Sitting of 15 November 1830

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. COURTENAY, to Amend an Act passed in the 6th year of his late Majesty;
510
relating to Colonial Trade:—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, to declare in what instance Charitable Institutions should be liable to pay Rates for local purposes:—By the ATTORNEY GENERAL, to amend the Administration of Justice Act, passed last Session.
A Select Committee, on the Motion of Lord F. L. GOWER, was appointed to inquire into Tolls and Customs (Ireland), Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. KENNEDY, the number of persons rated at 10 l., 15 l., and 20 l. in the Royal Burghs of Scotland; and of the number of persons in whom the Elective Franchise is vested:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, all Pensions granted on the Civil Lists of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Mr. SPEAKER stated, that he had received a letter from Mr. Hodson, one of the Members returned for Wigan, declaring that it was not his intention to take his seat.
Petitions presented. Against the following Elections:—For the County of Galway, Carrickfergus, County of Dumbarton, County of Clare, Durham, Truro, Linlithgow, Grantham, Carlow, Hythe, Londonderry, Huntingdon, Colerainc, and Stamford. By Mr. CURTEIS, from South-over, praying for a Reform in Parliament, and for a Repeal of the Game Laws and Corn Laws. For the abolition of Colonial Slavery, by Lord EBRINGTON, six from Devonshire:— By Mr. PENDARVIS, eleven from Cornwall:— By Mr. STRUTH, eight from Derbyshire:— By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Dissenters of Fetterlane:— By Mr. BYNG, from Dissenters of Cannon-street: — By Mr. DRAKE, from Amersham:—By Mr. DRUM. MONO, from Stirling:—By Mr. LISTER, from Poole:— By Mr. ADEANE, from Barringborne:—By Mr. TYRRELL., from Bury St. Edmonds:— By General PALMER, from Bath:— By Mr. LEIGH KECK, from Lutterworth, in Leicestershire:— By Sir J. GRAHAM, from Cockermouth, in Cumberland:— By Mr. RICE, from places in Limerick: — By Mr. DESMAN, from two Dissenting Congregations in Nottingham:— By Lord MORPETH, from Scarborough, Whitby, Swalham, North Dalton, and some other places; — By Lord STANLEY, ninety-six from Lancashire:—By Mr. JEPHSON. from Fermoy:—By Lord WM. POWLETT, from Thirsk and Barnard Castle:— By Sir R. PEEL, from Tamworth:— By Mr. WRIGHTSON, from Hull:—By Mr. COKE, four from the County of Norfolk:— By Lord UXBRIDGE, from Holyhead:—By Lord EUSTON, from a Parish in Norfolk:— By Sir R. HERON, from Peterborough:— By Sir R. FERGUSON, from Durleton; Fora Repeal of the Duty upon Seaborne Coals, from Ipswich, by Mr. R. BUSDAS:—By Mr. BELL, from the Coal. owners on the Tyne:— By Lord F. OSBORNE, from Wisbeach:—By Mr. EVANS, from Sheepshead, in Lancashire. The last Petition also prayed for a Repeal of the Game and Corn-laws, and a Reform in Parliament: as did also a Petition presented by Sir J. GRAHAM, from the resident Electors of Cockermouth. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Parish of Clondalkin, praying for a Repeal of the Union. By Mr. HODOES, from two Parishes in Kent, complaining of Distress, and praying for a repeal of the Malt Tax, and a reduction of the Assessed Taxes. By Mr. S. RICE, from Limerick, for the equalization of the Spirit Duties.

DUTY ON SEA-BORNE COALS.
Mr. Bell Mr. Bell, in presenting a petition from the coalowners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against this duty, observed, 'that as the subject was to be brought before the House by the hon. member for Limerick, he would only trouble the House for very few minutes. The petition came from a body of persons who had embarked nearly one million and a half in the coal-trade of Northumberland, and they complained, with great justice, of the hardships to which they were exposed by the oppressive duty of 6s. per chaldron, charged on all coals carried coastwise.

511
They considered themselves unjustly treated, in being deprived of advantages possessed by those who carried their coals along canals and rail-roads. But though the coal-owners prayed to be relieved from this partial tax, they disclaimed all wish to throw it on the inland coal-owner, or any other branch of the community. He did not plead, however, for the coal-owner alone: he was the advocate of the public — which suffered even more than the coal-owner by the existence of this most odious tax on industry. If the tax were repealed, a considerable fail in price would be the inevitable consequence; and he was borne out by facts in making this assertion, for when the 3s.. 4d., duty, as it was called, was repealed in 1824, the best coals fell in the London markets from 46 s. to 36 s. 6d., in the course of three years. Since the repeal of that duty, coals had fallen in price in the North also. This fact shewed, that if the 6s. duty were taken off, the coal owner would not pocket, as was said, the whole amount. Such could not be the case— coals were now lower in the North than they were in 1828, and competition would prevent the coal-owner from raising them one penny the chaldron beyond the present price. He would benefit by the increased consumption no doubt; but the consumer and the carrier would derive the greatest advantage from the repeal of the tax. He heard, with regret the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening, but he hoped that the sense of the House would be found so strong against the continuance of this oppressive tax, on the motion of the hon. member for Limerick, that the right hon. Gentleman would be compelled at once t6 abandon it entirely. From what had recently occurred in the Netherlands, there could be little doubt but that Holland would, ere long, require a supply of coals from this country, and he hoped, therefore, that every facility would be given to the exportation of coals, by removing the duty on export of 17 s., the chaldron, which was a complete prohibition to foreign trade. By encouraging exportation additional employment would be given to the shipping-interest, which required every possible encouragement to keep it from ruin. The petition alluded also to another tax peculiar to the river Tyne, and from which all other places whence coals are shipped are altogether exempt. This tax was commonly called.
512
the Richmond shilling, being a duty of one shilling a chaldron on all coals shipped from the river Tyne. It yielded about 35,000 l. per annum, and originated in an arbitrary grant from Charles 2nd to the Richmond family, of whom it was purchased, in 1799, by the Government for 400,000 l. From that period to the 5th of January, 1827, Government received 862,000 l. from this tax, which, after repaying the purchase money, left a surplus of 462,000 l. To show the extreme hardship of this tax, it was only necessary to state, that in a vessel carrying 200 chaldrons of coals, it makes the difference of 60 l. in the year, whether she loads at Shields, Sunderland, Stockton, or in the Tyne, all the former places being exempt from this odious and partial tax. He trusted that justice would be done by the partial tax being repealed, and that industry would be promoted by the repeal of the general tax.
Mr. Hodgsondid not wish to take up the time of the House on the present occasion, as an opportunity would soon occur of entering into the subject at length, by an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House having given notice of a motion on the subject. He agreed in the observations of the hon. Member who presented the petition, and would only add a very few words in support of its prayer. He agreed with that hon. Gentleman in thinking that the coal-tax was much more oppressive than any other tax, and affected the comforts of the people to a much greater extent. At the same time, it was a most unjust tax, because it was only paid by persons living in certain districts, and on coals carried coastwise. He believed that it was the only tax on an absolute necessary of life which affected all classes of the people, and fell particularly heavy on the lower orders. No measure could afford so much benefit to the people as the repeal of this tax. This oppressive tax was not only paid by the people of this country, but also by those of Ireland, where it was most severely felt. The hon. member for Waterford would, therefore, he was sure, lend the assistance of his talents to get it abolished. It was a lax of which the collection was attended with a great expense; for he understood that Custom-house establishments were kept up at several of the smaller ports, solely for the purpose of collecting it, If, therefore, it was re-

513
pealed, those establishments might be abolished.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamhoped, that if any alteration were made in this tax, care would be taken that the coal-owners in the internal parts of the country should not be injured. Hon. Gentlemen should remember, that the owners of coal-mines in the North possessed advantages which those in other parts did not. In the county which he had the honour to represent, important interests were involved, and due care ought to be taken before any change was made, so that no injury should be done.
Petition to be printed.

IRISH LANDLORDS.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a petition from two parishes in the county of Westmeath, complaining of distress, praying for the introduction of Poor-laws, inveighing against the arbitrary conduct of the Duke of Buckingham's agent, accusing him of endeavouring to sweep the people off the lands — and declaring, that with this view he had sought to denounce them as belonging to the society of Ribbonmen.
The Marquis of Chandosbegged leave to contradict all the assertions set forth in the petition, and said, it was fortunate that the gentleman alluded to was in town to clear himself from the charges preferred against him. He denied that the land was overlet, and he stated that he had the authority of that gentleman for saying, that he never had suspected the tenants on the estate of being Ribbonmen, and that there had only been one case of a tenant having been ejected from the land, and that was in consequence of his having proceeded upon false information, and refusing to pay his rent without previously having a receipt. All the disturbance which had occurred in these parishes arose from the improper interference of the Priest, and inflammatory harangues delivered from the altar of his chapel. A tenant, on being applied to lately for his rent, had refused to pay it, declaring that he had been ordered not to pay it by the Priest, and that he would sooner go through hell-fires than disobey his reverence. In short, the tenants had been encouraged to pay no rent so long as the gentleman alluded to continued agent. In conclusion, he expressed his hope, that the learned Gentleman would for the future examine the truth of
514
the assertions made in petitions, before he presented them to the House.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that having ascertained that the signatures to the petition were genuine, he considered that it was his duty to present it. He trusted that he had not gone beyond his duty; and he had not been wanting in the proper courtesy, as he had submitted the petition to the inspection of the nearest relative of the noble Marquis with whom he was acquainted. As to what had been alleged by his Grace's agent respecting the parish Priest, he (Mr. O'Connell) must say, that he considered him incapable of the conduct imputed to him, and he had no doubt that before long he should have a petition from that reverend person in denial of it.
Lord Nugentconfirmed the learned Gentleman's statement. The hon. and learned member for Waterford certainly had sent him the petition, and he had communicated the contents of it to his noble relative.

CLERK OF THE COUNCIL.
Mr. Stanley Mr. Stanley, after postponing his motion about the expenditure on the Rideau Canal to Monday next, or to whatever other day the committee might first sit, staled, that one of the Clerks of the Council had died suddenly that day, and asked if there was any intention on the part of Government to abolish his place, which was useless although the possessor received 2,500 l a-year.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had not heard of the gentleman's death until that moment, and had not, therefore, turned his attention to the subject.

PROTESTANT SOLDIERS AND CATHOLIC WORSHIP.
Lord Morpethpresented a petition from the Minister and Inhabitants of Bossiney, Lincolnshire, against compelling Protestant soldiers in the British army, while on foreign service, to take part in the procession and public ceremonies of the Catholic religion. The petitioners declared, that such compulsion was an injury inflicted on tender consciences, and was, therefore, a practice condemned by the Almighty himself. Lord Morpeth admitted, that soldiers on foreign service ought not to show their disrespect to the religion of the country in which they happened to be stationed, but he insisted at the same time, that unless in

515
case of absolute necessity, they ought not to be compelled to join in any declared mark of respect to it. He believed, that this petition bad arisen out of the case of the two officers at Malta, and he had heard that the same compulsion which had been attempted to be employed in this case was employed in Corfu, and some other of our garrisons.
Sir G. Murraysaid, he believed, in the first place, that the petition was founded in mistake, for he had reason to suppose that no compulsion was ever used in order to make Protestant soldiers attend the religious ceremonies of Catholics. He had the stronger reason for asserting this to be his belief, since he had lately had a conversation with an officer from Corfu, who assured him that no compulsion whatever had been used with regard to the soldiers attending any religious ceremony.
Lord Morpethsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman's belief was well founded, his explanation must of course be satisfactory.
Petition to be printed.

REFORM.—SCOTCH BURGHS
Sir R. Fergusonpresented a petition from Cupar, Fife, in favour of Reform, and especially in favour of Reform in the Representation or rather non-representation of the Scotch boroughs. He declared, that he had been both astonished and hurt at hearing that a noble Duke had said, in another place, that the country was satisfied with the present, system, and that he was not prepared to agree to any proposition for Reform. If the noble Duke really had made any such declaration, and supposed, indeed, that the people were satisfied with the present system, he (Sir R. Ferguson) must say, that the noble Duke was quite ignorant of the feelings of the people. By such a declaration the people would not be stopped, but would press forward with double zeal in the cause of Reform; for he felt bound to say, that, in his belief, there was but one opinion as to the necessity of Reform from one end of the kingdom to the other.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that as this was the first petition that had been presented from Scotland on the subject, he must take the opportunity of observing, that he entreated the House to pay the utmost attention to the wishes of the people of Scotland
516
on the question of Reform. His own opinion was firmly settled on this question, though he did not concur with the petitioners in asking for the ballot.
Mr. Humepresented six petitions from Perth, Arbroath, Brechin, and Stockport, for Reform and reduction of Taxation. The boroughs from which these petitions came, were some of the worst specimens of our Scotch boroughs. The petitions, however, were most respectably signed, but he believed that some of the places from which they were sent would send no more, unless Ministers exhibited a disposition to afford relief to the petitioners. It was with deep regret that he heard of the declaration of a noble Duke in another place, and from that declaration he anticipated a great deal of mischief. He declared, that the universal wish of the people of Scotland was for the ballot.
Mr. Dundasdenied, that any such feeling existed in Scotland in favour of the ballot. He denied, too, that the people wished the reform of which the hon. Member had talked; he absolutely denied, that they wanted reform in the Representation; at least that was not the general feeling in Scotland.
Mr. Kennedyshould be perfectly contented if that question were to be decided by the expression of opinion that the petitions to that House would disclose.
Sir C. Forbessaid, that he could not help thinking the hon. member for Middlesex had borne rather hardly upon Brechin, to which borough he was mainly indebted for being four times returned to Parliament before he got his present seat, and that it was rather ungrateful in him now to turn round upon that borough, and represent it as one of the worst in Scotland.
Mr. Humeanswered that the majority of five was three, and that having Montrose and Arbroath with him, he only wanted Brechin to complete that, majority. In that way Brechin had returned him to Parliament. He denied, however, that it had ever done so corruptly. He did not, indeed, owe much gratitude to the self-constituted electors of Brechin as they were against him, but were afraid of their fellow-townsmen if they rejected him. The hon. member for Edinburgh had denied that the people in Edinburgh wanted Reform in Parliament. He would ask that hon. Member if he had the courage to risk the decision of that question by a

