrine, that circumstances, and expediency, and regard to long-established usages and interests, were all to be overlooked, or forced to bend in obedience to abstract principles. The general rule which his predecessors in office had acted upon, and which he purposed following, had been gradually to relax protecting duties; a rule to be departed from only when a departure should appear advantageous to the country. In 1822, Lord Goderich, then President of the Board of Trade, for the first time deviated from the ancient system, and laid down a new plan, by which our trade was thrown open, under certain restrictions. It was not then, nor could it justly be pretended now, that we ought to proceed upon principles adverse to separate interests, and embracing the good of the whole human race. The inhabitants of the earth did not yet form one family; and so long as they remained distinct nations, each pursuing its separate and independent interest, so long would it be the duty of the Legislature and Government of this country to refuse to foreign nations, the privileges of trading with our colonies upon the same terms as ourselves. He wished, however, to guard himself from its being understood that he desired to depart from those abstract principles of free-trade, any further than was demanded by a fair and rational attention to circumstances of present expediency. He was for affording all the relaxation that could safely be granted; and it was only when concession became dangerous, that he would stop short. Hon. Members were in error when they supposed that the schedule of duties was framed with a view to benefit the West-India interest, or any other interest than that of the empire at large. It was the result, as he had, on a former occasion explained, of the very satisfactory conclusion of a long and difficult controversy, involving many disputed points between this country and
474
the United States, and it did not propose to effect more than to open the trade of our West-India colonies to America. Concessions had been made by the United States, which previously had been refused, and a participation in the trade of our western colonies had been granted them, under certain restrictions. Those concessions we were bound to carry into effect, by some such plan as that which he had introduced to the House. Under the restrictions laid down in this Bill, our northern colonies and the United States were permitted to trade with the West-Indies. It was no innovation on our commercial policy, the principle being, as nearly as possible, the same, deviating only according to existing circumstances, as that established by Lord Goderich, in 1822, and confirmed by the late Mr. Huskisson, whose name must be allowed to be an authority in such matters, in 1825. The conduct of the American government in refusing the terms offered to them in that year, compelled the British Government to issue the order which prohibited a direct communication between the United States and the West-Indies. The direct intercourse between the two countries was thus broken off, while, by the Act of 1825, the circuitous intercourse was established. After a lapse of time, circumstances indeed arose, which induced a hope that the line of conduct which had been adopted by the American government would be changed; but if the Government had suffered the interests of its colonies to have been again injured, it would not have acted with that strict regard to the welfare of the people in favour of which it had always manifested a strong disposition. After all the arguments he had heard, and after all the attention he had been able to bestow upon the subject, he did not think that a more beneficial course could have been selected. It had been said, that it should be the endeavour of the Government, when it imposed a tax, that such tax should yield a benefit to the country. That was the principle the Government was endeavouring in this case to act upon. The advantage apparently given to the United States was not meant for them alone, but would be divided with this country. His hon. friend who appeared as the Representative for the West-India interest, had only alluded to a few articles in the schedule, by which he thought the West-India interest would be injured; but whilst he carefully pointed

475
out the part calculated to create a slight diminution of gain, he forgot the advantages that would be derived from the other parts of the schedule. The hon. member for Bridport had questioned the mark of favour which, he said, had been given to the West-India proprietors. He must beg leave not to make that a question of debate at present, as the time for the discussion of the sugar-duties would arrive in due season. But if the House were to deal with the Canadians by the rule which some hon. Members laid down, changing the favoured position in which they now stood, they would immediately say, "Oh, you are breaking through your promise." In his opinion, the measure adopted would most conduce to a general advantage; for when duties were imposed, the probability was, that the Minister who did not please either of two parties, had selected that which would prove the best. The advantages promised by the present arrangement to both countries, would no doubt be considerable, and therefore he trusted that the House would concur in the resolution.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, he felt it right to raise his voice against the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. He could not view it in any other light than as a revival of a system prejudicial to the country. The country was loaded with protecting duties on protecting duties, and monopolies on monopolies, and distressed, by the millions of money taken out of the pockets of the people, and he could not but feel it to be his duty to take steps to prevent as far as was in his power, the Minister from departing from those principles of commercial policy, which led to the abrogation of monopoly and protecting duties. The right hon. Gentleman called upon the House to retrace its steps with regard to free-trade; and to do what? Why, actually to impose a tax on the raw materials of industry. Was that the way the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry into practical effect the great guiding principle which the House was bound to maintain—the interest of the empire at large? From the schedule before the House, it appeared that an additional duty was to be imposed on raw materials entering the West-Indies; and as a consequence, the cost of the production of sugar, the West-Indian staple commodity, would be increased, and that increase must act either as a diminution of the planter's profits, or raise the price of sugar to the
476
consumer: the latter would, as the House knew, be the actual effect. On either supposition, could the right hon. Gentleman pretend to say, that the interest of the public at large was consulted? The whole measure of the right hon. Gentleman was so objectionable, that he would move, by way of amendment to its principle, that the duty on flour be omitted. That was not the only objectionable point in the right hon. Gentleman's proposition; but he fixed on it as a ready mode of marking disapprobation of the principles of commercial policy to which Ministers were attempting to induce the House to retrograde. He hoped the House would persevere in the policy on which it had hitherto acted, and diminish the protecting duties. The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to know what the real principle of the policy of this country should be. He would beg leave to tell him, that if he proposed to make a change in our commercial policy, that it would be attended with the most prejudicial consequences. The Legislature should do that which alone was for the benefit of the country, and the measure of the right hon. Gentleman would produce a different effect. It would most certainly sacrifice the commercial interest of this country. It was going back to a system which science, and philosophy, and practical good sense, had united to condemn and get rid of. It was clearly prohibitory, and he would make every endeavour to oppose it. Not only was it objectionable in principle, in practice it would also operate as a tax on the price of various articles brought from our other colonies to the West-Indies. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a great error concerning our colonial policy. If any attempt were made on the renewal of the East-India Charter, for the reduction of the duty on East-India sugar, it would be met by the observation, that the West-Indians could not afford to sell their sugar so cheap, because the American corn and flour, with which they feed their slaves, were taxed by Government. It was under the expectation that these taxes would be soon reduced, that the House consented to the protecting duties of 1825, and it was in consequence of the foolish conduct of our own Government, that the intercourse between the United States and our West-Indian colonies had been cut off. It appeared from a paper printed last year, that for an average number of years pre-

