Sitting of 29 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time; Decrees in Equity; Sugar Refining; for the maintenance of Parochial Schools, and the advancement of Education in Ireland, Read a second time; Interpleader and Arbitration; Labourers House Rent. Read a third time; Charities Inquiry.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. STUART WORTLEY, the number of Drafts and Collections which passed through the Office of the Commissioners for the Affairs of India, between the years 1805 and 1810, inclusive.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CRAMPTON, from the Merchants, Traders and others in the Town of Galway; for Reduction of Stamp Duties on the admission of Royal Catholic Freemen. By Sir JOHN NEWPORT, from the Corporation of Waterford, praying that that City may be placed within the operation of the Baking Bill.

ROYAL SOCIETY.—(IRELAND).
Mr. Cramptonpresented a Petition from the Royal Dublin Society against the proposed diminution of the annual grants to that institution. The grant had never been less than 7,OOO l. per annum until the present year, when it was proposed to reduce it to 5,OOO l., and while the House had voted 17,OOO l. for the annual expenses of the British Museum, they ought not to refuse a grant of 7,OOO l. to the Royal Dublin Society. The Society was established in 1745, for the promotion of science and the improvement of art, and it had been much favoured by the Irish Parliament. He was of opinion that the institution had been of the greatest benefit to the Irish community; and that it had been governed upon the most impartial principles was evident from the fact, that it had always cautiously avoided entering into any consideration of political or religious distinctions. He knew that it was imputed to it that it was a political club, but that was disproved by the fact, that during the last ten years, not one member ballotted for had been rejected. It was said, too, that the Society was extravagant; that he denied, but it had been of great service in establishing a school for instruction in the fine arts, and by encouraging a taste for them. Perhaps, to make the Society more useful than at present, some alterations were necessary, but he maintained that it was impolitic and injudicious to curtail the grant.
Mr. Leadersupported the petition, and thought the diminution of the grant was totally uncalled for by any circumstances. He was a member of the Society; he knew that it was not a political club, and that the members of it had contributed nearly 20,000 l. of their own money to advance science. The school of arts had been of
818
great service, and the useful sciences of Botany and Mineralogy had been much promoted by the Society. He thought it was very hard on Ireland to destroy all its establishments.
Mr. Lefroysupported the prayer of the petition. The conduct of the Government in reducing the grant, shewed very little respect for Ireland, or for the feelings of the Irish population. He was not a member of the Society, and therefore was quite impartial. He was convinced that the gratuitous lectures had been of great benefit to Dublin.
Mr. Chapmancould not but lament the very defective accommodation for the public in the Dublin Society as compared with the British Museum. The library of the Dublin Society was totally shut to the public, and the minerals and curiosities of its museum were very imperfectly exhibited. The Society deserved none of the encomiums bestowed on it, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Crampton) had made an unwarrantable attack on the Government with which he was connected.
Mr. Ruthvenviewed the object for which the Society was instituted with favour, and thought, the more it was promoted the better for the interests of Ireland. Instead, therefore, of curtailing the grant, he would augment it. He was not a member of the Society, but he was a supporter of the Government while it attended to the interests of Ireland, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General for Ireland, had done right in opposing the narrow economy which would injure his country, though it was recommended by the Government. He was ashamed of the paltry economy which would take away from such a useful Society the miserable pittance now allowed to it.
Lord Ingestriehad been requested to give the petition his support, and felt great pleasure in doing so. He was thoroughly convinced that the grant ought rather to be augmented than diminished.
Sir Robert Batesonconceived the reduction of the grant to the Dublin Society to be an instance of the application of the cold-blooded principles of political economy which unfortunately just now obtained such favour with Ministers, and which no man who regarded the interest of Ireland could honestly approve of. The Society was of great use, and its

819
botanical garden and museum were such as Ireland might be justly proud of.