517
ballot of the people of Scotland? If the people of Edinburgh voted by ballot, the hon. Member, who now sat in the House for that City would be the last man who would represent it. The hon. Member spoke the opinions of the thirty or forty men by whom he was returned, but not of the 125,000 inhabitants whom he pretended to represent, but who had no vote in his election. It was a shameful blot on the character of that House, that among such a population there should be but so few voters.
Mr. Dundassaid, the hon. member for Middlesex was mistaken, when he said that there were only forty electors for Edinburgh; but he knew nothing of the Constitution of Edinburgh, and therefore he made bold assertions. It was ignorance that made him bold. Among his (Mr. Dundas's) electors, were fourteen persons who were chosen by the people, as elders or deacons, and that was a public election as far as it went.
Sir J. Grahamobserved, that although he might be almost afraid of the censure of the hon. Member opposite, for his ignorance exhibited in what he was about to say, he could not avoid feeling a wish to state one fact on this subject. The last time that the people of Scotland had the opportunity of pronouncing their opinion on the question of reform was in the year 1826, when the present Chief Baron of Scotland brought that question under the consideration of the House. The people of Scotland then showed, that there were in Edinburgh 10,000 persons rated to the annual amount of 51., and that, after deducting the number of women and other persons unqualified to vote, there remained 7,256 householders, who signed a petition to that House, praying that. Parliament would alter the mode of election for Scotland. The hon. member for Edinburgh would find the greatest difficulty in producing petitions from Scotland, with or without the ballot, that should express an opinion (he meant the opinion of men of property, not the rabble) at all conformable to the declaration of the Duke of Wellington, that imagination could not conceive a system of representation so perfect as that which was established in the United Kingdom. He was sure, that the hon. member for Edinburgh would not find 500 people in Scotland who would go that length with him, or who would pretend in any way to vindicate the present
518
mode of returning Members. With regard to the mystification and craft of returning Members, they had been already well exposed by others, and he had only to say, that, in his opinion, however high the tone taken by the Ministers, or haughty the determination they expressed on the subject, they would find that they could not continue this corrupt system against the moderate but firm and universal demands for reform that were uttered by the people of this empire.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that the Corporation by which the hon. member for Edinburgh was returned, consisted of thirty-three persons, and the election of fourteen of them, it was true, did participate in some degree of a popular election— but nineteen out of the thirty-three were self-elected, so that the whole fabric of popular election, which the imagination of the hon. member for Edinburgh had erected, at once fell to the ground.
Mr. Dundasaffirmed, that it stood where it did. Fourteen of these persons were popularly elected, and they conduced to the election of the others.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Council influenced the election of the whole thirty-three, and that the people of Edinburgh had no more to do with the election of the hon. Member than had the people of Japan.
Mr. Dundassaid, the fourteen had a share in the election.
Petitions read and laid on the Table.

FORFAR, &c. ELECTION.
Mr. S. Wortleyobserved, that he could find no instance of Election Petitions being decided before a short recess, and many instances of petitions deferred till after such a recess; and as it would occasion great inconvenience to keep witnesses in town for a long period, from so distant a place us the north of Scotland, he moved that the consideration of the election petition against him should be postponed from, the 2nd of December to some future day.
Sir C. Forbesopposed the Motion, contending that the matter in dispute lay in a nutshell, and that the hon. Member would not be able to maintain his seat for five minutes after the meeting of the committee to try the question.
Sir M. W. Ridleywas in favour of delay, and recommended further, that all the election petitions, but those where double returns had been made, should be post-

519
poned until after the holidays, which, it was understood, were to last for a month or six weeks.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusoncontended, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley) had laid no special circumstances before the House to warrant a departure from the general rule, as applied to election petitions.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwould have consented to a motion to defer the consideration of the petition in question for a few days: he argued that it was one of the earliest duties of the House to ascertain who ought or ought not to sit as its Members, and that it would operate most unjustly to the parties, if election petitions generally were postponed until after the holidays.
Mr. S. Wortleywithdrew his Motion.

INCENDIARIES IN THE COUNTRY.
Mr. H. Sumnerwished to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, relative to the incendiary proceedings in several of the Home Counties. They had commenced in Kent, and had been alarmingly extended, till they had unfortunately reached the county to which he belonged. The Magistrates believed, that at present they had not sufficient power to swear in special constables prospectively; they could only swear them in when tumults occurred, and then only locally. He would beg leave, therefore, to suggest, that a short bill, for a short term, might be advantageously brought in, to constitute a constabulary force to perform the duty of watch and ward, by which a great deal of mischief might be prevented. He wished to know, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken into his consideration any measure of that nature, or any other that might be effectual for the end in view.
Sir Robert Peelreplied, I can assure the hon. Member, that four or five hours every day of my life are spent in endeavouring to discover the perpetrators of these atrocious crimes. I know that voluntary associations have been formed to establish watch and ward in many threatened situations; and I believe that nothing but extraordinary local vigilance will provide effectual security against these abominable offenders. No military force, no yeomanry force, can, I am afraid, defeat the wicked designs of men who have some ulterior object in view beyond the mere redress of a local evil: that I firmly
520
believe. If any measure can be suggested, by forming local associations, or otherwise, for which the assistance of Parliament or of Government may be necessary, I shall be most happy to give it every possible consideration. I am perfectly certain that there is no plan, promising to be effectual, which this House would not cheerfully sanction, in order to terminate a system so disgraceful. The House will not require me to disclose the measures I am adopting to detect the perpetrators— to do so would defeat the object itself. No expense, no exertion, on my part, has been spared, to bring these iniquitous persons to justice. If any difficulty should arise in forming voluntary associations, or in swearing in special constables, the House will, as I have said, be ready to sanction any mode of removing that difficulty, and I may add, for myself, that I will give any proposition my most willing attention.
Mr. Portmanobserved, that as the law stood at present, special constables might be sworn in by Magistrates.
Sir Robert Peelreferred to the Statute of the 1st Geo. 4th, which enabled Magistrates to appoint special constables under certain circumstances. He did not know that it applied to cases where there was a mere apprehension of tumult.
Mr. Denison.— As I have the honour to sit here for Surrey, I may, perhaps, with propriety, take this opportunity of saying, that I deeply lament, in common with my hon. friend (if he will allow me to call him so), the events which, during the three last nights, have disgraced the county. Whether the plan suggested be the best, I cannot now decide; but that some plan ought to be adopted to put down these abominable outrages, as the right hon. Secretary justly calls them, promptly and decisively, is quite clear. As to the spirit of the county, over which I have recently travelled, I must deny in toto, that there is anything approaching disloyalty among any class of the inhabitants: they are attached to the Monarchy and to the Monarch; but that they are satisfied with the King's Ministers I will by no means take upon me to affirm. The dissatisfaction has been increased by the Speech recently put into his Majesty's mouth, and still more by the extraordinary and uncalled for declaration of the Duke of Wellington in the other House. The people want retrenchment and reform.

521
And I speak not only of the lower but of the middle, well-informed and thinking classes. They are also dissatisfied with the proposition regarding the Civil List. Let the right hon. Gentleman recollect, that to put an end to this spirit, Ministers must both retrench and reform — they must repeal taxes, and consent to that change in the representation which is required by the corruptions that have crept into it. Above all, let Ministers repeal the imposts upon productive industry, and let landlords reduce their rents; and farmers will then be able to give such wages to their labourers, as will enable them to support their families. At all events, every body will agree that the prevailing outrages must be terminated speedily and effectually.
Mr. Hume.— Arrangements for establishing associations for self-defence have, I know, been made in several parts of the County of Middlesex; and in the parish of St. Anne, Limehouse, at a meeting convened by advertisement, the following Resolution was very recently adopted:—
"We declare in the first place, in the most solemn manner, our firm and devoted loyalty to oar excellent King, and our attachment to the principles of the Constitution, and to the political and sacred institutions of our country.
"Possessing, in our property, and in our families, an unequivocal stake in the preservation of social order, we declare our readiness, at any and every hazard, to exert our utmost efforts for the suppression of tumult and disorder, and for the protection of persons and property from violence.
"But we owe it to truth, to justice, and to policy, to declare, that while we are aware that the existing discontents are fomented by artful and unprincipled agitators, for the worst and most mischievous of purposes, we are unfortunately convinced, that in the perversion of some of our most valuable institutions, in the unequal distribution of public burthens, in the prodigality of public expenditure, in the arbitrary character of some of our laws, and in the corruptions and abuses existing in many departments of Church and State, are to be found the original and extensive sources of dissatisfaction and complaint; we are, therefore, persuaded, that by a prudent and constitutional reform of admitted abuses alone (and especially by a revision of our present system of parliamentary representation) can the designs of the disaffected be defeated, and tranquillity be permanently restored and maintained."
A similar course will, I believe, be adopted, not in one or two other parishes
522
only, but in every other parish of the county, where resolutions in the same spirit will be agreed to. Therefore, if Ministers wish to preserve the lives and property of the King's subjects, they must make retrenchments, and not drive to desperation men of acknowledged loyalty. Violence cannot be put down without removing the cause which produced it. At the present moment, the Ministers are the causes of all these evils; and I have no doubt that the best and most effectual act of Parliament will be, to remove the Ministers.
Sir R. Peel:— I deeply regret that the hon. Member has connected two subjects which have not the most remote relation to each other — dissatisfaction with the Government and the legal and acknowledged means of shewing it — and this infamous system of destroying the property of unoffending individuals. I do not believe that he means what he has been stating; and I form that opinion of the construction of his words from communications he has himself made to me. I appeal to the House, whether it was for the hon. Member to hold out even the shadow of a palliation for the late detestable proceedings by arguing that the Ministers are unpopular?
Mr. Hume: — I did not.
Sir R. Peel: — The hon. Member said, that the best law to put an end to them was to get rid of the Ministers. Whatever he may do, I acquit those who feel dissatisfied with Government of any participation in these infamous acts. I do not believe that there is a thinking man in the community, however opposed to Government, who would participate in these excesses, and who would not join any confederacy to put an end to them. Whatever cause of dissatisfaction there may be, there is a clear distinction between that dissatisfaction, and outrage such as every man laments. The hon. Member states truly, that voluntary associations have been formed in various situations, to take precautions against crimes of this nature; and I apprehend it will be found that Magistrates are empowered, on any reasonable apprehension of meditated felony, to swear in special constables. I am, however, quite ready to consider any further suggestion, by a temporary law, to render that power more effectual. I earnestly recommend, from my experience, the utmost. local and personal care; for I

523
believe that these crimes have been frequently committed through the agency of one or two individuals of respectable appearance—so respectable as to disarm suspicion—unconnected with the parish or village where the fire takes place. Such has been the case in more situations than one; and I can suggest nothing but extreme local vigilance, and associations among the inhabitants, to protect their own property. I again repeat, that every measure it may be possible for me to adopt, without local knowledge, shall be adopted. I am prepared to consider any rational law, for any useful purpose.
Mr. Humehoped the House would allow him to explain. The right hon. Baronet had certainly mistaken or misrepresented what he had said. At least, nothing which had fallen from him could have been sufficient to excite much irritation.
Sir R. Peeldid not think that he misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. But he must have greatly misunderstood him, if he (Mr. Hume) did not say that "no Act of Parliament which they could pass would have any effect in putting down the disaffection, unless it were accompanied by concessions."
Mr. Humesaid, that it was not the first time that Gentleman had attributed to him language which be had not used, and meanings which he never intended to convey. He could not patiently stand by whilst words were put in his mouth which he had never thought of using. He would repeat what the right hon. Baronet had misrepresented. He had said, that no Act of Parliament would put down the dissatisfaction of the country, unless Ministers showed a sincere determination to retrench. But he had said nothing to countenance the incendiaries. He was as anxious as the Ministers themselves to quell disorder, and to promote the peace of the country.
Sir R. Peeldisclaimed any intention to misrepresent the language of the hon. member for Middlesex, or to put a false or an unfair construction upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wished the system of the incendiaries to be put down, he (Sir R. Peel) must say, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman were but little calculated to effect that object, and were, at least, ill-timed.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that with respect to the observations made by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Denison), he felt
524
bound, as a Magistrate of that county, to state that no such feeling as disaffection existed amongst the peasantry. He did not believe that any of the subjects alluded to by another hon. Gentleman—the member for Middlesex—had any influence upon their minds. On one occasion which came under his own observation, the labouring people of the neighbourhood were all anxious to give assistance to the utmost of their power. His object, in the inquiry which he had just made, was to ascertain whether, on an occasion when there existed reasonable grounds for apprehension that mischief was designed, the Magistrates would be justified in adopting strong measures of precaution?
Sir R. Peelbelieved, that some advantage might be gained by making publicly known what is the true state of the law upon that subject. By the Act of 1 Geo. 4th, c. 27, for increasing the power of Magistrates under certain circumstances, it was provided, "that in all cases where it should be made appear, upon the oath of rive respectable householders, that any riot or other breach of the peace had taken place, or was likely to take place, the Magistrates may, by precept in writing, call on any number of householders to act as special constables, whenever they, the Magistrates shall see fit and necessary; in which case it is competent to the Justices at the Sessions to order the expenses incurred by such appointment of constables to be paid by a rate upon the county." Now according to that law, when the Magistrates are satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for suspecting that incendiary acts are meditated, they are empowered to appoint constables, and charge the expenses to the county.
Sir J. E. Brydgesobserved, that in these perilous times, when two branches out of three of the Legislature were new, England could not do otherwise than expect "every man to do his duty." He entirely approved of his Majesty's most gracious Speech. It breathed only peace and economy. He contended that it was warping and twisting the plain meaning of words to say, that his Majesty contemplated interference with other States. He would contend also, against the hon. member for Yorkshire that the terms without reserve, did not convey the meaning that hon. Member attributed to them. [The House manifested impatience.] He would not occupy the time of the House

525
unnecessarily, but he was determined never to be put down by noise. He was sure there was but one opinion as to the unparalleled outrages which had for some time past disgraced some parts of the country. He had no doubt that Gentlemen, on whatever side they might usually sit in that House, would, in their respective counties, use all their energies to put them down.