477
vious to the American Non-intercourse Act, the West-Indian colonies were yearly in the habit of exporting to the United States 24,000 hogsheads of sugar, 18,900 puncheons of rum, 1,200,000 lbs. of coffee, and 2,400,000 lbs. of molasses. The produce of these colonies, sent indirectly to the United States, was now comparatively trifling. The measures, therefore, of the Government almost annihilated the intercourse between the West-Indian Islands and the United States. The Ministers in the first instance, compelled the Americans to levy duties on our commodities; and when Ministers attempted to retaliate, they destroyed our own trade. He would remind the House that the duties on the import of American articles into the West-Indian colonies caused the United States to increase the amount of the duties in their tariff. The House would not do its duty to the country if it did not compel Ministers to abandon this measure, and in the hope that it would, he should persist in his Amendment, being also persuaded that the measure of the right hon. Gentleman would be injurious both to the colonies and the mother country, and would add to the general dissatisfaction.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, it was in the full recollection of the observation, that he who commences with asserting a principle generally concludes with supporting an exception, that he declaring himself an advocate of free-trade, stood up in support of the measure before the House. The principle on which it was founded was in perfect accordance with the principles of commercial policy pursued for the last few years by this country. The hon. Baronet treated the present measure as if it consisted in increasing the protecting duties from a low to a high rate. But what were the circumstances of the case? At present there was a state of positive prohibition, and it was proposed, in the place of this system, to adopt, in the first instance, a scale of high protecting duties, which it would be possible to lower as circumstances required. Nothing would induce him to support the permanent imposition of protecting duties in any branch of trade or manufacture; but he defended this measure, because a transition from a state of prohibition to one of freedom ought to be gradual. The adoption of protecting duties was for a time necessary for the protection of those interests which had grown up under a state of prohibition. He had
478
formerly said in the House, that the advocates of free-trade did not make sufficient allowance for effecting this transition. Under the prohibition, interests grew up which it would not be consistent with justice suddenly to abandon. The hon. Baronet must surely be aware of the great advances made in our North American colonies, by the commercial and shipping interests, in internal prosperity; which were to be attributed principally to the cessation of the intercourse with the United States. The transition from a state of prohibition to one of perfect freedom, would lead to the immediate destruction of the interests of our North American colonies, which the duties imposed by this measure were calculated to avert. The measure would also be beneficial to the West-India colonies, by carrying the produce of our northern colonies to compete with that of the United States in their markets. The State had also been benefitted by the exertions made by the northern colonies to furnish the West-Indies, as they had enabled us to say to the Americans, "We are perfectly independent of you, and are perfectly able to supply our own colonies without your assistance." The hon. Baronet stated, that the present scale of duties was higher than the former, but he forgot that the circumstances under which they were imposed were very different from the present. The principles now acted on were adopted by previous Governments of 1822 and 1825.He would read an extract from a speech delivered by Lord Goderich, who was then at the head of the department to which he belonged. That noble Lord said, in a speech delivered April 1st, 1822,—"Every one knows that the staple articles of produce in the latter are similar to those of the United States; and recent circumstances, arising out of our restrictions on the one hand, and retaliatory restrictions by the United States on the other, have led to a much more extended import of corn, flour, and lumber from Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, than otherwise would have taken place. This trade will necessarily be more or less affected by the proposed changes; and I confess that I do feel that our North American colonists have strong claims upon us for a favourable consideration of their peculiar interests. Speaking the same language, living under the same laws as ourselves, distinguished by the same characteristic traits as their European