Mr. Humebegged leave to remind the hon. Baronet, that the proposition had emanated from a Committee of the late Government, of which Lord Leveson Gower, then Irish Secretary, was chairman, and in which the right hon. member for Harwich (Mr. George Dawson), took an active part. That Committee had recommended the reduction, because the Society had become a mere political club, and because its members contributed but 600 l. per annum, while the public was taxed some 8,000 l. a year for their exclusive advantage. In fact, while the members had contributed 19,000 l. the country had granted 246,000 l. All the advantages of the Society were confined to the members, and to the public at large it was of no use. To continue the grant would be a wasteful expenditure of the public money, and he was surprised that the Government should be attacked for withholding the grant, as if it had committed a crime.
Mr. Henry Grattanhad been a member of the Committee, and could bear testimony to the accuracy of the hon. member for Middlesex's statement. The spirit of exclusion prevailed in the Society, and it was much more a Tory club than a scientific society.
Mr. Lambertthought the reduction most justifiable, as the Society was useless as a public institution, and had degenerated into an exclusive high Tory club. He knew an instance of a learned Gentleman, a member of that House, who had been rejected by the Society.
Colonel Conollycontended that the Society was highly useful. It was serviceable, not only to agriculture, but to science generally, and to the fine arts; and as Ireland was deprived of so many individuals of the upper ranks, through absenteeism, it would be extremely hard to deprive the capital of that country of this Society. Many of its members he was personally acquainted with, and could bear his testimony to their love of science, and their exertions to promote the interests of the country. Ireland had yet many mineralogical riches unexplored, which were only likely to become profitable by the exertions of such a Society. He must confess he thought it would be bad policy, as well as miserable economy, to diminish the grant. He certainly should support the wishes of the petitioners for
820
an increased rather than a diminished grant. He had never before heard it imputed that the Society was a political Society, and he must beg leave to doubt that assertion.
Mr. Huntthought, that the Society was entitled to the grant, and he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Middlesex support the Committee, considering that a recommendation to reduce the amount of the Civil List had been disregarded, which the hon. Member had considered so essential.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellconceived, that the plan of the Committee, which they had recommended for the adoption of the House, was a good one. The object which the Committee chiefly had in view was, to do away with that spirit of exclusion, that feeling of political party manifested by the Society, and make it accessible to all who wished, and were qualified to become Members.
Mr. Crampton, in reply, said, the most unjust imputations had been cast upon the Society, which was of great importance to Ireland, and afforded the greatest encouragement to the progress of knowledge.
Petition to be printed.

SALARY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL.
Mr. Stuart Wortleydid not bring forward his motion, regarding the late reduction of the salary attached to the office of President of the Board of Control, from any feeling of hostility to his Majesty's Ministers. He found no fault with them, except that they had adopted too hastily the recommendation contained in a report of a Committee of that House. The Committee had examined witnesses respecting the duties performed by other officers, and had given the evidence and the documents on which they grounded their opinion in every case where they proposed to reduce the salaries of officers; but here they had given none, but merely declared it expedient to reduce the salary from 5,000 l. to 3,500 l. a year, without assigning any reason. It was indeed supposed, because the President had not so much duty to perform as the other high officers of Stale, that his place was not of as much importance. He certainly was not required to attend as much in Parliament as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was that a sufficient reason for diminishing the salary of the office? He thought that was a reason for increasing the salary, for the

821
President had an immense deal of business; but, as that business was not of a nature to make him known to the public; as his duties, though onerous were unostentatious, and obtained none of the meed of public approbation, the office ought at least to have the sweets of a proportionate pecuniary recompense. Another reason on which the Committee proceeded was, that the salary of this office originally stood at 2,00 l., and had been lately increased to 5,000 l. a year. That such an argument should have weight with the hon. member for Middlesex, he would not deny; but he could not conceive a more superficial idea than that, because twenty years ago, the salary stood at 2,000 l., it ought now, therefore, to stand, not at 5,000 l. but at 3,500 l. a year. If this argument had any weight with the hon. member for Middlesex, he ought to go further back, and revert to the original constitution of the office, when there was no salary at