COMMITTEE "UPON THE CIVIL LIST.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved, "that the Order of the Day be read, that the House do go into a Committee upon the Civil List;" whereupon
Sir H. Parnellsaid, he rose, according to the notice which he had given on Friday evening last, to move for an inquiry into the details of the expenditure comprehended in those papers which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had explained to the House as the Civil List. When the Ministers of the Crown came down to that House with a claim for a large sum of money for the public service, he could not be persuaded that such a claim ought not to be thoroughly examined in its details. He was in the House on Friday last; he paid the utmost attention in his power to the statements of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; since that time he had had many opportunities of discussing the subject with other Gentlemen more competent to form a judgment upon such a subject; he had read the papers laid before the House; but by no application had he been able to comprehend the propositions to which he and the House were called on by the right hon. Gentleman to assent. The right hon. Gentleman had announced a saving of 85,000 l. in one account. But how that saving was effected he (Sir H. Parnell) had yet been unable to discover. In another place he stated that an additional saving of 150,000 l. was to be effected. But it appeared to him that never was statement more unfounded. He had the utmost difficulty to discover where that saving, or the other saving of 85,000 l. was to be looked for. He could not conceive why the right hon. Gentleman made the accounts so complicated, by departing from the old practice of separating the Civil Lists for Ireland and for Scotland from that for England, and dividing them into classes. By the arrangement adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no
526
means were left for ascertaining in what part of the public expenditure the boasted savings were effected. He (Sir Henry Parnell) had looked carefully over the papers, and he could discover no greater saving than that of 27,000 l.; but the right hon. Gentleman had so managed the accounts as to give an appearance of saving where in reality there was none. He did not mean to make any charge against the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it a matter into which the House ought seriously to make inquiries, whether the saving of 85,000 l. were real or not. With regard to the saving which they had been-told was to be effected, in addition to that 85,000 l., by the giving up of the allowance which his present Majesty had received as Duke of Clarence, surely the Ministers did not mean to claim credit to themselves for any saving which might accrue to the nation from such a source; or, if they did, certainly it ought not to be in the Civil List they claimed credit for it, as that allowance was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. But, in the papers brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the House and the nation were given to understand that the saving was deducted from the Civil List. Finding that error in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had every reason to suspect that a more rigid examination than he had been able to make would detect other errors in them. The saving of 15,000 l. from certain contingencies had nothing to do with the Civil List, which the House had then to consider. Such a deduction, therefore, ought not to have been introduced for the purpose of swelling the balance in favour of the Civil List now proposed, in comparison with former lists. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes credit also, at present, for contingent reductions in the Irish Pension List, which he merely anticipates, leaving it to chance to bring in the savings to the Treasury. With respect to the saving, therefore, represented as amounting to 85,000 l., it seemed very doubtful whether a great part of that had any more reality than the savings in the Irish Pensions. Nor could that which was said to be an additional saving of 35,000 l., caused by the falling in of the allowance of the Duke of Clarence, be considered a saving in the Civil List. Taking all these things together, it could not be doubted that there existed an urgent necessity for the House

527
to make a rigid inquiry. It was, to say the least of it, a very strong measure on the part of the Ministers, to call upon that House to give them 970,000 l. without inquiry as to the purposes to which it was to be applied, but yielding that sum to their control in simple confidence. The House ought not to neglect what was its own proper duty, and take the word of any Minister for the application of the public money. He wished to state, that in the motion which he should have the honour to propose, he had no intention, the most remote, to interfere in any way with the expenses necessary for the comfort, dignity, or splendor of the Sovereign. Gentlemen were well aware, that the line of distinction could easily and fairly be drawn. For, out of ten classes of expenditure into which the Civil List then presented was divisible, there were but three which could be said to have any relation to the comfort, dignity, or splendor of the Crown. Those three amount to about 450,000 l., and even in that sum expenses are provided for, which do not affect the King's personal comfort or the royal dignity. The other and larger part of the whole amount of the Civil List—so great a sum as 480,000 l., comprising expenses of an entirely national and public character—the other and larger part of the whole sum was, in every respect, of as public a nature as any sums that were applied for and granted in that House. It was required for services quite distinct from the personal wants of the Crown. Why did the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer seek to obtain those sums without inquiry or explanation, which he would be compelled to give if they were brought forward like other charges for the public service? He would ask Gentlemen who came to that House, with promises of economy fresh upon their lips, whether they would grant the vast sums applied for without the inquiry for which he called? It could not be doubted that inquiry would at least be satisfactory to their constituents, and there was reason to suppose that it might also be beneficial. It was too much that they should, immediately upon their meeting, vote away 1,000,000 l. of the public money—short, perhaps, of some 30,000 l.—without being able to say to what purposes that great sum was to be applied. With respect to the expenses of the Royal Household, he had every wish
528
to grant an adequate allowance. But with respect to that class in the Civil List which comprised the pensions, he thought it extremely important that it should be submitted to strict investigation. Was it not necessary to inquire why the English Pension List was kept up to 74,000 l., the Irish to 54,000 l., and the Scotch to 32,000 l.? Was the House now going to vote permanently the sum of 160,000 l., for such purposes, at such a period, and without inquiry? He would beg leave to remind the House of the opinion of the whole country regarding pensions. According to the papers furnished to the Finance Committee, the sum paid for English pensions of every kind was 717,000 l.; adding the Irish and Scotch pensions of every kind, the sum was increased to 772,000 l. There was also a very heavy charge for superannuation; the sum being, for the Civil service of the State alone, 480,000 l.; to this must be added the pensions paid under the denomination of half-pay, amounting to 4,900,000 l. Besides, there were pensions of another kind fixed by law, so that the pensions altogether amounted to upwards of 6,000,000 l. sterling, one shilling of which could not be touched without a compromise of the national faith. But with the full knowledge of all those burthens, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having the power to diminish them, proposed that they should agree to continue pensions to the amount of 160,000 l. per year. To him that circumstance seemed to require investigation, and therefore he proposed a Committee. A Committee, be was sure, would be able to reduce those pensions very considerably without lessening the King's dignity, or staining his honour. With regard to the expenses of Ministers at foreign courts— although the charge in the Civil List now brought forward was less by 27,000 l. than in that of 1820, the country was still called on to pay, under that head, 186,000 l. But he could not help thinking that there was room in that item for very considerable reduction. At all events the sum claimed for that part of the list was too great to be voted by that House without inquiry. He objected, for example, to giving the Ambassador at the Netherlands 8,000 l. a year besides an allowance for a house and various other charges. He objected also to the large salaries given to ambassadors and plenipotentiaries at seve-

529
ral other courts and the whole of the diplomatic expenditure required revision and reduction. He wanted also to have an inquiry into the Irish and Scotch Pension Lists for although there had been Committees of Inquiry into the English Pension List, there had never been an inquiry respecting the Irish and Scotch Pensions. Money was voted, and it was never known to whom it went. The case required to be looked into. Indeed, as for Scotland, every particular connected with the Civil List, and also the hereditary revenues of the Crown in that part of the kingdom, called for investigation. In 1820, the sum of 109,000 l. a year was given in lieu of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. But out of the whole produce, amounting to 184,000 l., no more than 27,000 l. found its way into the Exchequer. He would ask, was not that one fact sufficient to establish the necessity of an inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify the mode in which he had prepared the Civil List by referring to that adopted in 1820; and to his (Sir H. Parnell's) great surprise, and no doubt to the great surprise of many other Members, the right honourable Chancellor affirmed that the Civil List of 1820 had met the entire approbation of the House. He (Sir H. Parnell) had taken part in the debate upon that occasion; and he had never known a question more disputed than was that of the Civil List of 1820. There was on that occasion a most determined opposition to the proposals of the ministry: 157 Members voted in the minority. The Civil List of 1820 exceeded that of 1760 by the extravagant sum of 415,000 l. Yet a saving- of 87,000Z. from that extravagant settlement was now called a measure of great economy. The comparison showed that the Ministers had not, on the present occasion, gone down low enough by 100,000 l.; especially when it was considered that prices now are very much below the prices of that year. If the arrangements of that year had not been most extravagant, the last reign would never have been gone through without a debt having been created. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took so much credit to Ministers on the score of reduction, because they kept below the Civil List of 1820 by so small a sum, the House could see what their notions of economy were. With respect to the sepa-
530
ration of those expenses which relate to the comfort and dignity of the Crown from those which are entirely national, he considered that the reasoning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was strikingly incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what advantage would be obtained by the separation? It was his (the Chancellor's) duty to show, for the satisfaction of the House, what advantages they were to expect from keeping those accounts together. He ought to satisfy the House that the proposal to which he called on them to assent was justified by common sense. His own practice, in separating other expenses, no more national than some of those still mixed up in the Civil List, proved that even he himself considered such a separation useful. As for the explanation that such had been the practice, he (Sir H. Parnell) reprobated the customs defending bad measures by precedents. What had the nation gained by that practice, of doing all things according to former precedents? The result was, that the nation was burthened with an enormous debt, and oppressed with exorbitant taxation. Reference had been made to the provision for the personal expenditure of the Crown. On that subject he (Sir H. Parnell) believed that nothing could be of greater importance than that there should be no room for misunderstanding throughout the country respecting the sum set apart for the use of the Sovereign. Would any hon. Gentleman say, that there could be any advantage in leaving the matter in doubt, and consequently open to misrepresentation? There were many items now included in the Civil List which ought to be annually brought before that House, as other expenses were brought before them, but that was not the case with the King's personal expenditure. He considered the expenses of the Ministers at foreign courts to be one important item of that kind. Without the separation of those national charges from the personal expenses of the Crown, nothing like a proper system of public accounts could be attained. All sums paid in a particular branch of the public expenditure ought to be paid from a particular fund, and kept in a separate account. If different sums were to be paid for one purpose out of different funds, how could accounts be kept with any regularity? The right hon. Baronet then contrasted the mode of keeping the public accounts

531
in France with that of keeping them in England, and contended that the former was much superior. There the annual revenue was 40,000,000 l. and yet, by the system employed, there could be neither mistake nor delusion. In England there was not before Parliament any account of the annual expenditure of the country; nor had there been, until a year or two ago, any such account even laid before the Treasury; but he thought that a full and satisfactory account of the public expenditure ought to be regularly laid before the House. Mr. Burke had said, that, the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster produced 4,000 l. a year in money, but they were worth 40,000 l. a year in influence. If those estates were to be sold, as Mr. Burke recommended, they would greatly benefit the public income. It might, perhaps, be objected to his (Sir H. Parnell's) Motion, that there was no precedent for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire respecting the Civil List at the beginning of a new reign. But he thought, that if other Parliaments were willing to give the public money away, without inquiring as to its application, they (the present Parliament) ought not to follow such an example. Inquiries respecting the Civil List had been made by Committees in the years 1803, 1804, and 1815. He should conclude by stating, that if the House supported him in that Motion, he would not attempt to refuse what might be considered necessary for the support of his Majesty's dignity and comfort. He had no doubt, that the King would continue to be what he now was, and deserved to be—one of the most popular Monarchs that ever sat upon the Throne of England.—The House, by going into the Committee, would not impair his dignity, nor decrease his popularity; but they would give to their constituents a pledge of their sincerity in diminishing the burthens of the people. He would entreat hon. Gentlemen, before they refused the Committee for which he asked, to consider how much they owed to those whom they represented in that House, to the national Security, and to the Monarch. The right hon. Baronet then moved as an Amendment—"That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the accounts presented to the House by order of his Majesty connected with the Civil List, and to report thereon."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,
532
notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, he still adhered to the opinion which he originally entertained when the subject of the Civil List was first submitted to the House, and which he then expressed; namely, that the proper course was for Government to present to the House estimates of the proposed expenditure and arrangement of the Civil List, rather than to delegate that duty, and the responsibility which it involved, to a Select Committee. He adhered to that opinion, not merely because such had been the usual practice heretofore, but because, even in reference to what the hon. Gentleman considered schemes of economy, he was prepared to maintain that a Select Committee was not calculated to effect any economical object, which it was not perfectly competent to the House, looking at the statements and estimates laid before it, to effect. The hon. Baronet had not very distinctly stated to the House whether he wished the Committee, which he proposed to appoint, to be vested with power to examine witnesses and papers as to the several items of the accounts laid before it, or whether he desired to adhere to the practice previously adopted when committees had been appointed with reference to debts incurred upon the Civil List; namely, that the accounts should be submitted to the Committee for examination, but without power to go into so extensive an investigation, or to call for papers and persons. The hon. Gentleman had not very distinctly stated which of these two courses he meant to suggest.
Sir H. Parnellwas understood to intimate, that he proposed to appoint a Committee merely possessed of power to examine the accounts laid before it, but not to call for witnesses.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—The hon. Gentleman now stated that it was not his intention that the proposed committee should have power to examine persons with respect to the items and accounts laid before it, but merely that it should report its opinion on the Civil List. Then, he asked the hon. Baronet, not only in reference to the common sense of the matter, but in reference to opinions expressed by authorities which the hon. Member must revere, because he had long acted with the individuals who had expressed those opinions—he asked the hon.

533
Baronet what additional means or facilities he could devise to effect a public service, by such a committee which he could not already avail himself of by an examination of the documents now upon the table of the House—an examination which it was perfectly competent to the hon. Baronet, and every Member of the House, to make? Indeed, he recollected that upon former occasions Gentlemen upon the other side of the House had said it would be much better to have papers and accounts connected with the Civil List upon the Table, for the satisfaction of the House, than to refer those documents to a Committee, before which an examination of witnesses should be denied. He referred particularly to the sentiments expressed by the late Mr. Tierney on this subject, who, as the hon. Baronet would readily admit, was one of the most active, intelligent, and acute Members of the House, in reference to all matters of this kind. Indeed he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he had come down provided with an extract from Mr. Tierney's speech upon the subject, but he found he had omitted to bring it; however, he very well remembered that Mr. Tierney said," he would prefer leaving the papers in the hands of Members to the appointment of a committee without power to call for persons and documents." This was not merely an argument used in the course of debate, with a view to a particular purpose. Mr. Tierney acted in consonance with those sentiments, and when appointed upon a committee vested with such powers as were proposed to be conferred in the present instance, he refused to act, and threw up his seat in it. Such then was the opinion entertained, expressed, and acted on by political friends of the hon. Baronet on the occasion of former discussions of a nature similar to the present. The hon. gentleman did not act in conformity with those opinions when he brought forward his Amendment, and he now put it to the hon. Baronet's candour to say, supposing that instead of laying estimates of the Civil List before the House, as he had done, he had stood there the mover for a Committee such as the hon. Gentleman proposed—he put it to the House whether, in such a case, he should not have been told by Members opposite that he was acting in that way with a view to delude the House and the country, to cover a desire for an extravagant Civil
534
List by the sanction of a powerless committee, and to prevent instead of promoting inquiry? No doubt he should have been met with that argument, and with those reproaches, if he had consented to the appointment of a committee without power to enter into an effective examination of the subject: instead of submitting the details of the Civil List to the House in such a manner that Members could have opportunities of suggesting reductions and modifications, as the Bill proceeded in its respective stages. He said, then, he did not think it consistent with his duty as a Minister of the Crown, nor, indeed, conducive to a proper examination of the subject, to accede to the hon. Baronet's motion. But let the House see what it was that the hon. Gentleman proposed to delegate to a committee, without power to call for and examine persons, papers, and records. Not content with empowering a committee, thus constituted, to go into the whole of the estimates of the Civil List, the hon. Baronet wished it to come to a decision as to the best mode of keeping the public accounts. At least the hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to tend that way. And not only would the hon. Baronet have the committee investigate the various branches of the Civil List, and the best method of keeping the national accounts, but he wished it also to consider whether it might not be proper to sell the lands belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, and place the produce of the sale to the credit of the public account. The hon. Baronet further wished, that the Committee should examine into the diplomatic expenses. Was it possible that a committee, going into these extensive and difficult inquiries, yet without power to institute a sufficient examination, should ever effect any good? Was it conceivable that its debates and discussions should ever come to any satisfactory conclusion? or that they would not be so prolonged and delayed as to throw impediments in the way of what it must be the desire of the House to expedite, with a view to the public convenience as well as in reference to the dignity of the Crown? But the hon. Gentleman's arguments for a committee were mainly based upon the statements made in the commencement of his speech. He told the House that he could not discover, on the perusal of the papers laid before the House, where the saving of 85,000 l. in the present, as compared with