479
brethren, they have secured, by their attachment to their mother-country, a title to her gratitude and protection. That protection can, in this instance, be afforded to them in no other way than by imposing a moderate duty upon the importation into the West-Indies of those foreign articles, such as grain, flour, and lumber, which are equally the production of our own dominions. I shall not now trouble the Committee by going into any details upon this part of the subject, further than to state, that the duties should be so moderately calculated, and so justly apportioned, as not to deprive the people of the United States of their fair proportion of this necessary supply, or seriously to enhance the price to the consumer."* The present measure was not in opposition to the opinions and conduct of Mr. Huskisson, when President of the Board of Trade. Among the papers of that office he had lately found a valuable minute, which he would read to the House, and from which it would appear that the present measure was not opposed to the system recommended by him. "Our general and first principle is to tender to all nations, alike and indiscriminately, equal facilities of commerce and navigation, and equal inducements to visit the ports of this country with their merchandise, either for our own consumption, or in the way of transit (entrepôxt) to other parts of the world. In furtherance of this principle (with the single exception of wine from Portugal, under a specific and very ancient treaty), we have proceeded: first, to abolish all discriminating duties affecting differently the like productions of foreign countries, and, in lieu thereof, to establish one uniform tariff for the whole; secondly, to reduce that tariff to the lowest degree consistent in each particular article with the two legitimate objects of all duties; either the collection of the necessary public revenue, or the protection absolutely requisite for the maintenance of our own internal industry." He must observe, that the protecting duties now substituted for prohibition, were not to be considered as permanent, but might be reduced from time to time, as the interests of the country required, or as circumstances rendered necessary. There were some articles of supply to the West-Indies admitted free of all duty, because they were not furnished by or through our northern
*Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. vi. New Series, p. 1419–20.
480
colonies. On the whole he was satisfied, advocate as he was for freedom of trade, that he ought to support the present resolution.
Mr. Humewas at a loss to understand the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, who stated that he was a supporter of the principles of free-trade, and at the same time argued in favour of a system of protecting duties. The measure would add to the price of every article imported into our colonies from either the Canadas or the United States, and would not be of the least benefit to any one. So far from being a benefit to the West-Indian colonies, it would be a great curse, as it would materially increase the price of their food, and Great Britain would have to pay an increased sum for the sugar and for every article imported into this country from the West-Indies. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to have a scale of duties which might be gradually reduced, he should have commenced at a duty of 5s. a barrel on American flour, instead of 6s., as he had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman called himself an advocate for the principles of free-trade, and what was his measure? Why, to increase the protecting duty on American flour from 5s. to 6s. a barrel, and to increase the duty on shingles from 6s. to 10 s. a thousand. When the time came for taking the East-Indian duties into consideration, this protecting duty would be urged as an argument against the reduction of them. The American tariff was entirely the consequence of the conduct of Government. A right hon. Gentleman attempted to bully the Americans, but found himself mistaken, and the Government had now been glad to admit them into the trade again on nearly the former terms. The most judicious policy for this country, would be, to diminish duties gradually, until at last it might be expedient to establish an unrestricted intercourse. The Americans were enabled to sell timber and shingles to our West-Indian colonists, at a much lower rate than the people of our North American colonies; and it was a folly to put duties on for a purpose which never could be attained; namely, entirely to exclude articles of American produce from our colonies. As a matter of course, whatever tax was imposed on a commodity; must fall upon the consumer. Thus we should have to pay, in the increased price of our sugar, the whole amount of the duty i of the right hon. Gentleman. The House

481
was entitled to ask two things of his Majesty's Government. In the first place, that the duty on American flour should not be higher than it was before; and, in the second place, that the amount of duty should decrease one-fourth every year, until the whole was extinct, when the trade might be thrown open. Unless Ministers would consent to some modification of this kind, when the Bill went into a committee he should propose that it be restricted to a period of five years. If the people of the North American colonies had embarked capital in judiciously in any concern, they had no right to complain of the Parliament, but of the Government which induced them to enter into speculations, on the faith of keeping up a system and restrictions which never could be maintained; that, however, would not be the first occasion in which the colonists had had reason to complain of the injudicious interference of Ministers. He should support the Amendment of his hon. friend; but he would also most certainly move the Amendment of which he had given notice on the bringing up the Report.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, it was not clear to him that those hon. Members were right who advocated what they called the principles of free trade, nor was he satisfied that those who so strenuously argued in favour of that system, understood the subject better than their opponents. It might appear better to the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. member for Bridgnorth, that these principles should be carried into execution, but he doubted whether the result would be beneficial. At any rate those hon. Members were not justified in arrogating to their side of the question all the good sense of the House. They so eulogized the advocates of free trade, and designated them so repeatedly as enlightened, that it appeared as if they meant to insinuate that all who opposed those principles were ignorant and stupid. The history of past ages would not warrant them in forming such a conclusion. In the United States of America—a country which was, in fact, treading in our footsteps (and it was not improbable that in the course of a few ages, she would attain an eminence and rank among nations equal to any on record) in that country the principle had not been acted upon to the extent stated by hon. Members. Many of the most eminent men of America had been the advocates of
482
restriction; and the hon. member for Bridgnorth must excuse him if lie preferred the authority of a Washington, of a Jefferson, a Madison, and a Munro, to his. Ail these distinguished men advocated the principle of protection to trade, and, in some cases, even of prohibition. Notwithstanding this, there were persons who asserted that the trade of America was free, while that of Great Britain was shackled and restricted. That, however, was not the fact. The Americans, indeed, began with a principle of free trade, but they afterwards adopted a system of protecting duties. He saw no objection to admitting the Americans or other nations to trade with our colonies, but it would be proper to put on a protecting duty in favour of our own commerce, and especially for our shipping interests, as he did not comprehend the use of keeping colonies, and throwing them open to foreign nations to trade on an equal footing. If, however, his opinion could be shown to be wrong, he should be glad to be convinced of his error; but at present he was sincere in supporting the opinion he had announced. The hon. member for Middlesex stated, that he could not approve of the continuance of the protecting duties in favour of the import of our own colonial produce into the West-Indian colonies; but important interests had recently grown up in those colonies, which would be materially injured by a sudden change. He was an advocate for free trade, at least in principle, as well as the hon. Member, but he objected to acting partially on the principle; for until it was established in every instance, including corn, he could not agree to its application to only a few articles. His objection to free trade was, that it was not universal; and as long as that was the case we ought to prefer our own colonies to the United States. The hon. Baronet who was an able advocate of the principle should induce the Government to establish a free-trade in corn. He had read that hon. Baronet's book with considerable satisfaction, but with all possible deference for his talents, he could not think the measures pursued in regulating the intercourse between the United States and our colonies were deserving of the character given of them for they had been attended with great benefit to our shipping interests. The hon. Baronet stated that trade between the United States and our West-