all. The history of this office was this. It was originally instituted by Mr. Pitt in 1784, and introduced into his India Bill, which was brought in after the rejection of that of Mr. Fox. By that bill the Commissioners for the Affairs of India were to act without any salary. The Board consisted of a Committee of Privy Councillors, who were to derive their emoluments from other quarters. Mr. Pitt ascribed great merit to this scheme, and for nine years the business of India was done by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas. But what was the result? In 1793, it was found so inefficient, and so little adapted to the great purpose for which it was designed, that it was determined to remodel the Board, and the necessity of giving salaries to the Commissioners was recognized. This continued until 1810, when, in consequence of the vast increase of business in the office, another alteration took place, and it was deemed necessary that the salary, which was then 2,000 l. a-year, should be increased to 5,000 l. It might be, perhaps, said, that it was the interest, of those who held the office, and the patronage of Government, which were then considered, instead of the real discharge of business; but he would state a few facts to prove that the immense increase of business justified the increase of salary. In the first place, let the House consider the extent of territory in India intrusted to the superintendence of this officer. In 1792, the territories under the superintendence
822
of this Board comprised;—in Bengal only what are called the Lower Provinces; that is, those in the vicinity of Calcutta; in Madras, nothing except what was immediately about the town, and one or two forts, and what are called the Northern Circars; in Bombay, nothing but the town and one or two islands. At that time the business could not, be very great—but look to the increase that had since taken place. In 1792, we entered upon war; and, in 1799, we concluded a second war, the result of which was, the acquisition of immense territories in the Mysore, as well as a great cession from the Rajah of Tanjore. In 1800, there was the cession of other districts originally belonging to Mysore, and which had been transferred to the Nizam. All these came under the superintendence of the Commissioners. In 1801, there was again an important addition, for, in consequence of the circumstances which took place between the Directory and the Nabob of the Carnatic, there was a cession of almost the whole of his territory. In 1801, came another addition to Bengal; for at that period the cession was made, by the Nabob of Oude, of the territories now called the Central Provinces. In 1803, we concluded the Mahratta war, which gave an accession of territory both to Bengal and Madras. From that period, up to 1810, as any one who looked at the map of India must be aware, the accessions of territory in the southern provinces of the Peninsula had caused a vast increase of business in this office. That was the case in 1810, but since then, there had been further accessions of territory; and, if there were reason at that time to make the salary of the President of the India Board 5,000 l. a-year, that reason still continued in full force. In 1817, in consequence of conquests in the Mahratta war, we had a cession of the Deccan. In 1818, the Pindaree war occurred, which ended in our acquisition of considerable territory to the south of the Ganges and the Jumna; and, in 1827, we had other cessions from the Burmese empire. Now, after these vast accessions of territory, was there any ground why there should be a reduction of the salary of an officer who had on his shoulders the responsibility of the government of all these provinces? It must also be recollected, that the amount of this responsibility was greater than that which arises merely from the amount of increase

823
of territory and population, because the regulation of the revenues, and the fiscal arrangements of these new territories was one of the most critical tasks that could be undertaken. There could be no doubt, herefore, that the increase of labour was much greater than the mere increase of numbers or of space; and he would state a few facts, to shew the degree in which the labour had increased. In 1792, the revenue department was confined to the ancient provinces, or to those which the India Company possessed before the renewal of its charter. The amount of the revenue had risen successively, from 2,000,000 l. to 6,000,000 l.—to 8,000,000 l.—to 11,000,000 l.—and, finally, to 16,000,000 l. It was unnecessary to state that the expense had increased in proportion, and the labour in a still greater ratio, because the department of the land revenue of India was environed by many difficulties. In 1792, the number of collectorates, as they are called, was twenty-eight, in two Out of the three Presidencies; while, in the three Presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, in 1810, the number had increased to eighty-six. Let the House consider the difficulties that must arise, not from merely trebling the number of collectorates, but from the vast increase of territory, which rendered so many necessary, and in which, be it remarked, we had not to proceed with the current institutions of the country, but to remodel the whole system. In 1813, there were ninety-seven, or more collectorates; and even that was not a fair or accurate mode of estimating the business connected with the land revenue. In 1794, the whole number of the Company's civil servants, Europeans and natives, employed by the two Presidencies of Bengal and Bombay in the collection of this revenue—he could find no account for Madras—was 20,000, and the charge for them amounted to 1,700,000 l. In 1808, the number had increased to 58,000 and upwards nearly three times the former number, and the charge had risen to 4,800,000 l. In 1827, the last year for which the accounts were fully made up, the number of civil servants was 137,000 and the charge came to 5,700,000 l. These were tests of the increase of business in this department, which it was impossible to repudiate, and they alone would be enough to induce the House not to sanction the reduction of salary that had been recom-