535
the preceding Civil List, was to be found. Having in his hands the paper, containing an account of what transfers had been now made from the Civil List, as formerly granted to his late Majesty to other funds, the hon. Baronet nevertheless inquired whether the fees proposed to be reduced were not to be deducted from the saving of 85,000 l. He referred the hon. Gentleman to page 25 of "Accounts and Estimates of the Civil List," where he would find the whole amount of the income of his late Majesty George 4th stated at 1,221,632 l.; and then followed certain charges from which the Civil List would be relieved in future—a reduction of items, by the way, which were not savings, but transferred to other funds. In England, a sum of 108,945 l.. was transferred; in Ireland, 43,698 l.; and the deduction of charges from the hereditary revenue of Scotland was 13,540 l.; making a total from which the Civil List was relieved of 166,184 l. But, as already stated, these were not savings, but sums transferred, and in the account the reader was referred to three or four preceding papers for the details. It appeared that the whole sum enjoyed by his late Majesty from the Civil List, &c, was 1,221,632 l.; deducting from this amount 166,184 l. now transferred from the Civil List, the balance was 1,055,448 l.; but the estimated amount of the probable future charge was 970,000 l., leaving a diminution of charge, after providing for the Queen—a clear saving upon the last Civil List—of 85,448 l. Let the hon. Baronet go through the various classes of the Civil List as now proposed, and he would see the items on which the saving-was effected. In a committee the hon. Gentleman would have nothing but the papers now upon the Table, without power of examining witnesses, and without the opportunity of having any difficulties in the statements cleared up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanations. Under such circumstances, no additional information could be afforded by the committee for which the hon. Member asked. The next object to which the hon. Baronet appeared to refer, as constituting a ground for the appointment of a committee, was an examination of the fitness of retaining the present amount of pensions charged upon the Civil List. But how could the hon. Member obtain fuller information or better grounds for discussion in a committee than were already
536
afforded by the papers before the House; in addition to which, pension-lists were in preparation, and would shortly be laid on the Table in pursuance of a motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. Thus the House would have in its own hands the means of judging of the nature and amount of pensions as fully as any committee, which committee would not possess the power of examining witnesses. As far as the question of economy was concerned, the hon. Gentleman could gain no advantage by the appointment of a committee; for that object might as well be promoted by a proposition for a reduction of pensions in the committee upon the Bill. He might content himself with leaving the question of pensions with this single observation, but as the hon. Gentleman had expressed a decided opinion as to the enormous amount of the pensions at the disposal of the Crown, he would only ask the hon. Member to refer to antecedent periods, and observe how small a proportion the pension list now at the disposal of the Crown bore to that which formerly existed. When Mr. Burke proposed to limit the English pension-list to 95,000 l., it was with a view to economy, and a great reduction. But the amount of pensions upon the English Civil List was now estimated at a much lower sum (74,000 l.) The Irish pension-list was now only 50,000 l.; before the Union it amounted to 146,000 l. The Scotch pension-list also stood antecedently at a considerably larger amount than at present. If the hon. Gentleman was disposed to comment on the amount of the pension list now at the disposal of the Crown, he must not call it extravagant, as compared with the pension-lists of former periods, but must at once admit that great was the reduction effected in that branch of expenditure. But the next reason why the hon. Baronet was desirous of going into a committee appeared to be, for the purpose of examining into the salaries of foreign ministers. Why not examine the amount of those salaries at present, and at once enter into a discussion as to whether they could be more or less reduced? All the details were before the hon. Member. He could therefore go into the merits of the case. What advantage would the hon. Baronet derive from examining the question of the salaries of the Ambassadors in a room up stairs, instead of investigating the subject in a room in his

537
own residence, and then bringing the matter before the House? The hon. Member said, and said truly, that our expenditure on account of foreign ministers was increased in 1820. He was ready to admit the fact, but was prepared to maintain that the circumstances of the time— the increased number of Ministers—the augmentation made in the allowances of the Ambassadors of other States—the additional expense imposed on our foreign ministers—all rendered an increased expenditure in this department necessary. But though the present amount of our foreign expenditure was greater than formerly, efforts had been systematically made to diminish it, and it had been reduced from time to time. These reductions were made by his noble friend at present at the head of the Foreign-office, and by his predecessor, Lord Dudley; and the present estimate was less by 27,000 l. a-year than at an antecedent period. When the hon. Baronet referred to the expenses of our foreign embassies at a former, as compared with the present period, he ought to have stated how considerably the number of our foreign ministers had been increased of late years. Up to 1826 we had only seventeen ministers at foreign Courts; we had now twenty-five, and all in stations so important that it was absolutely indispensable that communications should be kept up with them in this way. In the new States of South America a great augmentation of expense had been necessarily incurred by diplomatic missions, and yet, notwithstanding the increase in number, his noble friend had been able to bring this branch of expenditure within the estimate of 1816, for the maintenance of seventeen foreign ministers, the number then employed. Thinking, therefore, that a reference of the Civil List to the committee, which the hon. Baronet proposed, could give us no additional means of reducing our expenditure, he opposed the Motion. He also opposed it because he thought it proper for Government to incur the responsibility of bringing forward the Civil List, instead of shifting the burthen upon a committee. He wished to say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman's observations upon his speech on a former evening, when he introduced the subject to the notice of the House. He denied the conclusion to which the hon. Baronet had come with respect to the Civil List
538
of 1815. The hon. Gentleman overturned his own proposition for the appointment of a committee, for he said that in 1815–16 we fixed a Civil List on the largest possible scale; but was that Civil List framed without the aid of a committee previously appointed? By no means? Could the hon. Baronet not object with propriety to a Civil List constructed with the assistance of a committee? That was inconsistent with his argument for the appointment of a committee at present. Yet, if the hon. Baronet's opinion as to the excessive amount of that Civil List were correct, we stood a better chance now of arriving at a fair conclusion without a committee than with one. The hon. Baronet seemed to tax him with alluding to the circumstance of there having been no debt upon the late Civil List, and the hon. Member argued, that the fact of no debt being incurred was a proof of extravagance in the Civil List. What did the hon. Baronet consider the circumstance of incurring debts to be? Was it a piece of extravagance to run into or keep out of debt? If a man kept within the limits of his income, was he extravagant, or was his income of necessity enormous? And if he ran into debt, was he the contrary of extravagant, and was his income necessarily limited? If the hon. Baronet argued in this way, he confessed he knew not by what process of reasoning it was possible to answer him. The last argument alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was in reference to a separation of that part of the Civil List, relating to the personal expenditure of the Crown, from those parts which belonged more peculiarly to other branches of the Government of the country; and the hon. Baronet said, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated no reason why he should not depart from the usual practice in this case. He should think that the practice that had uniformly prevailed in the country in this respect, was one which it would not be wise to depart from, even at the present time, when innovation was the fashion. But the hon. Gentleman's rule appeared to be, that all past practices were uniformly and invariably bad, and that we never could be in error if we departed from them. He could not allow the soundness of this doctrine. If the honourable Baronet had pointed out the regular course of practice which had been heretofore adopted on such occasions as the present, and called on the House to follow it, then he

539
could understand the proceeding; but the hon. Baronet had acted in a manner directly contrary. He had before stated, in explicit terms, that balancing all the arguments which could be brought to bear on this question, it was better in his opinion to retain the Civil List in its present form, and on its existing foundation, than to proceed in the way which the hon. Baronet recommended. The hon. Baronet said, in the first place, that the expense of the Civil List, under the existing system, gave to the ill-disposed throughout the country an opportunity of declaiming about his Majesty's enormous income, which they would suppose amounted to upwards of 1,000,000 l. a year,—an expenditure that was calculated, in the minds of persons ignorant of the fact, to create an objection against the royal authority. Now he could not agree with the hon. Baronet in his view of the subject. If individuals recurred to the documents and statements which had been produced relative to the Civil List, they must see sufficient to correct this mistaken idea. And he must repeat, that the King did not enjoy the whole of the provision made by Parliament,—it was not all merged in his personal expenditure, but a very large portion of it was appropriated to other and very distinct purposes. Then, he contended, that if they confined the Civil List to what was necessary for private and personal purposes—if they were to pare it down to 500,000 l., they would just create the very sort of feeling as to the amount of income, which the hon. Baronet was anxious to prevent. What, he asked, would be the impression on the public mind—what would be the feeling of those individuals who objected to the grant of 1,000,000 l.. partly for private, and partly for public purposes—if they were told that 500,000 l. a-year was to be appropriated to the former object alone? He was perfectly convinced that it would have the effect, the decided effect of bringing the Monarch into oboloquy. What would the people say when they were told that the Monarch had 500,000 l. a-year for his own private and personal gratification? What would they think when they heard that no public service was mixed up with this grant—but that it was wholly devoted to the private and personal gratification of his Majesty? He would maintain that such a course was more likely to injure the monarchy, and was more calculated to bring it into obloquy
540
and distrust than the existing system. But the hon. Baronet had another reason for wishing to exclude the Ambassadors from the Civil List. He wished that the House should have annually an opportunity of declaring whether or not a Minister should be sent to this Court and to that country. If such were to be the result of the hon. Baronet's proposition, he hesitated not to say, that he looked on it, not as likely to be advantageous, but greatly injurious, to the real power and political greatness of the country. It was not for that House to say whether political relations should be kept up with one Power or another. The Constitution had wisely placed that authority in the hands of the Crown. He would not detain the House with any further observations; but convinced as he was, that no other system was so proper as that which had been proposed by Ministers, he should meet the Motion of the hon. Baronet by a decided negative.
Mr. Bankessaid, that Ministers having laid before the House, as was customary on former occasions, an Estimate of what appeared to them to be necessary for the Civil List, he could see no reason why the documents connected with the subject should not be submitted to a Select Committee. That certainly was the most commodious way in which the House could become acquainted with all the details of the question. He was not aware of the use or benefit of that sort of mystery which was attempted to be thrown over this important subject. How, he asked, could it be advantageous to the Crown, or satisfactory to the country? In his opinion, this subject ought to be clearly brought within the sphere of the intelligence of that House—as, indeed, every thing connected with the finance of the country ought to be. It was the more necessary that this subject should undergo investigation in a committee, because, according to the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, there was a new classification of the Civil List, with reference to certain points. They were told that some parts of the Civil List were to be taken away, and that certain new arrangements were to be made. If that were so, where could those alterations be so well considered as in a committee? There could not possibly be a subject more fit to be investigated and determined by Gentlemen above stairs. The point which the right hon. Gentleman last noticed had reference to foreign Ministers. He knew

541
that that subject had been formerly debated, and he confessed, that he had not, as yet, formed a decided opinion, whether the expense of foreign ministers should continue to be charged on the Civil List, or whether it should be differently provided for. He was anxious that the inconvenience which resulted from the running in debt of the Crown, with reference to this and other charges, should be completely avoided. In touching on this point, he must be allowed to observe, that no one had argued, in the course of the debate, that that House should assume the right of declaring with what Power this country should, or should not, keep up political relations by means of Ambassadors. He would ask whether the explanation given on the subject of the Civil List by Ministers was so perfectly clear that Parliament ought to be satisfied with it? He did not think that it was, and he was quite sure that a great deal of useful information might be derived from an inquiry in a committee. When the proposition for a committee was opposed, he called on hon. Members to point out the inconvenience of it; and if they could not do that, he contended that they were not justified in opposing it.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments, had confirmed him in the opinion that the question ought to be referred to a committee, and he, therefore, should vote for the right hon. Baronet's Motion.
Mr. Calcraftwas not aware, that any committee, on an occasion of this kind, when provision was about to be made to support the dignity of the Crown, had ever been appointed to act as assessors. The committee to which the hon. Baronet had particularly alluded was appointed by that House in order to give satisfaction to the country, by endeavouring to effect some relief of its burthens. It was under these circumstances that the appointment of that committee took place. But how did they stand with respect to the Civil List? The amount of that List was settled in 1815, and, from 1820, when his late Majesty succeeded to the Throne, up to the present moment, that Civil List had been found sufficient for its purpose. No debt had been incurred—no additional charge had taken place,—and yet, when his Majesty's Ministers proposed, not an increase to the Civil List as it now stood, but an absolute reduction, as his right hon. friend had shown, of 85,000 l., and in
542
addition to that, by certain transfers, a farther diminution of 50,000 l. making a total of 135,000 l., they were called on to submit the whole question to a committee. In making this statement, he of course did not touch upon the cessation of the allowance to the Duke of Clarence, because he could not consider it as arising out of any economical arrangement. He stood there to speak his opinion freely, and he was astonished that any man, conversant with figures, could state the case otherwise than he had done. The allowance to the Duke of Clarence was a saving, but it certainly did not arise out of any economical arrangement. They had now, for the first time, to deal with a Civil List, which, during an experience of sixteen years, had not run in debt; on that List his right hon. friend proposed to make a very considerable reduction; yet the hon. Baronet, notwithstanding this, said, "We ought to submit the subject to a committee." He did not wish the committee to consider those points which had reference to the personal splendor of the Crown, but he wanted them to apply themselves to other items and articles which were included in the Civil List. Now, whether, it would, or would not, be better to divide those items from the others, and to leave them to be annually voted by Parliament—whether it would, or would not be better, for Parliament to confine itself to voting that which was necessary to the splendor of the Crown for life— this, he confessed, was a point on which he had not entirely made up his mind, as his right hon. colleague had done. He stated what he thought and felt, as it was his duty to do; and if he spoke more explicitly than others, such conduct he was sure would not be met with disapprobation. The hon. Baronet admitted that the worst thing that could be done was, to grant the Crown so little as to render it liable to be involved in debt, and thus to compel it to apply to Parliament for further provision; and yet the hon. Baronet was not content to take the Civil List, which had answered during a trial of sixteen years, on which a considerable saving was proposed, but he called also for a committee. He saw no necessity for such a committee, and he should vote against it. He did not think, the splendor and dignity of the Crown being provided for, that a reduction in the other items ought to be made by a committee up-stairs in preference to its