483
Indian colonies was carried on to a large amount previous to the prohibition, but that it has been almost destroyed in consequence of that. He must observe, however, that the trade was now carried on between our North American and West-Indian colonies, which was formerly carried on between the latter and the United States. If it be contended that the Legislature is bound to look to particular interests, as well as those great principles and effects which may be felt throughout the whole empire—it must be satisfactory to it to know that the shipping interest, one of the most important of the empire had been materially benefitted by these restrictions, and particularly the colonial shipping. Previous to the American Non-intercourse Act, only 36,000 tons of shipping were employed in the trade between the North American and West-Indian colonies; but since the passing of that Act, the average amounted to 90,000. That was an important point for consideration. Since that time, also, the trade of our West-Indian colonies with the mother country had increased to such an important extent, that it was a question of policy whether any alteration should be made. In 1816, the tonnage of the American vessels trading to our West-Indian colonies was 102,000, while that of England engaged in the same trade was 111,349, showing a balance, in favour of England, of 9,000 tons. In the course of a short time, the number of English ships engaged in this trade so declined, that, instead of there being a balance in our favour, there was a falling-off of 13,000 tons, while the tonnage of the American shipping increased to 161,829 tons. Previous to the renewal of the restrictions, the tonnage of the American vessels engaged in this trade exceeded that of the English vessels by 60,000 tons; but subsequent to the restrictions, the colonial shipping had very much increased. It was comparatively of little importance, whether the West-Indian colonies had to pay a shilling or two a thousand more for their shingles, provided so important an interest as that of the shipping could be so materially assisted. The former was a matter of trifling moment, in comparison with the latter. We were bound to protect our colonies as long as we kept them, which we never could do if we placed foreign States on the same footing as ourselves.
484
Mr. Addington, the British minister to the United States, in a letter to Mr. Canning, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1827, gave it as his opinion, that but for the operation of our prohibitory system, by which American corn was excluded from our market, the high duties would never have been imposed on English commodities. That Gentleman stated that, had it not been for our corn-laws, the Americans would have freely admitted our manufactures into their markets. He was an advocate for a liberal commercial policy, but we ought to commence with the raw material, including corn. He considered the question respecting the scale of duties as of small importance in comparison with finding a market for the produce of our North American colonies. He wished to ask hon. Members whether they thought that, as a trade in timber, &c, to the West-Indian colonies had been commenced from the Canadas and Nova Scotia, and was now in a thriving state, it was likely to continue if the Americans were allowed to compete with our colonists on an equal footing. He doubted if we were prepared to abandon all our colonies, and thought, therefore, that our great object should be to protect and cherish our own colonies and shipping.
Mr. Herries explained,that there would be in every sense a diminution of duty. For instance, there was formerly a duty of 1s. on flour that came from our northern colonies to the southern.
The schedule having been read a second time,
Sir Henry Parnell moved, that the duty of 1s. 2d. the bushel imposed on wheat be reduced to 1s.
The House divided; for the Amendment 39; Against it 136—Majority 97.
Resolution agreed to and Bill ordered to be brought in.

List of the Minority.

Adeane, H. J.

Killeen, Lord

Althorp, Viscount

Kennedy, T. F.

Bunbury, Sir H.

Lumley, Saville

Colborne, R.

Leader, N. T.

Chapman, —

Lambert, J. S.

Dawson, Alex.

Morrison, John

Douglas, Keith

Marshall, William

Evans, William

Malcolm, N.

Fergusson, Sir Ronald

Martin, John

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Marryatt, Joseph

Gisborne, Thomas

Macnamara, Major

Jephson, C. D. O.

O'Farrell, More

485

O'Connell, Daniel

Warburton, H.

Palmer, Fysche

Wyse, Thomas

Palmerston, Viscount

Wood, John

Pendarvis, E.

Whitmore, W.

Phillips, G. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rice, Spring

Wynn, Right Hon. C.

Strutt, Edward

TELLERS.

Smith, Vernon

Parnell, Sir H.

Wayland, —

Hume, Joseph.*

*The following is the Schedule mentioned in the Debate, and the Resolution agreed to by the House.—Resolved:
"That in lieu of the duties now payable, the following duties be levied and charged on certain articles of provisions, and of wood, and of lumber, not being of the growth, or production, or manufacture, of the United Kingdom, nor of any British possession, imported or brought by sea or by inland carriage, or navigation, into the several British possessions in America, viz.
Imported or brought into the British possessions on the Continent of South America, or in the West Indies, the Bahama and Bermuda Islands included, viz.

£

s.

d.

Provisions, viz.