824
mended. He had mentioned the civil service and the land revenue as two accurate tests, and the land revenue was so interwoven with the judicial system and the police, that it might be taken as a test of their increase also. But there was one other part of the machinery of the government of India, to which it was necessary to allude—he meant the army. In 1792 the whole military force, army and navy, in India, amounted to 70,000 men—the charge for which was 3,000,000 l. In 1809 the number of the Indian army had risen to 153,000, and the charge came to 7,800,000 l. He could not ascertain precisely the present amount of the military force there, but it did not fall short of 250,000 men, at a cost of near 11,000,000 l. These facts proved the immense increase of the business of the Board of Control; to confirm that he would advert to another fact. He held in his hand the number of drafts and collections—that is to say, of the despatches, which have passed under the inspection of the Board for several periods of five years. The average of these before 1810, was 225. In 1828 and 1829 a most important alteration took place in the mode of conducting Indian correspondence, but in the four years preceding that period, these collections amounted on an average to 500. Any one who knew anything of India was aware of what these collections were, and his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Courtenay) had formerly, in March 1822,* given a full description of them. During the time, while he was connected with this Board, he had seen one case of a collection before the Board, which contained no less than 20,000 folio pages, from which it was necessary to make selections. These collections increased in the five years, up to 1810, to 546, and in the five years before 1826 they rose to 1,865. After having drawn the attention of the House to these facts, he submitted it to their good sense, whether, taking the amount of the business as a test of the increase of the labour of the office, a case was not fully made out. There was no situation under the Government which required more assiduous attention, and more unwearied diligence, than that of the President of the Board of Commissioners for the affairs of India. On this point
* Hansard's Parl, Debates, New Series, vol. Vi. P. 1138.

825
he would quote an authority that would have great weight with hon. Gentlemen at the other side of the House, he meant the late right hon. member for Knaresborough. Mr. Tierney, in the course of a debate on this subject, said—"He desired it should not be understood that he undervalued the labour of the President of the Board of Control. There was no department of the State which required more accurate information, or greater steadiness of application, than that office."* If this were the case, and if, as Mr. Tierney said, the discharge of its duties required the most accurate information and the most steady application, was it good policy and economy to lower the salary, and thus lower the rank of an officer so important in the State, and, perhaps, by so doing, lead to an inadequate discharge of his high duties? Let the House consider what supreme control was lodged in this Board. In the first place, the President of the Board had a seat in the Cabinet, and must be a principal person in the Government. Next, he had to do what no other officer had, to justify every step he took, and could make no alteration in a despatch without stating his reasons for it. The Secretary for the colonies, when he sends a despatch to any part of our possessions, signifying the King's pleasure, retains the reasons for what is there directed in his own breast, unless called upon by higher authority to state them. But if the President of the Board of Control made an alteration in a despatch submitted to the Board of Directors, it had again to be canvassed by them, and if they disapproved it, he had to assign his reasons, sometimes more than once, before he could prevail upon them to adopt his alterations. He had to deal with two distinct sets of authorities, who constituted the machinery of Government. In the first place he had to deal with the Court of Directors, the ruling authority of India, and in the next place, with the Government in India. The Court of Directors was in immediate communication with the President of the Board of Control, and had to submit to his authority. Was it expedient, then, that he should be a Minister of less weight, and holding his office less permanently than the other Ministers of the Crown? Was it likely that if he were so, the Court of Directors would
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, New Series, Vol. Vi. P. 1145.