543
being the act of the House itself. Reductions might be made in the course of examinations in that House, and it ought to be recollected, that this measure must go through a great number of stages before it was perfected.
Lord Althorpobserved, that when the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact of Mr. Tierney's having refused, on one occasion, to serve on a committee, because it was not empowered to examine persons, papers, and records, it did not, in his mind, bear strongly against the argument of his hon. friend. He did not mean to urge it personally against his right hon. friend, who had just sat down, that in 1815 he supported the proposition which was then made, and to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded; but he wished to observe, that at the commencement of a new reign, in 1820, his right hon. friend was one of 157 who voted for the extensive motion of Lord John Russell, the object of which was to refer the Civil List Estimates to a committee, that they might be properly examined, though he opposed such a course now. It was his wish and the wish of his honourable friends near him to have a committee, because they were of opinion that they ought to compare the items of the present scale with those which had formerly been submitted to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman told them, that the proposed reduction was to be found in page 25 of the papers. He knew that; but the House could only see it there in the lump, and not in particulars, as he wished to be made acquainted with it. If they agreed to the reduction without entering into particulars, they were likely to fall into considerable error. It was quite impossible for them, without a more detailed examination than could be had in the House, to arrive at an accurate decision. It was said, that they could come to no satisfactory conclusion unless the committee had leave to send for persons, papers, and records. Such a permission would, he knew, be a very great increase of power; but could no information be afforded, if that power were refused? He admitted, that a great degree of delicacy ought to be observed with respect to certain heads of the Civil List. For his own part, he felt no desire to examine closely into them; on the contrary, he wished not to have such a power. But with respect to many other heads, to which no such feeling of delicacy attached, he
544
conceived that much valuable information might be elicited, and therefore he would support the Motion of his hon. friend. There were many points, in the other items, that required explanation; and certainly it was proper that the House should have the means of arriving at a clear understanding of the whole matter. He was of opinion, that those items should undergo a thorough examination, which would render the subject more clear and tangible than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, or the papers that had been laid on the Table; for after attending to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, he could not see in what way the diminution of expense, to the amount of 85,000 l. was made. There was nothing in the papers which had been laid before them that explained that point; and he conceived that it would be highly improper for that House to vote 970,000 l. a-year for the whole of his Majesty's reign without due inquiry. To call on them to vote such sum without entering into the details, in order that they might see in what manner that money was to be applied, appeared to him so monstrous a demand, that he was astonished how the Government could make it; and till he had heard it he did not conceive it possible that any Government should have proposed to draw so largely on the faith of the Parliament. He hoped the House would not place quite so much confidence. The right hon. Gentleman said, that by coming down and moving for a committee of this kind, Members interfered with the constitutional authority of the Ministers of the Crown. He never wished to do that. But he could not help feeling that it was not right for Ministers merely to make a statement—and that not a clear one—and then, at once, without further consideration, to make such a proposition as this to the House. He thought that the country would have a very great and just right to complain, after the pledges on the subject of economy and retrenchment, which many Members of that House had given to their constituents, if they voted the Civil List without proper examination and inquiry. For these reasons he should vote for the Motion of his hon. friend. His hon. friend could not possibly intend to go into a general and minute detail of the household items. Certainly not; he believed his hon. friend meant no such thing. But his hon. friend felt, as he did, that there were

545
many items which ought not to be mixed up with the Civil List. One of the arguments against the appointment of a committee was, that it might give rise to misrepresentation. He was of opinion that it would have precisely the contrary effect; and he was anxious, in order that the public might be strictly informed on the subject that a separation of certain items from the Civil List should be effected.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, it had been contended, that, on former occasions, no such committee as that now called for was appointed. Now, allowing that argument to take its full course, he should only say, in answer to it, that it was no reason, because preceding Houses of Parliament had neglected their duty, that the present Parliament should therefore neglect its duty. But they were told that no committee was appointed at the accession of George 3rd. Why, he asked, was that? Because one gross sum was voted for the total amount of the Civil List, and no statement was laid before Parliament. The Parliament, at that time, was perfectly ignorant as to what part of the grant was applied to the personal splendor of the Monarch; what part to the salary of foreign ministers, or what part to defray the expense of public functionaries at home. At that period it was not the custom for Parliament to inquire into the subject. The first instance of inquiry was that introduced by Mr. Burke, when he divided the Civil List into different classes. A new principle was then established; and from that period, and from that period only, were they to date the examination of the Civil List. At the commencement of the last reign, a proposition for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the Civil List was negatived. When, however, his Majesty Geo. 3rd died, it was necessary to place the establishment at Windsor on a new footing. With that view a committee upstairs was appointed. He (Mr. Wynn) served on that committee, with his hon. friend the member for Dorsetshire. That committee had not power to send for papers, persons, and records; but Lord Castlereagh was a member of it; and it was but doing justice to his noble friend to say, that he gave every information in his power. He allowed every member of that committee to come down to the House, and to use the information which he had received in the committee as a ground for requiring more if it were necessary. That
546
committee examined most minutely into the Windsor establishment, and it made a report on which the House acted. The estimate for Windsor was, on several points, curtailed by that committee. The number of Equerries was reduced, as being unnecessarily large. A Motion was afterwards made by a gallant Officer to restore the number, but the House adhered to the recommendation of the committee. He believed that feelings of delicacy made it unpleasant to some Gentlemen at that time to go into such an inquiry; but, in his opinion, no such circumstances existed at present.
Mr. Herrieswho rose amidst loud cries of "Question," said, he could assure Gentlemen that he did not mean to detain them long. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had placed on so clear a ground, the reasons which ought to induce the House to adopt the course which he recommended on this occasion—he had so fully supported his proposition by undeniable precedents and conclusive arguments—that it was quite unnecessary for him to enter at any length on a repetition of that which had been so ably stated by his right hon. friend. The hon. Baronet had taken a very short way of enforcing his proposition. He had laid down a principle perfectly new, and to him it appeared no less strange than it was novel. The hon. Baronet contended, not that all precedents ought to be blindly followed, but that they ought to be blindly avoided. The hon. Baronet said—"Because these precedents are established, let us shun them—let us adopt some other system, of which parliamentary history affords no example." Now, if the hon. Baronet carried that doctrine further, if he introduced it when great constitutional principles were debated, it must inevitably lead to revolution. He, however, contended, that they were bound to look to precedents; if they did not, they were likely to plunge into the deepest confusion. They ought now to pursue the same course which had heretofore been adopted on all occasions when the question of fixing the Civil List came under the cognizance of Parliament. There was a new accession to the Throne, and the acknowledged course was, to make a proper provision for the King without the intervention of a committee. Since the time of William 3rd, the necessary sum was invariably voted without any previous inquiry by a

547
committee. What was the object to be gained by this delicate inquiry? Unless a case were made out, proving the difficulty of understanding the subject, there was no ground for requiring this detailed examination. No man, who applied his mind to the accounts laid on the Table, could fail to make himself master of them much better than he was likely to do by the labours of a committee. The difference between the Civil List now proposed, and that which formerly existed, was as clear as figures could make it; and he should be sorry if a Committee of that House were appointed to investigate and examine accounts which were perfectly plain. There was, on the face of the papers, a saving of 135,000 l. a-year, and no examination by a committee would render that fact more clear or more manifest. Reference had been made to the manner in which the public accounts were kept in another country. He would not say that some improvement might not be made in the mode of keeping the accounts, but he must say, that Statesmen of the country alluded to had complained that the accounts were not kept as clear there as they were here. In one thing the hon. Member would see that there was a striking difference in favour of economy, as respected this country. In that country, a revenue of 37,000,000 l. was collected at an expense of 5,200,000 l., while in this a revenue of 59,000,000 l. was collected at an expense of only 3,700,000 l. Reverting to the question before the House, he must say that hon. Members on the other side had failed to assign any good ground why the precedents of former reigns should be departed from. If the Crown applied for aid, it would be a proper occasion for the appointment of a committee; but in the case before the House, he thought that sufficient information had been given on all the items to enable it to proceed without inquiry, and on these grounds he would oppose the Motion for the Committee.
Mr. Holme Sumnersaid, that the noble Lord (Althorp) had stated, that most of the Members had given pledges to their constituents to vote for economy. He had given no pledge, but he felt himself bound as much as those who had, to do his duty by his constituents and the country. He owned he was grievously disappointed at the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had said that there was a saving of 135,000 l., but
548
when they added the 50,0007. for the Queen, without subtracting the 38,000 l. which ought to be deducted as the allowance of the Duke of Clarence, the thing was not fairly stated. Between the 38,000 l. which was allowed to the Duke of Clarence, and the 50,000 l. allowed for the Queen, there was only a difference of 12,000 l., which, added to 85,000 l., was the whole amount of the saving, and this was much less than the country had a right to expect. Under these circumstances, he would not only support the Amendment for the Committee, but if the hon. Bart. had moved to send for persons, papers, and records, he would also support him, except on the first three items of the Civil List. These he would except out of delicacy to the Sovereign, but on all the other parts of the expenditure he would support the fullest inquiry. He entirely concurred in what was said, that other accounts not properly belonging to it should not be heaped on the Civil List.
The House then divided on the original Motion! For it 204; Against it 233; Majority 29. The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers by the Opposition side of the House.
The Amendment on Sir H. Parnell's Motion was then put and agreed to.✶
Mr. Hobhouseasked the right hon. Secretary of State, whether, after such an expression of the opinion of the House, it was the intention of Ministers to retain their places, and continue to carry on the business of Government.
No answer was given.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that he would take an opportunity of bringing the question to an issue [cries of "Move, move."]
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the question put by his hon. friend was, under the circumstances, very natural; but he thought at present it was premature. He would take this opportunity of suggesting to his right hon. friend (Sir H. Parnell) whether it would not be better to postpone the appointment of the Com-
* While the Members who went out for the Amendment remained in the lobby, Mr. Brougham addressed them, and requested them not to go away after the division; for that if they were defeated on that Amendment, it was the intention of the hon. member for Dorsetshire to move another for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into all the items of the Civil List after the first three. This notice was received with cheers.

549
mittee till to-morrow [cries of "Now, now," were loudly repeated from the Opposition side;] and Mr. Brougham withdrew his suggestion.
The Committee appointed.
The following are given as the Lists of the Majority, Minority, and Absentees.

MAJORITY.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Dickinson, W.

Adeane, H. J.

Douglas, W. R. K.

Acheson, Lord

Duncombe, T. S.

Althorp, Viscount

Duncombe, A.

Anson, Sir G.

Duncombe, W.

Arcedeckne, A.

Dundas, C.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Dundas, T.

Attwood, M.

Ebrington, Viscount

Baillie, J. E.

Ellice, E.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Ellis, G. J. W. A.

Bankes, H.

Encombe, Lord

Baring, F.

Estcourt, T. G. B. jun.

Baring, Wm. B.

Euston, Earl of

Baring, Sir Thomas

Evans, W.

Baring, F. Jun.

Fardell, I.

Bateson, Sir R.

Farrand, R.

Benett, John

Ferguson, R. C.

Bentinck, Lord W. G.

Fitzgerald, Lord W.

Bernal, R.

Fitzgibbon, R. H.

Bethel, R.

Fitzroy, Lord J.

Biddulph, R. M.

Foley, E. T.

Blake, Sir F.

Foley, T. H.

Blaney, C. D.

Folkes, Sir W. J. H. B.

Blandford, Marquis

Fordwich, Lord

Blount E.

Fortescue, G. M.

Bouverie, S. P. P.

Frankland, Robert

Brabazon, Lord

Fyler, T. B.

Bradshaw, J.

Gisborne, T.

Briscoe, J.

Gordon, R.

Brougham, J.

Graham, Sir J. R. G.

Brougham, H.

Graham, Sir S.

Browne, W.

Grant, C.

Browne, J.

Grant, Robert

Brownlow, Charles

Grattan, James

Buck, L. W.

Guest, J. J.

Bunbury, Sir H. E.

Guise, Sir W., Bart.

Burke, Sir J.

Gurney, B. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Harris, G.

Burrell, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Byng, G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Calthorpe, F. G.

Heron, Sir R.

Calvert, N.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Campbell, Hon. G. P.

Hodges, T. L.

Carter, J. B.

Hodgson, J.

Cavendish, Wm.

Howard, W.

Chapman, M. L.

Howard, P. H.

Cholmeley, M. J.

Howard, H.

Churchill, Lord C. S.

Howard, R.

Clinton, C. T. F.

Howick, Viscount

Colborne, N. W. R.

Hughes, W. H.

Curteis, H. B.

Hume, J.

Dawson, A.

Ingilby, Sir W. A.

Davies, T. H. H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Denison, W. J.

Jerningham, H. V. S.

Denman, T.

Johnston, J.

Dick, Q.

Keck, G. A. L.

550

Kenyon, L.

Robinson, G. R.

Kennedy, T. F.

Russell, Lord

Kerrison, Sir E.

Rumbold, C. E.

Killeen, Lord

Ruthven, E. S.

King, General

Ryder, G. D.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sadler, M. T.

Knight, Robert

Sanford, E. A.

Labouchere, Henry

Sandon, Viscount

Lamb, G.

Schonswar, G.

Lambert, J. S.

Sebright, Sir J. S.

Langston, J. H.

Sefton, Earl of

Lawley, Fras.

Seymour, Lord

Leader, N. P.

Sibthorp, C. D. L. W.

Lee, Lee, J.

Smith, J. A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Smith, J.

Lefroy, A.

Smith, R. V.

Lefroy, T.

Stormont, Viscount

Legh, T.

Stuart, Lord D. C.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Stuart, William

Lester, B. L.

Stevens, S. L.

Littleton, Edward J.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Lumley J. S.

Strutt, E.

Macauley, T. B.

Staunton, Sir. G. T.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Stanley, Lord

Mackintosh, Sir J.

Stanley, E. G. S.

Malcolm, N. jun.

Stuart, Lord P. J. H.

Mandeville, Viscount

Sumner, G. H.

Marjoribanks, S.

Sykes, D.

Marshall, W.

Taylor, M. A.

Martin, John

Tennyson, C.

Maxwell, H.

Thomson, C. P.

Mills, R. W.

Tomes, J.

M'Namara, W. N.

Townsend, Lord C. V. F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Tudor, G.

Morrison, J.

Tufton, H.

Newark, Lord

Tullamore, Viscount

Nugent, Lord

Tyrell, J. T.

O'Connell, Daniel

Tyrell, C.

O'Connor, O.

Valentia, Viscount

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Ord, W.

Waithman, Ald.

Osborne, Lord F.

Wall, C. B.

Palmer, C. S.

Warburton, H.

Palmer, R.

Warrender, Sir G.

Palmer, C. F.

Watson. Rt. Hon. F.

Palmerston, Viscount

Webb, Col.

Parnell, Sir H.

Welby, G. E.

Patten, J. W.

Wellesley, P.T. L.

Pelham, C. A. W.

Western, C. C.

Penrhyn, E.

Weyland, J.