— Wheat, the bushel

0

1

2

—imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

—Wheat Flour, the barrel

0

6

0

— imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

—Bread or biscuit

Duty free

— Flour or meal, not of wheat

Duty free

— Peas, beans, rye, calavances, oats, barley, Indian corn

do.

— Rice

do.

— Live stock

Duty free

Lumber, viz.

— Shingles not being more than 12 inches in length, the 1,000

0

10

6

—imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

—being more than 12 inches in length, the 1,000

1

1

0

—imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

— Staves and headings, the 1,000

00

l8

9

—imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

— Wood hoops, the 1,000

0

7

10

—imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

—Other wood and lumber, the 1,000 feet, of 1 inch thick

1

11

6

— imported from the Northern Colonies

Duty free

Imported, or brought into British possessions in North America, viz.

Provisions, viz.

Wheat flour, the barrel

0

5

0

may be warehoused without payment of duty, for exportation to the Southern Colonies.

Wheat

Duty free

Bread or biscuit

Duty free

OATHS OF ABJURATION, &C
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought it would be more convenient, from the nature of this Bill, to postpone the discussion upon it till the next stage. He therefore proposed that it be read a second time, and be committed for Monday se'nnight.
Sir Charles Wetherellobjected to the total repeal of the Oath of Abjuration, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press that as a necessary part of his measure.
Sir R. Peelwas disposed to concur in different parts of the bill, but he agreed in the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, to the total repeal of the Oath of Abjuration.
Bill read a second time.

SUB-LETTING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of Sir Henry Hardinge the Subletting Act (7 Geo. 4. c. 29.) was read. He then observed that after the animated and able discussion the subject had last night received, he should not trespass on the time of the House further than to state, on the part of his Majesty's Government, that it was actuated in bringing forward this bill by no other motive, personal or political, than the strictest wish to act impartially by all parties interested, and to do what was right and proper between the landlords and their tenantry in Ireland. When the bill was printed and laid on the Table, he hoped it would be found to be framed in this spirit, and he invited the assistance and co-operation of all persons interested in the subject to render its enactments in every way suitable to the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland.
Mr. O' Connellwished to inquire whether it were intended to introduce any clause to give the landlord power to cancel the lease on account of sub-letting, when the lease itself was silent upon the subject. In the bill of last Session, for mitigating the severity of the Sub-letting Act, there was a clause of this kind, and, if a similar one were inserted in the present bill, he should give it every species of opposition, for it

Flour or meal, not of wheat

Duty free

Peas, Beans, rye, calavances, oats, barley, Indian corn

Duty free

Rice

Duty free

—Live Stock

Duty free

Lumber

Duty free

would considerably aggravate the mischief it was intended to cure.
Mr. Dohertyreplied, that every consideration had been given to the bill, to accommodate it as far as possible to the views of all parties.
Mr. Spring Riceasked if it were the same bill that was brought in last year? [Sir Henry Hardinge replied no.] Then the House could not be aware of its nature. He was against the proposition for repealing the Sub-letting Act, because as far as the principle of binding both parties to their engagements went, it had his entire concurrence; but he also concurred in the necessity of amending the Act, and he would mention two points in which that was requisite. In the first place nothing could be more absurd than the clause respecting devises, which enabled a man, by will, to violate a contract after his death to which he was bound during his lifetime. The other point was the objection, and the only one entitled to a moment's consideration—that the Act had a retrospective effect, although that was a point on which the learned Gentlemen on the two sides of the House were not exactly agreed. As a landlord and a friend to the principle of the bill, he asked no more than that contracts entered into before the passing of the bill should not be affected by it, whilst those made since should come under the operation of the law. There was great weight in the objection made by individuals who had leased property under the law of waiver as it stood before the passing of the new enactment. If these two questions were set at rest, he was convinced that, on all sides, there would be an entire concurrence in the principle of the bill. [Mr. O'Connell intimated his dissent.] From what the hon. and learned Gentleman said the other evening he thought that such would be his opinion. He understood him to say that if all contracts entered into previously to the passing of the bill were left under the former state of law, and to the protection which the tenant had, by the doctrine of waiver, as then interpreted, there could be no possible objection to giving the landlord and tenant the protection of the Subletting Act, as to contracts made since it was passed. That was the argument used by the hon. Gentleman the other night, and it would certainly be a fair principle to act upon. The object of this bill bad been much misrepresented in Ireland,
488
and misunderstood, even by many of those whose interests were affected by it; but he had consulted some of those with whom he was connected, and they agreed in the vote he gave last night, as well as concurred with him as to the necessity of amending the law. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had borne these two points in mind in framing this bill. He could not sit down without thanking the Solicitor General for Ireland for the best exposition of the details, and most satisfactory explanation of the principles of that law he had heard.
Mr. Jephsonwas favourable to the principle of the Subletting Act, though he thought amendment was necessary. The attempt made last Session was not at all a successful one; but if the right hon. Gentleman should bring in a fair Bill, his humble assistance should be heartily at his service.
Mr. Campbellthought, that the Bill should be so framed as to make it applicable to both parts of the United Kingdom, for the law of England was as defective on this subject as possible. In the time of Elizabeth, a case was argued, called the Tempest case, reported by Lord Coke, in which the Judges came to a decision, not since overturned, under protection of which contracts had been repeatedly evaded, and the intention of the law defeated. If it be stipulated between the landlord and the tenant, that the latter shall not assign without the leave of the former, the law said, that if the landlord once give leave to assign, afterwards the tenant shall have the power of assigning to whom and as often as he pleases. This operated unfavourably to the tenant, because it prevented his landlord from granting him indulgences he might otherwise be inclined to grant. The state of the law had been complained of by that great Judge, Lord Eldon, as well as by many others, and the sooner it was amended the better. He wished, therefore, that the law should be made applicable to both parts of the United Kingdom. It was not intended by it to give any advantage to the landlords of Ireland which those of England did not possess.
Sir Henry Hardingehad no doubt that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman might, with great propriety, be adopted; but he was not sufficiently acquainted with the law of the two countries, to say at present that they ought to be