826
look up to him with deference? The same kinds of reasons applied to the communications of the Board of Control with the authorities in India. Was it not of the greatest importance that the noble and distinguished men who were sent out as Governors-general to India the Cornwallises, the Wellesleys, the Hastings, should feel that their superior in this country was a person of high station in the Government; and an effective and permanent officer? If any change took place in the remuneration given to that officer, which would lead to his being otherwise regarded by the local government of India, the efficiency of his office would be most materially impaired. When he spoke of the Court of Directors being the ruling body, the hon. member for Middlesex cheered, implying that they were the effective authorities, and that the Board of Control was a nullity, but the hon. Member was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman opposite must know something of the office, and he would be able to say, whether there was not a most accurate investigation of every subject sent to the Board from the Court of Directors. Formerly, indeed, the administration of Government in the Board of Control was very ineffective, and the business was very ill-performed for fourteen or fifteen years after the establishment of the Board. But in 1807 an important change was effected in its constitution. It was divided into departments, corresponding with those at the India House; and the result had been, that there was no department of the Government, the duties of which were more laborious, or which required more diligence, Very few despatches were returned from it without some alteration by the Commissioners. Whether the Board were a good contrivance or not he would not discuss; but if it was to exist in an efficient state, it should continue as now, and to reduce the salary of the President would impair its efficiency. These reasons appeared to him to justify the Government for not adopting the recommendation of the Committee appointed to consider the possibility of reducing the salaries of the high officers of the Government. The reduction of the salary of this office, could be no gain to the people of England; but would be merely a remission of a part of that sum which the Company was compelled to appropriate for the maintenance of this establishment: 1,500 l.

827
struck off from this salary, therefore, would be so much added to the revenues of India; but not one single farthing to the revenues of this country. When this argument was urged upon a former occasion, it was said that, although there was no direct gain to the revenues of England, yet there might be a remote gain, as the Company were compelled to give its surplus revenue to this country. With regard to this contingent advantage, the House might be assured that there was now less prospect of any surplus, which this saving of 1,500 l. would swell, than ever there was at any former period. The question, therefore, was one of public policy only. Upon what principle was this reduction recommended? The Committee had reduced the salaries of the Secretaries of State from 6,000 l. to 5,000 l., or one-sixth, a-year. Had they followed the same rule with regard to the office of President of the Board of Control, its salary would have stood at 4,200 l.y but, instead of that it was reduced 700 l. lower, whilst as important duties were attached to it as to any other office in the Government. It was a most unreasonable proposition, that the Secretary for the West Indies, the Cape of Good Hope, and, comparatively speaking, other small colonies should stand upon a higher footing than the Secretary for the empire of India, with its vast wealth and immense population. For these reasons he trusted the House would not think it expedient to sanction the recommendation of the Committee; and although the Government had acted upon that recommendation, he did not believe if they were speaking in their private capacity, that they could say that this salary was too high as it before stood. He called upon the House to prevent the mischief which the determination of his Majesty's Ministers might occasion, and restore this office to the rank avid station it had for so many years held. He begged to move these resolutions.—"That it appears to this House, that the salary attached to the office of President of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India has been fixed, since the year 1810, at the sum of 5,000 l., since which period the business to be transacted by the said Board has been considerably increased. That the administration of the affairs of India, the control of which is vested by Act of Parliament in the said Commissioners is one of the most important departments in the Government of
828
this empire, and imposes upon the President of the said Board, laborious and peculiar duties. That it does not, therefore, appear expedient to this House that the said salary should be reduced to the sum of 3,500 l., proposed in the Report of the Committee appointed to consider of the reduction of Salaries, more especially since the said sum is so much less in amount than that which is therein recommended for the Salaries of the principal Secretaries of State, who are the chief Officers of the corresponding departments of Government."