Pendarvis, E. W. W.

White, H.

Philips, G. R.

White, S.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Whitmore, W. W.

Portman, F. B.

Wilks, J.

Price, R.

Wilbraham, G.

Price, Sir Robert

Willoughby, H.

Pryse, P.

Wood,

Ramsbottom,

Wood, C.

Rice, T. S.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Rickford, W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Rochford, G.

Wynn, C. W. W.

Robarts, A. W.

Wyse, T. jun.

Robinson, Sir G.

MINORITY.

A'Court, E. H.

Atkins, J.

Agnew, Sir A.

Alexander, J. Du Pre

551

Alexander, J.

Eastnor, Viscount

Antrobus, G. C.

Egerton, Sir P. M. G.

Arbuthnot, Hon. H.

Egerton, W.

Arbuthnot, C.

Egerton, W. T.

Ashley, Lord

Eliot, Lord

Astell, W.

Fane, Sir H.

Baillie, H. D.

Fergusson, Sir R. A.

Baillie, J.

Fitzgerald, M.

Baldwin, C. B.

Fleming, J.

Balford, J.

Forbes, Sir C.

Bankes, G.

Fremantle, Sir T. F.

Barne, F.

Gordon, J. A.

Bastard, J.

Gordon, W.

Beckett, Sir J.

Gore, W. O.

Bell, M.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Beresford, M.

Gower, Lord F. L.

Beresford, Sir J. P.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Bernard, Viscount

Graham, Marquis

Blair, W.

Grant, F. W.

Bonham, F. R.

Grant, Sir A.

Boyle, J.

Gresley, Sir R.

Bruce, M.

Gunning, Sir R. H.

Brudenell, Lord

Hardinge, Sir H.

Brydges, Sir J. W. H.

Hart, G. V.

Burrard, G.

Hastings, Sir C. A.

Calcraft, J.

Hay, Lord J.

Calvert, J.

Herries, J. C.

Callaghan, D.

Hill, Sir R.

Campbell, A.

Hill, Lord A.

Carnegie, Sir J.

Holmes, W.

Carrington, Sir C. E.

Hope, H. T.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, J. T.

Cartwright, W. R.

Hope, Sir A.

Cecil, Lord T.

Holdsworth, A. H.

Chichester, Sir A.

Houldsworth, T.

Cholmondeley, Lord

Hoy, J. B.

H. H.

Irving, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Clive, R. H.

Jones, J.

Clive, Viscount

Kemmis, T. A.

Cockburn, Sir G.

Kilderbee, S. H.

Cockerell, Sir C.

King, R.

Cole, A. H.

Knox, T.

Coote, E.

Knox, J. H.

Coote, Sir C.

Lee, J. L.

Cornewall, F. H.

Lewis, T. F.

Corry, Viscount

Lindsay, J.

Corry, H. L.

Loch, J.

Cotterell, Sir J. G.

Lowther, Viscount

Courtenay, T. P.

Lushington, J. L.

Cradock, S.

Mackenzie, Sir J. W.

Croker, J. W.

Mackillop, J.

Curzon, R.

Mackinnon, C.

Cust, P. F.

Maitland, Viscount

Cust, E.

Maitland, A.

Dalrymple, Sir A. J.

Marryat, J.

Darlington, Earl of

Martin, Sir T. B.

Dawson, G. R.

M'Clintock, J.

Davis, R. H.

Milbank, M.

Doherty, J.

Miller, W. H.

Douglas, Hon. C.

Monteith, H.

Dowdeswell, J. E.

Morison, J.

Drummond, H. H.

Munday, F.

Dugdale, D. S.

Murray, Sir G.

Dundas, R. A.

Nicholl, Sir J.

Dundas, W.

Norreys, Lord

East, Sir E. H.

Nugent, Sir G.

552

O'Brien, W. S.

Sidney, Sir P. C.

O'Hara, J.

Smith, Sir C. E.

Palk, Sir L. V.

Smith, S.

Pearse, J.

Smith, A.

Perceval, S.

Somerset, Lord G. C. H.

Pechell, Sir S. J. B.

Somerset, Lord R. E. H.

Petit, L. H.

Sotheron, F.

Peel, Sir R.

Spottiswoode, A.

Peel, W. Y.

Stuart, H. V.

Philpotts, J.

Stanley, W. S.

Phipps, E.

Strathaven, Lord

Planta, J.

Stuart, J.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Sugden, Sir E. B.

Powell, W. E.

Taylor, G. W.

Powiett, Lord W. J. F.

Thompson, Ald.

Prendergast, M. P.

Thynne, Lord W. Capt.

Pringle, Sir W.

Tomline, W. E.

Pringle, Alex.

Townshend, J. R.

Price, S. G.

Trench, F. W.

Pusey, P.

Trevor, G. R.

Rae, Sir W.

Trevor, A.

Raine, J.

Ure, M.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Valletort, Viscount

Rogers, E.

Vernon, G. G. V.

Rose, Sir G. H.

Villiers, Lord

Russell, C.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Scarlett, Sir J.

Walpole, J.

Scott, Sir S.

West, F. R.

Scott, H. F.

Williams, O.

Seymour, H. B. S.

Winchester, H.

Severn, J. C.

Wortley, Hon. J. S.

Shelley, Sir J.

Wood, T.

Shelley, J. V.

Wortley, Hon. C.

Shirley, E. J.

For the Question 204.

Tellers

Lord Althrop.

Sir Henry Parnell, bt.

Against the Question 233.

Tellers

G. R. Dawson.

Joseph Planta.

Majority for the Question 29.
The following Gentlemen desired to have it known that they were on the spot, but by some accident or other were excluded from voting for Sir H. Parnell's Motion:—

Anson, Hon. Geo.

Gregson, John

Brown, Dominick

Kemp, T. R.

Chichester, Arthur

Marion, O'Gorman

Coke, T. W.

O'Grady, Col.

Forbes, John

Russell,

Ferguson, Sir R.

Whitbread, W. H.

Of this very important division on which the Duke of Wellington resigned his office, the following additional particulars may be found not uninteresting:

MEMBERS ABSENT.

Abercromby, G. R.

Belfast, Earl of

Anson, Hon. G.

Belgrave, Viscount

Apsley, Lord

Beresford, Lord G. T.

Archdall, M.

Bernard, T.

Bankes, W. J.

Blackett, C.

Baring, A.

Borradaile, R.

Baynton, S. A.

Bourne, W. S.

Beaumont, T. W.

Bouverie, D. P.

553

Boyle, Lord

Grosvenor, R.

Bradshaw, R. H.

Gurney, H.

Brogden, J.

Handcock, R.

Browne, D.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bruen, H.

Heathcote, Sir G.

Buller, C.

Hill, Lord G.

Buller, J. W.

Holmesdale, Viscount

Bulwer, H. L.

Hotham, Lord

Burdett, Sir F.

Howard, F. G.

Burton, H.

Hughes, W. L.

Buxton, J. J.

Hulse, Sir C.

Buxton, T. F.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Byng, G. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Campbell, J.

Jenkins, R.

Campbell, W. F.

Jermyn, Earl of

Capel, J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cavendish, H. F. C.

Jolliffe, G. E.

Cavendish, Lord G.

Jones, T.

Cawthorne, J. F.

Kavanagh, T.

Chandos, Marquis of

Kemp, T. R.

Chaplin, C.

Kennedy, Lord

Chaplin, T.

King, Sir J. D.

Chichester, A.

Lascelles, H.

Clements, J. M.

Lemon, Sir C.

Clive, E. B.

Lennard, T. B.

Clive, H.

Leslie, C. P.

Cocks, J.

Lloyd, Sir E. P.

Coke, T. W.

Loch, J.

Constable, Sir T. A. C.

Loughborough, Lord

Cooke, Sir H. F.

Louvaine, Lord

Cooper, E. S.

Lowther, Sir J.

Cradock, J. H.

Lowther, H. C.

Cripps, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Dottin, A. R.

Luttrell, J. F.

Douro, Marquis of

Lygon, H. B.

Drake, T. T.

Maberly, J.

Drake, W. T.

Mahon, Viscount

Duff, A.

Mahon, J. P. O. G.

Dugdale, W. S.

Manners, Lord R.

Duncannon, Lord

Maule, W. R.

Dundas, Sir R. L.

Meynell, H.

Dundas, J. C.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Dundas, H.

Miles, P. J.

Durham, Sir P.

Miles, W.

Ellis, A. F.

Milton, Viscount

Estcourt, T. H. S. B.

Montgomery, Sir J.

Ewing, J.

Moore, G.

Fane, H. S.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Fane, J. T.

Morgan, Sir C.

Fane, J.

Mostyn, Sir T.

Fergusson, Sir R. C.

Mountcharles, Earl

Fitzgerald, W. F. V.

Newport, Sir J.

Fitzgerald, J.

Neeld, J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Noel, Sir G. N.

Forbes, J.

North, J. H.

Forbes, Viscount

O'Neill, J. B. R.

Forester, G. C. W.

Ogle, Sir C.

French, A.

O'Grady, S.

Freshfield, J. W.

Ossory, Earl of

Garlies, Viscount,

Owen, Sir J.

Gascoyne, J.

Owen, H. O.

Gilbert, D.

Oxmantown, Lord

Gordon, Sir J. W.

Peach, N. W.

Gordon, J.

Pennefather, M.

Greene, T.

Pelham, J. C.

Gregson, J.

Penruddocke, J. H.

Greville, Sir C. J.

Phillips, Sir R. B. P.

Grimston, Viscount

Pigott, G. G. W.

554

Pitt, J.

Traill, G.

Polhill, F.

Tunno, E. R.

Ponsonby, W. F. S.

Twiss, H.

Prittle, F. A.

Thynne, Lord J.

Ramsden, J. C.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Roberts, W. A.

Uxbridge, Earl of

Ross, C.

Vaughan, Sir R. W.

Rose, G. P.

Vaughan, J. E.

Russell, W.

Vere, J. J. H.

Russell, R. G.

Villiers, T. H.

Russell, J.

Walrond, B.

Saunderson, A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Shaw, F.

Ward, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Wemyss, J.

Smith, T. A.

Wetherell, Sir C.

Smith, G.

Whitbread, W. H.

Smith, R.

Whitmore, T.

Somerville, Sir M.

Wigram, W.

Spence, G.

Williams, J.

Stewart, Sir H.

Williams, T. P.

St. Paul, Sir H. D. C.

Williams, Sir R.

Surrey, Earl of

Williams, R.

Sutton, C. M.

Wilson, Sir R. T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Worcester, Marquis of

Tavistock, Marquis of

Wood, M.

Tennant, C.

Wyndham, W.

Thompson, G. L.

Wynn, C. W. G.

Thomson, P. B.

Wynn, J.

Thynne, Lord H. F.

Yorke, Sir J. S.

Townshend, Lord J.N.

COUNTY MEMBERS—ENGLISH

FOR THE MOTION.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hume, J.

Adeane, H. J.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Althorp, Lord

Keck, G. A.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Bankes, H.

Lawley, F.

Benett, J.

Littleton, E. J.

Bethell, R.

Lumley, J. F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Mandeville, Visct.

Brougham, H.

Morpeth, Lord

Bunbury, Sir H. E.

Osborne, Lord F. G.

Burrell, W.

Palmer, R.

Byng, G.

Patten, J. W.

Calvert, N.

Pendarvis, E. W.

Curteis, H. B.

Portman, E. B.

Denison, W. J.

Price, Sir R.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Sandford, E. A.

Dundas, C.

Sebright, Sir J. T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stanley, Lord

Foley, T. H.

Tyrell, J. T.

Foulkes, Sir W.

Tyrell, C.

Graham, Sir J. R.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Guise, Sir W. B.

Western, C. C.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hodges, T. L.

AGAINST THE MOTION.

Bell, M.

Munday, F.

Cartwright, W. R.

Norreys, Lord

Cotterell, Sir J. G.

Powlett, Lord W.

Dugdale, G. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Egerton, W.

Somerset, Lord R.

Fleming, J.

Sotheron, F.

Hill, Sir R.

Strathaven, Lord

Lowther, Viscount

555

ABSENT.

Beaumont, T. W.

Lowther, H. C.

Belgrave, Visct.

Lygon, H. B.

Cavendish, Lord G.

Manners, Lord R.

Chandos, Marquis of

Morgan, Sir C.

Chaplin, C.

Noel, Sir G.

Coke, T. W.

Pelham, J. C.

Dickinson, W.

Russell, W.

Fane, J.

Smith, Hon. R.

Heathcote, Sir G.

Stewart, W.

Lowther, Sir J.

Tavistock, Marquis of

COUNTY' MEMBERS—IRISH

FOR THE MOTION.

Acheson, Lord

Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.

Bateson, Sir R.

Grattan, J.

Blaney, C. D.

Howard, H.

Brabazon, Lord

Killeen, Lord

Browne, Hon. W.

King, Hon. H.

Browne, J.

Lambert, J. S.

Brownlow, C.

Lefroy, A.

Burke, Sir J.

M'Namara, W. N.

Chapman, M. L.

Maxwell, H.

Dawson, A.

O'Connell, D.

Fitzgerald, Lord W.

O'Connor, Don.

CLERK OF THE COUNCIL.
Mr. Stanley Mr. Stanley, referring to a question which he had before put to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, as to whether the situation of Clerk of the Council had been filled up, said that the right hon. Gentleman had declared that he knew nothing on the subject. He would now repeat the question, because he under-stood that the situation had been filled up, though he thought it was one which ought not to be continued, by the Lord President having appointed his own son to the office.
Sir R. Peelcould assure the hon. Member in sincerity, that till he came down to the House to-day, he knew nothing on the subject.

STATEMENT of the VOTES of the FOURTEEN REPRESENTATIVES of the County of Surrey, on the Motion for a Select Committee on the Civil List, Nov. 15, 1830.

Place.

Name.

For,

Against.

Absent.

County

Dennison. W. J

—

Briscoe, J. I

—

Bletchingly

Mills, R. W

—

Tennyson, C

—

Gatton

Hope, J. T

—

Shelley, J. V

—

Guilford

Wall, C. B. B.

—

Sumner, Holme

—

Haslemere

Beckett, Sir. J

—

Holmes, W.

—

Ryegate

Cocks, James

—

Yorke, Sir J

—

Southwark

Wilson, Sir Robert

—

Total

6

4

3

O'Farrall, R. M.

White, Samuel

Parnell, Sir H.

Wyse, T. jun.

Rochfort, G.

Valentia, Visct.

White, Col.

AGAINST THE MOTION.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Hart, G. V.

Chichester, Sir A.

Hill, Lord A.

Coote, Sir C.

King, R.

Corry, H. L.

M'Clintock, J.

Corry, Visct.

Shirley, E. J.

Fitzgerald, M.