489
assimilated. With regard to the observations of the hon. member for Limerick, respecting the retrospective effect of this law, it was not intended to make any part of the Bill retrospective; that is to say, that leases waived previous to 1826, by any act done before that period, would not be vitiated; but if the covenant were violated after 1826, the landlord ought to have some protection. He was ready to admit, that the principle ought to be prospective; but there was this to be said in favour of a lease which had not been broken previous to 1826, that the landlord having vigilantly guarded all his interests up to that period, if the tenant afterwards vitiated his lease, the landlord ought to have the benefit of the Subletting Act of 1826. That was his view of the subject; but he admitted that the principle; ought to be prospective. With regard to the clause respecting devises, it was to be absolutely repealed, and the exceptions originally put in were to be done away. It was further proposed, that if the landlord did not choose to put a written covenant to restrain his tenant from subletting into the lease, and the tenant should afterwards sublet, the lease shall not be vitiated, as was now the case. The landlord was supposed to be the more intelligent and instructed party, the tenant comparatively ignorant and uninstructed—the one comparatively powerful, the other weak; and, therefore if the Irish gentry wished to protect their lands from the effects of subletting, it would in future be their duty to have a covenant to that effect put into a written lease. That was his view of the subject; but as it was a new one to him he was perhaps incorrect. The object of the Government, in making this amendment of the law, was, to consult no interests but those of fair dealing and justice; and if it could frame a Bill that would do justice between landlord and tenant, its wishes would be attained.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if the law were applied at all to leases existing in 1826, it would have a retrospective effect, and it ought only to operate upon contracts made after the passing of the Act. If that were done, he could not conceive on what principle any man could say an injustice was committed; for it was saying that, two parties entering into a contract, it would be unjust to enforce that contract. All they ought to see to was, that the contract be enforced according to the meaning of
490
the parties at the time they made it; and if at the time they made it a constructive waiver would not have vitiated the lease, so ought it to be, after passing the law, whenever such constructive waiver should occur. He was one of those who thought the Subletting Act a good one; for the want of power on the part of the landlords to enforce the covenants of their leases was the cause of great mischiefs, and therefore he objected to its total repeal.
Mr. O'Connellwished to correct a mistake. He did not say that he should disapprove of this law if its operation were to be purely prospective. His objection was, to a law compelling a deviation from a legal contract when made. Prospective contracts, he admitted, were a legitimate subject for legislation, but not contracts already made. If the law were only to operate prospectively, then every man would be put on his guard, and could make such contracts as he wished, and as the law prescribed; but nothing could be more unjust than to make a law giving an effect to existing contracts different from that which they had when first entered into. He had no objection to make the law as strict as possible for the future. The hon. member for Limerick did not seem to understand the Act; and certainly he had not understood his (Mr. O'Connell's) objection to it; which was, that the measure did not allow parties to make contracts as they wished. If the landlord chose to give up his remedy by distress, he might sublet, but, not otherwise. The waiver by parole, as it is called, was also taken away. He admitted, that the original contract ought to be strictly performed; but at the same time the landlord ought not to be prevented from underletting. The question he had put had been fully and satisfactorily answered. The spirit, too, in which it had been answered induced him to hope, that when the House came to investigate the details of the measure, it would be able to make it satisfactory to the country. He trusted, however, that it would not be passed in the spirit of a restrictive law.
Lord Killeenwished to express his satisfaction that the Bill was not to have a retrospective operation.
Mr. Ruthvensuggested, that if a man had a large farm, he would require some persons to assist him, and some means should be devised to enable such a person to give his cottier tenants a small portion of

491
land, say an acre or two of garden ground. With reference to what had been said by an hon. and learned Member, it would be only reasonable and satisfactory to the people of Ireland, to know that such a law was not made for them which would not be fit for another country.
Bill ordered to be brought in.