Mr. Charles Grantcomplimented the ability with which his hon. friend had introduced the subject; and assured him I that if he did not follow him into all his details it was not from any want of respect, but because he considered the question as already settled. Although the I Ministers and Parliament certainly were not positively bound to adhere to the opinion of the Committee in all respects; yet unless some flagrant injustice were pointed out, they ought to follow its recommendations. He had no right to assume that the Committee had not entered into an examination of all the duties performed by the President of the Board of Control. When the Report was presented, he had abstained from making any observations upon it; he should still abstain. He thought it still less necessary to take any step upon the subject, as the whole question of our East-India government was to come under discussion in the course of two years. The only ground on which he could have agreed with his hon. friend, that interference was advisable would have been, if he had supposed the reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Control would have diminished the dignity of that officer in the eyes of the native population of India. But he did not believe that such would be the case; and he saw no other ground to induce him to acquiesce in the Motion.
Mr. Ruthvenwas of opinion that the principle of economy ought to be applied; to the Indian government as well as to that of this country. He believed that the duties of the office in question would be as efficiently performed for 3,500 l. as; for 5,000 l.
Sir George Warrenderthought, that some reduction ought to be made in the salary of the President of the Board of Control, but was of opinion that the Com-

829
mittee had recommended too extensive a reduction.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondid not see why the salary of this important public officer should be reduced in a disproportionate degree to that which had been carried into effect in the salaries of the other officers of State. He was of opinion that the office itself should be raised to that level, that the individual who filled it could look no higher, but would at once attach himself to the serious consideration of the high and important duties which he had to perform, instead, as was often the case, of looking up to higher offices. The main evil, however, to be remedied was, the constant change in the person of the President of the Board of Control, owing to the changes in the Administration, and the consequent change which must, of necessity, follow in the whole principle of the government of India. The office ought not to be a political office, as far as the Administration of the State affairs of England was concerned; but the person who filled it ought to be so permanently appointed as not to be liable to go out of office with any Administration, but to be able to settle himself seriously to the consideration of the high duties of his office.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, that if he thought the efficiency or dignity of the office would be impaired by the reduction of salary, he would vote for the Motion, but he could not for a moment believe that this would be the case. If the reduction of salary should be resisted on the ground that the business of the office had increased, it would be impossible to effect any reduction of the salaries of officers in the same department, for their share of business must also have proportionably increased.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion had adverted to the Indian army and revenue, as a ground for augmenting the salary of the President of the Board of Control. Upon the same principle, the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be exceedingly augmented. If large salaries could command great talents, he would not object to paying them; but all his experience tended to convince him that this was not the case. He thought the Committee had drawn a fair line, and he would no, quarrel with it. He condemned the frequent changes in this office as most injurious, because it was impossible
830
any human talent could enable a man to obtain a thorough knowledge of his business during the time he remained in office.