ABSENT.

Archdall, M.

Jones, F.

Belfast, Earl of

Kavanagh, T.

Beresford, Lord G.

Mahon, O'Gorman

Bernard, T.

Mountcharles, Earl

Boyle, Lord

O'Grady, Col.

Browne, D.

O'Neil, Hon. J. B.

Bruen, H.

Ossory, Earl of

Clements, J. M.

Oxmanstown, Lord

Cooper, E. S.

Prittie, Hon. F. A.

Duncannon, Lord

Sanderson, Alex.

Forbes, Visct.

Somerville, Sir M.

French, A.

Stewart, Sir H.

Mr. Stanleysaid, he understood the situation was filled up within twenty-four hours after the vacancy.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he knew not through what office the appointment was made; but it was not through that of the Secretary for the Home Department.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Negro Slavery, by the Earl of ROSEBBRRY, from Stirling and Leominster:—By Lord RIVERS, from Homerton:— By Lord WHARNCLIFFS, from forty-one places in York-shire:—By the Marquis of SLIGO, from eight places in Sligo:—By the Marquis of CLEVELAND and Lord GODE-RICH, from several places in Durham and Lincoln.

NEW POLICE.
Lord Durham, pursuant to notice, begged leave to present to their Lordships a petition from the parish of St. Mary, Newington, relating to the Metropolitan Police system. The petitioners complained, that under the 10th of his late Majesty, they were subjected to the new police establishment without their consent, and contrary to their wishes; and that, although the expense had been increased one-fourth, the protection to property was less efficient than under their own nightly-watch system, as was shown by an increased number of burglaries since the extension to their parish of the new system; and they prayed, either that the Act under which the metropolitan police was established should be repealed, or that the parish of St. Mary should be exempted from its provisions. The noble Lord said, he had inquired into the allegations of the petition, and found that in the six months preceding the establishment of the new police in this parish, the number of burglaries was 128, while the number in the six months which followed that establishment was 145. Then, as to the expense, he found that the charge of the nightly watch amounted to 3,000 l.; while that of the less efficient new police was 4,390 l. It was true that the nominal assessment was but 8d. per pound to the parish, which was not more, if so much. than the nightly-watch rate, but every house was assessed, be it inhabited or not The aggregate sum had to be made good
494
by the parish at large, making the actual rate to each householder 1s. in the pound. The petitioners complained that there was no office or place in the parish to which they could apply for aid or redress; that too many of the police were engaged on duty in the day-time, and too few in the night; that on those extraordinary emergencies—such as that on Tuesday last, for example, when a large force was required to protect the King's Ministers—there were no means of protection left for their properties. The petitioners also complained, that under the new Police Act, all control was taken out of their hands, not only over the appointment and conduct of the paid guardians of their properties, but over the expenditure of their own money. With respect to this point, he would suggest the expediency of authorizing the parish to have one of their own resident inhabitants connected with the police—say as an inspector—and exercising a control over its arrangements, founded on his knowledge of the wants, persons, and properties of his fellow-parishioners. To this proposition he did not anticipate any objection. As the public mind had been much directed of late to the subject of the new police, he thought himself bound to declare, that though he never happened to be so placed as to be able personally to judge of the efficiency of that body,—all he had seen of the new police, particularly in the neighbourhood of that House, gave him the highest idea of their vigilance, firmness, and good conduct. In paying this justly deserved tribute to the character of the new police as a body, it was not to be inferred that the principles of the measure under which it acted were unexceptionable. He had, on its being first proposed to their Lordships' attention, expressed his dissent from its arrangements, and had lamented the rapidity (owing to the very advanced period of the Session in which it had been introduced) with which it had been hurried through its several stages, so as to preclude the possibility of its details being properly discussed. Nor was his complaint even on the score of expense groundless; for he found that in the parish of St. George— known to many of their Lordships—the charge of the new police had been raised from 5,000 l. per annum (the cost of the preceding nightly-watch) to not less than 17,000 l.; to counterbalance which, he had not seen any proofs that the protection

495
afforded to property had increased in efficiency. The next point to which he would invite the attention of their Lordships was, the objection to the sole control of the police being placed in the hands of the Home Secretary of State. He did not mean to enter then into the discussion of the constitutional principle involved in this objection, but to state a circumstance which had been communicated to him, and which, he trusted, would meet with a direct contradiction from the proper quarter. The circumstance to which he alluded was a written order to the inspectors and officers of the new police, "to return the names of those privates and subalterns who possessed votes at Norwich." Now, He could not take it upon him to say whether this order had, or had not, been actually issued; he was anxious to obtain satisfactory information on the subject, and he trusted, in the negative: but he thought the circumstance of the hon. Member who had been returned for Norwich—certainly not by the aid of the Government—having given notice of a motion for a bill to exclude members of the metropolitan police from voting at elections for Norwich, imparted an air at least of probability to the assertion that it had been issued. He was not one of those who disgraced themselves by raising a senseless cry against the new police as a body; on the contrary, he was a willing witness, as far as he had the means of judging, to the excellent demeanour and appearance of its members; all he wanted was, not an overthrow, but an amelioration of the system. He knew not whether the subject was to be inquired into in the other House, but he hoped it would be by a committee.
Lord Suffieldwas a resident in, and a member of, the vestry of the parish of St. George, to which the noble Baron had just alluded, and therefore trusted he might be permitted to say a few words with reference to the subject of the petition before their Lordships. Knowing that the conduct of the new police was to be touched upon by the noble Baron on the present occasion, he had instituted an inquiry into it, so far at least as his own parish was concerned; and the result of his inquiry was, that he differed altogether from the allegations of the petitioners, and from the views of the noble Baron concerning that body. He thought it necessary to state his opinion on this point, the
496
rather that a certain portion of the press had indulged in much misrepresentation concerning the efficiency, the organization, and the expense of the new police; and he, indeed, felt that the public would be indebted to the noble Baron for affording them an opportunity for correcting those representations. The great error of those who usually pronounced an opinion on the present metropolitan police was, that they founded their judgment on some isolated branch or item of that establishment, and not on a consideration of its merits as a whole. To form a correct opinion of the efficiency and cost of the new police, it should be judged of as a whole; and, if thus judged, he was confident the result would be very different from that set forth by many imperfectly informed and interested persons. For example, if they judged of the cost and efficiency of the new police by the parish of St. George alone, it was true at first sight it might not appear an improvement equal to the additional expense; but when they took into consideration that it was not for escorting such of their Lordships as might happen to reside in Grosvenor-square from one side of that square to the other in safety, that they were rated higher than they had hitherto been, but because the poorer and more defenceless inhabitants of the lanes and alleys of the parish were now better watched than heretofore, and the persons and properties of all the inhabitants much better secured,—he was sure that they would admit that justice, not less than expediency, was consulted in making the rich pay a due proportion towards the security of the poor of the parish. Again, St. George's parish should be considered in its relation to the aggregate expense of all the parishes in the metropolitan district, and not by itself, or in comparison with one or two others, If it was rated higher than others, there were the parishes of St. Giles's and Pancras, in which the increased charge was but 1d. in the pound additional; and the parish of Islington, in which it was less than the cost of the old nightly-watch system. With respect to what the noble Baron had said as to the sole control of the new police being placed in the hands of a Minister of the Crown, he was free to admit he was friendly to the general principle that those who paid the money should exercise a superintendance over its management; but when he considered how dependent the efficiency of

497
the police was on its uniformity of action and organization, and how incompatible that uniformity was with the system of separate parish management, e felt himself bound to maintain the present arrangement, as most conducive to uniformity, and thence to efficiency of conduct. As to the charge of interference by Ministers with the freedom of election at Norwich, he certainly had heard it asserted in more than one quarter, but, with the noble Baron, he trusted that the charge was without foundation. The manner in which he had heard the interference was effected was, by a pretext under which old and useless constables at Norwich, who had no votes, were temporarily superseded by such members of the metropolitan police who had votes; but he repeated, he expected to hear an official denial from his Majesty's Ministers of any species of interference whatever.
The Earl of Rosslynfelt himself relieved from the necessity of making a lengthened speech by the judicious observations of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House. With respect to the point last touched upon by him— namely, the interference with such of the new police as had votes at Norwich, by the inspectors, — e could not then take it upon him to give it officially a flat contradiction. All that he could do was, to express, as an individual having no specific knowledge of the circumstances one way or the other, his strong belief that such was not the fact— that was wholly unfounded. Indeed, his belief of this had the strength of a conviction; for though not able to say positively that no order at all like to that quoted by the noble Baron (Durham) opposite had been issued, he understood, from the very best authority on the subject, that such of the new police as had votes were permitted to give them as they pleased, — and did vote for whom they pleased, without any interference on the part of their office. With respect to the allegation, that crime had increased in the parish of St. Mary, Newington, he begged leave to remind the noble Baron, that the matter had been inquired into in the proper quarter, and that it appeared that the efficiency of the new police had been, ' in the first instance, counteracted by circumstances which had since been remedied; and that some of the police, who had been charged with neglect of duty in that district, had been removed from the
498
service. Then, with respect to the increase of the cost of the police in St. George's parish from that of the nightly-watch system, which increase he admitted was from 5,000 l. to 17,000 l. per annum, it should be recollected, in addition to what had been just observed by the noble Lord (Suffield) opposite, that under the present arrangement many districts in the neighbourhood of Grosvenor-place, which formerly were under the watch management of other parishes, were now included within the parish of St. George new police district, and that both these new districts and the parish of St. George were now much better protected than they had ever been, or were likely to have been, under the old nightly-watch system. Besides, St. George's parish was singular in many respects, and should not be taken as a sample of the parish expense of the metropolitan district at large. In St. John's parish, for instance, the increase had also been considerable, for the same reason as in St. George's; but still it was not much above the half more than the old watch charge. In all these instances of increased cost to particular parishes, they were bound to take into consideration the aggregate charge of the whole metropolitan police, as compared with the aggregate charge and efficiency of the old watch system; and that comparison would show that the expense— he meant the aggregate expense— of the police, very little exceeded that of the aggregate nightly-watch, while the efficiency admitted of no comparison. But this was not all; there were now ten or twelve districts in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolis in which persons and property were secured, which actually had no watch or police whatever till the appointment of the new metropolitan police. Therefore, if the charge of the old watch was nearly equal to that of the new police, even without these ten or twelve districts to which he had just alluded, he was warranted in saying that it would have been much more had those districts been included; while it could not be pretended that the protection of lives and property would be at all equal. It might, he admitted, be a matter of fair discussion whether the present mode of imposing the police-rates was the most unexceptionable; but that discussion must keep in view the necessity of one uniform system of management, so essential to efficiency and order. Nor, if the matter were closely

499
inquired into, would it, he thought, be seen that the present mode of rating was so highly objectionable as some persons had asserted. The new police charge was levied on the fixed principle of the county-rates; while the parochial poor-rates were levied on a variable system. The former was a charge of 8d. per pound on—not, as in the case of many parochial rates, on the rack-rent, but—on three-fourths of the nominal rent paid; so that the real charge was actually but 6d. in the pound: in other words, the parties assessed paid but three-fourths of their just proportion, on the principle of the parochial rates. This had been either forgotten or artfully over-looked by those persons who, in some parishes, had raised a clamorous outcry against the new police—an outcry, in most instances, the consequence of jealousy or disappointment that a large amount of patronage and control had been taken out of the hands of individuals (as might be inferred from the fact, that in St. Pancras alone there were not less than eighteen different watch-trusts, before the new system of uniformity had been established), for the purpose of securing police efficiency.
Lord Suffieldhad forgotten to touch upon two points which bore closely upon the question before their Lordships. One was, that in one of the parishes most clamourous against the cost of the new police establishment, he had been informed that the parish, for a couple of years, had been loaded with a debt, the onus and odium of which those who had contracted it thought the present a favourable opportunity of transferring to the new police from themselves. OIL a future day he would enter into the particulars of the transaction. The other point had been alluded to by the noble Earl who had just addressed the house— namely, the fact that the aggregate cost of the whole metropolitan police did not much exceed that of the nightly-watch, though it included ten or twelve districts to which that worshipful body's superintendence never in any way extended. The whole expense of the metropolitan police was 208,000 l. per annum, while that of the nightly-watch (exclusive of private watchmen) was 160,000 l.
Lord Tenterdenwas enabled, from his own experience in the King's Bench, to declare that there were cases in which property had been recovered since the establishment of
500
the new police, which he was confident would never have been so recovered but for the intelligence, vigilance, and general good conduct of that body.
Lord Durhamwished to know from his Majesty's Ministers, whether they intended to move for a repeal of the Metropolitan, Police Act with a view to its amendment.
The Earl of Rosslynreplied, that Ministers had then no intention to submit any proposition to Parliament with a view to either repealing or amending the Act alluded to by that noble Baron.
The Petition laid on the Table.