CENSUS FOR IRELAND.
Sir Henry Hardingemoved for leave to bring in a Bill for taking an Account of the Population of Ireland. The Bill would be, in substance, the same as the Bill passed for taking an account of the population of Ireland in 1815, the returns under which were made in 1821. He proposed to make a few alterations in it, agreeably to the suggestions of his hon. friend the member for Queen's County, who had paid great attention to the subject. He had given his valuable assistance in framing the Bill, and it would probably effect its object more completely, and with more regularity, than the former Bill. It might be interesting to Gentlemen to know the increase which had taken place in the population of Ireland since the first returns were made on the subject. By the first known account of the population of that country furnished by Sir William Petty, in 1672—the population was 1,100,000. In 1731, a census was taken by an order of the Irish House of Lords, and then the population was 2,010,000. In 1785, by the population returns then made, it appeared that the people amounted to 2,845,000. In 1812 an Act was passed for taking an account of the population, and it was supposed that, from various causes, the returns made under that Act, which were made by the Grand Juries, were not quite correct. Those returns were made in 1813, and by them the population amounted to 5,537,000. But the system then pursued was so inefficient that no great reliance could be placed on the result. In 1815, another Act was passed for the same purpose, but the care of taking the census was given into the hands of the Bench of Magistrates in counties instead of those of the Grand Juries. The bench of Magistrates, with the valuable aid of the Assistant-barristers, made the returns under the Act in 1821. Those returns were supposed to be very accurate, and by them the population was estimated at 6,801,827. This was supposed to have
492
been a very perfect census. According to the returns under that Bill, comparing them with the census of 1731, it would appear that the population had rather more than trebled itself in ninety years. It had been mentioned in a late Report, drawn up he believed, by his hon. friend the member for Limerick, that the population had doubled itself in forty-five or forty-six years. He had no other observations to make; but, when the Bill was brought in, he should most willingly attend to the suggestions of any hon. Member who took an interest in the subject. If any Gentleman wished for information which was useful, and which could be acquired by means of this Bill, without rendering it too complicated, he should be happy to attend to his suggestions.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to remark, that an account was taken in 1635, of the amount of the Irish population, which was then stated at 3,000,000; fifty years afterwards, when the calculation was made by Sir William Petty, the population had diminished nearly to the amount of 2,000,000. The decrease took place during the civil wars in Ireland, and suggested a frightful reflection as to the sanguinary character of those wars. Sir William Petty's accounts, however, were mere calculations. No census was taken until 1815. The gross numbers were given, but the results were not sufficiently accurate. The last census was greatly under the real amount. This was demonstrated by what afterwards occurred. At the time when great distress was felt in Ireland, and subscriptions made to relieve the sufferers, the number actually relieved in the county of Mayo, greatly exceeded, by no less than 35,000 persons, the total amount of the recorded population of that country. Of course, none of the better classes received charitable assistance; so that in that county it is demonstrated that the census fell short of the real population by at least 50,000 persons. He should suggest that this census should be made to discriminate, which the former did not, the religion of the inhabitants, so that the number professing different religions might be known. There were reasons—political reasons—why this should not be done in the last census; but those reasons were now totally at an end. No improper, and, indeed, no political motive could be gratified now by obtaining this information. An attempt

493
had been made to procure information of this description in different counties in England; but the returns had not been satisfactory from any county, with the exception of Lancashire. As far as he understood the relative numbers of the different persuasions, it was impossible he thought that the temporalities of the Irish Church should remain as at present. If popular opinion was to have any weight, the arrangement must be corrected.
Bill ordered to be brought in.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For the immediate abolition of Slavery, by Lord DURHAM, from Durham, Stockton-on-Tees, and Bishop Wearmouth:—By Earl SPENCER, from Northampton, and from the Parish of Belton:—By the Marquis of BUTE, from Banbury, in Oxfordshire:—By the Marquis of ANGLESEA, from Carnarvon:—By Lord CAWDOR, from various places in South Wales;—By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from the

421
Clergy of the County of Wilts; and from Cromer and Chard:—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Norfolk:—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Huddersfield, and a great number of places in the County of York:—By the Earl of Ox-FOKD, from Suffolk. By the Marquis of ANGLESEA, from the Debtors confined in the Four Courts Marshalsea, Dublin, praying that the Bankrupt Laws and the Insolvent Debtor Laws of Ireland might be assimilated to those of England.

KILDARE -STREET SOCIETY.
The Marquis of Angleseapresented a Petition from the Parishes of Kilcoman and Robin, Ireland, praying an alteration of the method of distributing: the funds placed by Parliament at the disposal of the Kildare-street Society in Dublin. The noble Marquis supported the prayer of the petition, and observed, that unless Government interfered, and adopted some of the suggestions which had been made to them relative to the future management of the funds of the Society, and the system of education, the object of those who wished to give education to the Irish people, would be completely frustrated. The propriety of the management of the funds of the Society had been much questioned before he left the Government of Ireland; and by a compromise between the contending parties it was agreed, that 25,000 l. should be placed at the disposal of the Lord-lieutenant, to be by him dealt with as he thought best for the accomplishment of the intentions of Parliament. On learning the nature of the trust reposed in him, he proceeded to make inquiries respecting the state of the schools; but on referring a short time afterwards to the accounts of the expenditure of the Society, he found, to his great surprise, that of the 25,000 l. placed at his disposal, 15,000 l. had been already expended by the Directors of the Society in advance, and that the remaining 10,000 l. were also devoted by them to objects in which the Lord-lieutenant had not been consulted. Under these circumstances, and looking to the dissensions which prevailed between the two religions with respect to the system of education, he thought that Parliament should pause before it gave any more money for the same purpose; and that, at all events, no further grant should be made without the most minute inquiry.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that he also had petitions to present on the same subject, and he hoped, before any money was wasted, that the matter would be thoroughly investigated. He had great hopes that abuses would speedily be
422
checked in Ireland by the hon. and gallant Secretary, whose appointment to the office of Chief Secretary was to him a subject of congratulation.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, it was the opinion of almost all those who had given their attention to subjects of this nature, that no good could be produced by the grants, unless Government took the whole management and application of the funds into its own hands. If their Lordships wished to understand the full extent of the abuses of the present system, and the best method of remedying them, they could obtain much valuable information, and would receive some excellent suggestions, from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, which sat towards the end of the last Session to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland.
Lord Carberydefended the conduct of the Kildare-street Society, and denied that the expenditure alluded to by the noble Marquis (Anglesea) was either contrary to the powers of the Society, or prejudicial to the objects which it was called on to accomplish.
The Marquis of Downshirealso defended the Society. He had held the situation of President, and he could say with great confidence, that the intentions of its members were always pure, and that they had devoted their funds according to the best of their judgment, to promote education among the poorer classes of all religious persuasions.
The Marquis of Angleseahad not intended to impute anything like fraud to those who disposed of the grant to the Society. All he wished for was inquiry; because he was satisfied, that if the Society pursued the present system, and compelled the Catholic children to read the Bible, the objects of the Legislature would be continually defeated, and the money thrown away.
The Earl of Darnleywas much in favour of religious instruction for the poor, but he had some doubts whether the grants to the Kildare-street Society really promoted that object. He was perfectly convinced of the truth of the noble Marquis's statement, but he thought the whole subject required investigation.