Mr. Irvingsaid, that, in his opinion, the great officers of State, instead of being too highly paid, were remunerated on too contracted a scale. He thought that the Committee had gone too far in the recommendation of reductions; and if the power to propose an increase of salaries had been given to them, he would have been ready, in certain instances, to have voted for additional remuneration.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that on this occasion, he might perhaps venture to address the House without making an apology for taking up its time. On this question he deemed it his absolute duty to give his opinion, for, having spent sixteen long and dreary years at the Board of Control, he was, perhaps, more competent than any other individual in the country to give information upon it. It was not without astonishment, he might say indignation, that he had witnessed the conduct of the Government on this occasion. The Committee was appointed on the motion of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and yet not one of the Ministers, with the exception of his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, had risen to defend the recommendation of the Committee. Every one who knew his right hon. friend must feel certain, that he could not possibly take any other part than he had taken, on a question which, if carried affirmatively, would put 1,500 l. a-year into his pocket. The speech of his right hon. friend was, however, a most feeble one, not that he impugned the talents of his right hon. friend, but the course he took made it impossible that his speech should be otherwise than unsatisfactory. His right hon. friend thought that he was bound to take it for granted that the Committee made this reduction upon an examination of the duties of the office; but he could take upon himself to say, on the authority of one of the members of the Committee, that no such examination took place. The hon. member for Preston said, that they examined a former member of the Board, who was on the Committee. Who was that?—Why the right hon. member for Honiton. With all respect for that hon. Member, he must say, that whilst he was a member of the Board he was as ignorant

831
of the affairs of India as he (Mr. Courtenay) was of the Almanach des Gourmands. The hon. Member said truly, that the President had less of presentation than any other Member; he had fewer dinners to give; but did his right hon. friend think there was no other duty so important? He appeared, indeed, to have retired to dinner, and was perhaps then eating his Michaelmas goose! The hon. member for Middlesex had probably drawn his ideas of the duty of the Board from Mr. Creevey; but, because twenty years ago there were members at the Board who did nothing, was it to be inferred that the office was still inefficient, and that a person, properly performing the duties of it, was not to be adequately paid? He could confirm, in its fullest extent, all that had been said by the hon. member for Bossiney (Mr. Stuart Wortley), with respect to the laborious nature of the duties of this office, and he spoke of them not merely as they ought to be performed, but as they were actually performed. In point of extent, those duties, at the very least, were equal to the duties of any other Minister of the Crown, and, in some respects, were greater. But it was said, that the President of the Board of Control, however laborious his duties, was not considered of equal importance in the State to any of the Secretaries of State. He did not occupy so prominent a place in the eyes of the country as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Ministers; but that made a case in favour of giving large emolument to the office—for that was the reason why the President of the Board of Control was so frequently changed; and was it not clear, when the salary was reduced, that the more able the President, the more likely it would be that he would soon leave the office? It was not true, that since the office had been placed on its present footing, persons had been so prone to leave it. Before 1807, as he had stated nineteen years before, in the speech to which his hon. friend had alluded, the duties of the India Board were very imperfectly performed. The late Lord Melville held other offices, which made it impossible that he could attend to the duties of the Board of Control. After he had left office, as long as the salary remained at 2,000 l., there was a quick succession of Presidents of the Board of Control. The late Lord Minto, a most efficient person, was speedily
832
removed to the government of India. He was succeeded by the brother of the Prime Minister (Mr. Thomas Grenville), who was speedily removed to the Admiralty, and then came Mr. Tierney, who left the office on the change of Administration. After this, Lord Harrowby accepted it, but was obliged to resign, on account of the excessive labour attached to the office. At length the present Lord Melville was appointed President, and held it in 1810, two or three years before which, those alterations were made which rendered it a most efficient office. The changes that took place in the Presidency after these alterations in the duties, were not made, as the former were, on account of the lowness of the salary. The hon. member for Middlesex had treated with some degree of ridicule the statement of his hon. friend, relative to the increase of business arising from the increased magnitude of our army, territory, and revenue, alleging, that on the same principle, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were paid according to the increase of his business, he would receive five or six times as much as at present. But it must be understood that the increase of business in the office of Commissioners for the affairs of India, did not arise so much from an augmentation of the duties to be performed, as from the increased efficiency of the Board in performing those before entrusted to it. He spoke of the office up to the year 1828, when he left it, and he had no reason to believe that there had been any relaxation since in the assiduity of the different departments. He did not say that good and efficient men might not be got to fill the office in the first instance, but none could keep it, at the salary proposed, unless born to hereditary wealth. This led him to notice the most extraordinary misconception of the hon. member for Middlesex, as to what was said by the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, when he stated that this office should be filled by a statesman of the first rank. The hon. and learned Member did not mean a Duke, but a man of the first rank as to talent—men, who, like his late friend and master in this department, Mr. Canning, raised themselves by their talents to a level with the first Duke in the land. If these reductions were made for the sake of the people, he could only say, that this was the most atrociously aristocratical course of proceeding the House could