THE REGENCY.
The Lord Chancelloraddressed their Lordships to the following effect:—My Lords, I rise in consequence of the notice which I gave last week, in order to submit to your Lordships' judgment the measure which his Majesty's Ministers have prepared, in consequence of his Majesty's recommendation in his most gracious Speech from the Throne, for the purpose of providing for the Administration of the Government of the country, in the event of the demise of his Majesty, before the successor to the Crown shall have arrived at years of maturity. My Lords, I do not intend on this occasion to enter into any detailed consideration of the measure. At present, I will confine myself to stating the principles on which his Majesty's Ministers have proceeded in framing the Bill which I hold in my hand, and to describe the outline of its provisions. In the first place, my Lords, I must observe, that in framing this Bill his Majesty's Ministers have not thought it necessary to provide for every possible contingency that may occur. The principle by which they have been governed is this:—Having, in the first place, considered what were the various exigencies that might arise, the various periods at which those exigencies might arise, and the means which would exist of legislating for any of those exigencies at any of those periods, his Majesty's Ministers, for those cases in which it appeared to them that it would be difficult or inconvenient to legislate on their occurrence, have proposed to legislate on the present occasion. On the contrary, my Lords, whenever it appeared to them that, on the occurrence of any of the events under consideration, an opportunity would be afforded for legislating with no more difficulty or inconvenience than at the present moment, they have

501
determined not to anticipate the decision of a future Legislature, but to leave the question free and untouched. Again, my Lords, in framing the Bill which I am about to have the honour of requesting your Lordships will allow me to lay on the Table, his Majesty's Ministers have thought it the wise and prudent course to legislate as little as the necessity of the case would admit; and to leave the existing law and the Constitution to operate wherever they are applicable. I think your Lordships will feel that, in pursuing this course, and acting on these principles, his Majesty's Ministers have discharged their duty in a manner the most consistent with prudence and wisdom. It must be obvious to your Lordships that the main point is, to protect the person, and to secure the succession to the Throne of her royal highness the Princess Victoria. That illustrious personage is now in the twelfth year of her age. The period of her majority, as qualifying her for the sovereignty of this country, will not arrive until her royal highness is eighteen years old. The principal object of this Bill, therefore, is to provide, in the event of the demise of his Majesty before the Princess Victoria shall have arrived at the age of eighteen, for the Administration of the Government of the country during the interval. That, my Lords, was the duty imposed upon his Majesty's Ministers in preparing this Bill; but I am quite sure that I am only speaking in unison with the feelings of every noble Lord who hears me, and in unison with the feelings of the great body of the people of this country, when I offer an earnest prayer that the valuable life of his Majesty may be long preserved to his faithful and affectionate subjects. I am quite sure that your Lordships, and the great body of the people of this country, feel that no greater calamity could befall us than the death of our present most gracious Sovereign. But, my Lords, notwithstanding all the wishes and all the hopes that we may entertain on that point, it is necessary that we look to what, however much it is to be deprecated, is nevertheless a possible occurrence; and it is in that view of the subject that his Majesty's Ministers have prepared the measure in question. The provisions of that measure are of the most simple character The first question which your Lordships will naturally ask is— whom we propose as the guardian of her royal highness under
502
the circumstances inferred? I am sure, however, that the answer will at once suggest itself to every mind. It would be quite impossible that we should recommend any other individual for that high office than the illustrious Princess, the mother of her royal highness the Princess Victoria. The manner in which her royal highness the Duchess of Kent has hitherto discharged her duty in the education of her illustrious offspring—and I speak upon the subject not from vague report, but from accurate information—gives us the best ground to hope most favourably of her royal highness's future conduct. Looking at the past, it is evident that we cannot find a better guardian for the time to come. With respect to the Regency, and the means to be provided for discharging the functions of the Sovereignty, it is important to separate that consideration from the other. It is, however, the recommendation of his Majesty's Ministers that, on the event of the demise of the Crown, what appears to us to be the only constitutional course should be adopted, and that her royal highness the Duchess of Kent should be appointed sole Regent. There is another question on which it is necessary for me to say a few words. It will be asked me—"it may happen that a child may be born to his present Majesty; do you intend to provide in your bill for that event?'' My answer is distinctly in the negative. His Majesty's Ministers have thought it unnecessary to provide for such a contingency, for this reason:— Whenever such an event may occur, or whenever there may be a reasonable probability of its speedy occurrence, as it will be competent to the Legislature to provide for it, and it will be more easy to provide for it at the time than by anticipation, the case comes under the principle upon which we determined to frame the measure— namely, to abstain from legislating with reference to those contingencies, on which, whenever they occur, Parliament may legislate without any difficulty or inconvenience. For that reason, my Lords, we do not propose to provide for such an event. The next point to which I am desirous of calling your Lordships' attention is one of no inconsiderable importance. I have already said, that his Majesty's Ministers propose that her royal highness the Duchess of" Kent shall be the sole Regent. The question is, whether her royal highness should have a Council

503
to assist her? If we were to be guided by precedents, those precedents are in favour of the appointment of such a Council. I do not speak of the precedents of old times; the alteration of habits, the change in the circumstances and situation of the country, render such precedents very remotely applicable to the present case. It would be difficult also to find in any of those ancient precedents an instance similar to the present. Passing by, therefore, all those precedents, I proceed at once to advert to two of more modern date; the one occurring in the latter part of the reign of George 2nd, in the year 1751; the other occurring in the fifty-first year of George 3rd. In both those cases a Council was appointed to assist the Regent. My Lords, no opportunity was afforded us of judging, by practical experience, how far those precedents were such as it would be desirable to follow. On that point, therefore, no argument can be raised. But, my Lords, it has appeared to his Majesty's Government, and I have no doubt that it will appear to your Lordships, that as the prerogatives with which the Crown is invested are intended for the preservation of that balance between the different estates of the realm indispensable to the maintenance of the Constitution; and as, therefore, the Crown itself ought not to be deprived of prerogatives so essential, the expediency of not diminishing the Royal prerogatives applies still more strongly to a Regent; because the limited duration of the power of a Regent renders that power less influential. If, my Lords, you take from a Regent those prerogatives which you would hesitate to take from a Sovereign, because you know that by so doing you/would endanger the Constitution, you would certainly produce the evil that you would wish to avoid. On these principles, and on these grounds, we object to the appointment of a Council, professedly to assist, but in reality to control, the Regent. I do not mean to say that a position of affairs might not arise— that a Regent might not be chosen, which position and which choice might not render it highly proper to appoint a Council. A case might occur in which it would be necessary to select as Regent an individual of great ambition, of great popularity, of great influence, of great authority, whose sole sway might be dangerous to the State. The power of such an individual it might be wise and prudent to circumscribe by
504
surrounding him with a Council. But such, my Lords, is not the case now. The Regent whom we propose to appoint can never succeed to the Throne; her interests are identified with those of the future Sovereign; she is united to her by the tenderest ties; it will be the interest of the Regent to add to the authority of the future Sovereign; none of those motives for self-aggrandisement can occur in this real case, which might occur in the imaginary case that I have just described. In the precedent of 1751 many debates took place in the other House of Parliament. The arguments of Mr. Speaker Onslow, and of other hon. Members who were opposed to the appointment of a Council of Regency, appear to me to have great weight. The Attorney-general of that day, Mr. Dudley Ryder, gave it as his decided opinion, that a sole Regent, unfettered by any Council of Regency, was much more consonant to the principles of the Constitution than a Regent surrounded and checked by such a Council. The only argument urged at that time by the supporters of the Council was, that Parliament was establishing a precedent; and that cases might occur in which the appointment of a Council of Regency would be highly expedient, but might be resisted on the score of precedent. But surely, my lords, that was weak and shallow reasoning. Why not allow every case to be judged of by its own merits? Why not leave the Legislature to deal with every future emergency precisely according to its particular character and circumstances? To me it appears to be a monstrous proposition, that if at any period the interests of the country require the appointment of a Council of Regency, the Legislature shall be precluded from making such an appointment, because a preceding Legislature, under circumstances of a different nature, had abstained from it! At the period to which I have been adverting, the Council was to be composed of fourteen individuals, seven of whom were to be Ministers of State. There was this provision, that no Member of the Council should be removed from it without the concurrence of half the members of the Council. Looking, therefore, even at the manner in which the Council was formed, it is not a precedent which I could recommend for imitation. For these reasons, I submit to your Lordships that it is far better, in the present instance, that her

505
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent should not be fettered by any Council; but that she should be left to administer the Government by means of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. That is the course which his Majesty's Ministers conceive to be most consistent with a just and efficient administration of the Government.— There is still another question, my Lords, to which, however reluctantly, I am compelled to advert. I say reluctantly, because it refers to a possible case for which we have no authority, no precedent. The subject was alluded to in the last Session by a noble Earl who is not now in his place. It is a subject which is certainly beset with very grave difficulties; and I confess, my Lords, that I approach it with some degree of apprehension. It was stated by the noble Earl to whom I have alluded, that, although the Monarch might have no child living at the time of his death, a posthumous child might, nevertheless, be born. In that case, my Lords, clearly, and without the possibility of controversy, that child, whenever its birth took place, would instantly succeed to the Throne. Of that, there is no doubt whatever. But the great difficulty is to decide what are the existing rights in the interval between the demise of the Crown and the birth of such a child. It is very extraordinary, my Lords, that as far as I have been able to ascertain, assisted on the subject as I have been by some able friends, no case of the kind has occurred in this country since the Norman Conquest. It is very extraordinary, that with respect to this point, no notice has been taken by any old writer on our law and Constitution. In the debates on the Exclusion Bill in the reign of Charles 2nd, it was incidentally noticed in the other House of Parliament. A very learned man, Mr. Hargreave, in a work entitled "Brief Deductions," has stated in distinct terms, that the law on the subject is unsettled; and I confess, my Lords, that I have been unable to find anything opposed to that statement. If we turn our attention from our own country, and look to what has occurred with reference to the monarchy of France, we shall find only two instances, in which a Royal posthumous child has been born. The one was subsequently to the death of Henry 5th. On that occasion, on the demise of the Sovereign, the Presumptive Heir to the Crown was declared Regent, The child proved
506
to be a son, and of course immediately succeeded to the Throne. Charles the Fair left his widow seven months gone with child. In that case also, the Presumptive Heir to the Crown was declared Regent. But in that case, the child proved to be a daughter, and was, of course, excluded from the Throne by the Salique law. But, my Lords, the principles of a foreign government are not those to which we ought to look for a model. Nor are the circumstances of the two countries the same. We are, therefore, driven to the necessity of considering the subject with reference to what appears to be the general principle of our own law. The descent of the Crown follows the rules of the descent of real property, in most respects, except where there are two daughters, in which the real property is shared between them. It becomes, therefore, important to inquire what happens with reference to a posthumous child entitled to real property. My Lords, it has been settled in the Courts of Justice of this country, that such a child, before it is born, cannot be seised of such property. The right to enjoy and possess it is in the presumptive heir. He has the whole interest in it, from the death of his predecessor until the birth of the child. That precisely the same doctrine stands good with respect to the Crown, I will not assert with confidence; but this principle is undoubtedly common to both; namely, that there can be no abeyance— that there can be no vacancy. The King never dies. There must always be a Sovereign: The principle applied to real property is applicable to the Crown. The child unborn cannot be seised of the Crown: it must devolve for the time to the Presumptive Heir. My Lords, I know that this is only reasoning from analogy. I submit it as such only to your Lordships' consideration; I beg to say, to your Lordship's indulgent consideration; seeing the nature of the question, and the difficulties which surround it. My Lords, we have two courses to pursue; we must either adopt the course taken in the French monarchy, or we must appoint a Regent to administer the functions of the Government in the interval between the death of the Monarch and the birth of the posthumous child. Your Lordships will, however, advert to this circumstance— that the government, under any Regency, must be administered in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign. If you appoint a Regent

507
to administer the Government, without stating that he is to administer it in the name and on the behalf of the Sovereign, you create a Parliamentary Sovereign under the title of Regent. It would be more correct, therefore, under such circumstances, to say that the Regent shall administer the Government in the name and on behalf of the Presumptive Heir; and that he shall be liable to be divested of his authority on the birth of the posthumous child. When I say, that the King never dies, I appeal to the uniform proceedings of our Courts of Justice. There is no proceeding in any civil case, there is no proceeding in any criminal case, which does not take place in the name of the King. Such or such an act is said to be against the King's peace. The King is always supposed to exist. I repeat, therefore, my Lords, that the best course will be, to appoint a Regent, to act for the Presumptive Heir to the Crown, liable to be divested of his authority on the birth of a posthumous child. — The seisin in law must rest somewhere, and in whom ought it to rest if not in the Heir Presumptive? This is the principle of the law of real property; and the same maxim and the same principle apply, in the fullest extent, if we argue from analogy, in regulating the descent of the Crown. There is, too, another point connected with this part of the question, which I think merits your Lordships' consideration. If you say that the succession to the Throne can be either vacant or in suspension until there is no possibility of a child being born to destroy the claim of the Heir Presumptive, it may happen that, even with the probability of such an event taking- place, a child may eventually not be born. It may therefore occur, my Lords, that the Presumptive Heir may be the Monarch entitled to the Throne upon the very instant of the demise of the last possessor of the Crown, and that you have, by the appointment of a Regency under such circumstances, and under the expectation of the birth of another Heir to the Throne, deprived him of his right, and excluded him from taking that, which was his right the moment of the demise of the former Sovereign. In considering all the bearings of a question so difficult and complicated, I have felt it my duty to consult all those learned men who are the official advisers of the Crown, and they one and all concur in that view of the question which I have
508
now endeavoured to explain to your Lordships, and agree in opinion that there are no cases on record by which we can regulate our decision, but that we must guide ourselves by reasoning from analogy, and by a reference to those laws regulating the descent of real property, to which I have already called your Lordships' attention. Before your Lordships come to any decision on a question of such grave importance, I would suggest the propriety of allowing some little time to pass by, in order that your Lordships may have an opportunity to put yourselves in possession of all the authorities which are connected with that part of the subject. On the principle, however, that it is necessary to provide for the possibility of the birth of a posthumous child, we propose, on the same terms and to the same extent that we have thought it right to make her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent the guardian of the Heiress Presumptive, and the Regent of the Kingdom during her minority—we now propose, I say, to provide by the Bill, that in the event of the birth of a child after the demise of the Sovereign, her Majesty the Queen should become the guardian of that child, and the Regent of the Kingdom during the continuance of the minority of that child; the same arguments and the same principles apply equally to the one case as to the other, and the deep interest which the parent must always have in the safety and prosperity of her offspring point out that parent as the fittest and most proper person to be the guardian of the infant, and the Regent during its minority. This, my Lords, is the outline of the Bill which I submit to your consideration. I abstain from entering into details, because I feel that those details will be much better understood by an examination of the Bill itself. We propose then, my Lords, that her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent shall, in the event of the demise of the present Sovereign, be the Guardian of the Heiress Presumptive, and the Regent of the Kingdom, until the Princess arrives at her majority—that is, the age of eighteen years; and we also propose, that in the event of the birth of a posthumous child, her Majesty the Queen should be in the same manner the guardian of the child, and the Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of the infant during its minority. These, my Lords, are the heads of the Bill. The details, as I said before,

509
it is unnecessary to enter into at this moment, and I shall therefore conclude by laying the Bill on your Lordships' Table, praying leave that it may now be read a first time.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, he could not allow that opportunity to pass by without expressing his feeling that the House and the country were deeply indebted to the noble Lord for the attention he had bestowed on a question of so much importance, and still more for the able and eloquent manner in which he had brought it under their consideration, stating the grounds on which he relied for their concurrence. He should stand justly chargeable with most unpardonable vanity, if, after the grave and weighty consideration which the noble Lord had bestowed on every part of the question, he should now presume to express any difference of opinion without maturely weighing and examining all the provisions of the Bill. One thing, however, he might say now, and that was, that on the question of the law, as it applied to the cases stated by the noble Lord, He (Lord Eldon) fully agreed with him. All the points connected with the law of the case had been so fully and ably stated by the noble and learned Lord, that he had very little to say; but he would observe, that it was the interest of all on whom the settlement of this important question, depended to take care that there should be perfect unanimity on all that was said and done connected with it. Under that persuasion he was confident that advice, from whatever quarter, would be well received and conscientiously acted upon. He should, for the present, content himself with expressing again his concurrence in all that had been said of the law of the case, and take a few days for deliberation before he offered any opinion on the details.
The Bill, entitled "An Act to provide for the Administration of the Government of the country, in case the Crown should descend to her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria, daughter of his late Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, being under the age of eighteen years, and for the care and guardianship of her person," was then read a first time.