OUTRAGES IN KENT AND SUSSEX.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond, on the presentation of a Petition against Slavery, took

423
occasion to advert to the debate which took place last night on the subject of the state of the labourers in Kent and Sussex, and begged to say a few words in explanation of what fell from him on that occasion. A noble Lord opposite (Lord Teynham) had asserted, that the farmers in the county of Sussex were compelled to raise the rate of wages, in consequence of being subjected to intimidation from their labourers. Now this assertion he had felt himself warranted in denying, at least with respect to the county of Sussex. It might have been so in other places, but in Sussex generally, he believed it was not the case. He did not then mean to say that there were not one or two places in which intimidation might have been used, but in the west of Sussex, with which he was connected, nothing of the kind had taken place, or been attempted. What he rose then, however, for was, to give the noble Lord who made the assertion an opportunity of explaining the nature of the conclusion he had drawn from the communications which he had referred to. The noble Lord had put into his hand the letter on which he founded his assertion; but he thought that if the noble Lord had attentively examined the terms of that letter, he would have come to a very different conclusion. He had nothing to do with the opinions of the writer of the letter, but he found it stated the facts thus:—"The labourers called out for an increase of their wages." It was then said to them, 'But what will you do if the farmers refuse to grant that increase? Will you disgrace yourselves and your country, as they have done elsewhere, by destroying the property of your masters, if they find they cannot make this increase?' 'No, no,' they exclaimed, 'we intend, on the contrary, to support and protect our masters' property.' 'Well, but (it was said to them) that assertion of yours is not enough; will you put that in your petition to your masters?' They said they were quite willing to do so; and the farmers, on receiving this petition, did consent to give greater wages." Now this, he contended, exhibited nothing which could be construed into intimidation. He was sorry to say, however, that no man who heard the speech of the noble Lord could avoid receiving the impression, that its expressions were calculated to inflame the minds of the people, and aggravate the difficulties in which the farmers were
424
placed with respect to their labourers. He was one of those who thought the agricultural labourers of this country were not adequately paid for their services; but he was quite certain that no course could be adopted more prejudicial to their interests, and to the interests of their masters, than by making declarations in that House, or in the other House, which would lead the labourers to believe that their objects could be effected by intimidating their masters. It was because the people of Kent and Sussex were, unhappily, in a state of excitement, that he thought nothing should be done to widen the breach between the labourer and the farmer; for it could not be too often repeated, or too widely disseminated, that the interests of the farmer, the landlord, and the labourer, were one and the same.
Lord Teynhamwas obliged to the noble Duke for the opportunity he had given him of explaining the meaning of what had fallen from him on a former evening. It was very far from his intention to excite the people to violence. The meaning of what he said was this—that in consequence of what had happened in Sussex and elsewhere, the farmers had felt it to be right to raise the rate of wages; but he was at the same time fully prepared to admit, that it was necessary to put down every attempt at intimidation, and that the labourers must not be led to expect that they could obtain any increased rate of remuneration for their services, without the full consent of their employers. What he said on the former occasion was merely this—that the labourers had demanded a higher rate of wages, and that the farmers thought it prudent to comply.
Marquis Camdenwas happy to hear the language of the noble Duke with relation to the attempts of the labourers against their employers. He thought that such declarations on that subject would do good, and that it was highly necessary the labourers should know that any attempt at intimidation was not approved of either by the Parliament or the country at large. He hoped that the opinions of Parliament would be made known, and that it would be understood every where, that no man of either House approved of such a system Any attempt to raise the wages of the labourer under such circumstances must fail, because the amount was much greater than the farmer at present could afford to pay.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, the disturbances in Kent could not have arisen from the lowness of the rate of wages, as it was a singular fact, that the wages of labour were higher in the disturbed district than in any other place of the South. He believed the disturbances did not arise from an inadequate rate of wages, but from the superabundance of labourers, and the want of employment. Throughout that part of Kent, the wages of an able-bodied man were 2s. a-day; and if the farmers were disposed to give, as he understood some of them had agreed to give, 2s. 6d., then, in his opinion, the distress would be increased; because the farmer could not afford to employ so many labourers at 2s. 6d. as he had formerly employed at 2s. He was afraid that much of the evil arose from the mal-administration of the Poor-laws, the abuses of which needed an effectual and speedy remedy.