833
adopt. The consequence would be, to place the whole public service in the hands of the sons of Earls, and other noblemen or men of considerable wealth. Such a great reduction of the salaries of public offices would make it impossible for any man to take to the public service as to a profession. He knew that sneers had been cast upon those who took to the public service as a profession. He wished they could come to some understanding on this subject. If it were the opinion of Ministers that no person ought to enter into the public service who had not, independently of it, the means of supporting himself and family, he thought they ought to move an Address to the Crown to give effect to that opinion. Let them state to his Majesty, that, having taken a philosophical view of the question, they had discovered that talents and a disposition to work were found in exact proportion to the absence of the necessity for one or the other! That would certainly be a new view of the subject; for, from childhood up, all men were taught that necessity was the most efficient stimulus to exertion, either in public or private concerns. If this principle were adopted, he hoped it would be made public, as a fit accompaniment to that measure, by means of which, as was said, the people were to receive greater power in the Legislature. Certainly, if they were fit to be admitted into the Legislature, there was no reason why they should be excluded from the exercise of the executive functions of the State. His hon. friend near him (Mr. Stuart Wortley) gave one reason of the greatest weight, for the party filling this office being of the first rank and talent—namely, that he who was to superintend the future Cornwallises, Hastingses, and Wellesleys of India, ought to be regarded by them as a person of high esteem in the country, and of commanding influence in the Administration. He knew that sneers were cast out upon persons on that side of the House, who voted against reduction of salaries; and an hon. Gentleman, not then present, had taunted the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and him (Mr. Courtenay) with again wanting to taste the sweets of office. He did not pretend to say, that the emoluments of office were indifferent to him; but he asked, whether, when persons of landed property, of West-Indian or other interest, were heard with indulgence, and treated even with tenderness
834
by those who thought it necessary to oppose them—he asked, whether those who constituted another oppressed, though less extensive interest, ought not also to be heard with indulgence? He begged the House to consider, that the reduction of the salary of these offices to so very low a scale, would exclude from them those who had entered the public service as a profession, and indeed all men who were not born to wealth. Whether the House were prepared to come to that conclusion or not, it was one to which he could not come: but he could hardly trust his feelings upon this topic. It had been his intention to take that opportunity to enter into the whole question of the reduction of salaries; but, in the present state of the House, he would not do so. Many of the circumstances adduced for lowering this salary were, with him, reasons for increasing it. It was not only the most laborious, but the most thankless and disagreeable of all the high public offices. The holder of it entered less into the general business of the country, was less before the public, and had less opportunity of distinguishing himself in Parliament, so as afterwards to rise to a higher situation, than any other public man of an equal rank. They could not make the Presidentship of the Board of Control an agreeable office, and could only make it efficient by not, reducing its value. The hon. member for Worcester seemed to think that the Court of Directors did all the duty, and that it was the office of the Board of Control only occasionally to check them. The name of the Board did not express its full powers. Its members were called Commissioners for the Affairs of India, and they superintended, directed, and controlled, all acts, operations, or concerns, affecting the revenue, or the military and civil government of India. In fact, they had to direct the whole administration of India; and this duty they actually performed. During the many years that he was in that office, not a single paragraph of the thousands and tens of thousands which came up for the consideration of the Board, was passed unnoticed. It was a great mistake, therefore, to suppose that it was only an office of occasional control, and was not as laborious and efficient as any of the other high offices of the State. He gave the Motion of his hon. friend his most cordial support.
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made it a cause of complaint, that no Minister had delivered his sentiments on this question. He could assure the hon. Member, that he had not intended to let it pass without expressing his opinion; but he was anxious, in the first instance, to hear the sentiments of other Gentlemen. When the Committee was formed to inquire into the amount of salaries, for the purpose of reducing them, it was deemed expedient, instead of commencing with the inferior offices, to begin with some of the superior ones—not from any impression on his mind that those offices were overpaid, but because the public seemed to believe that they were. He did not think that the persons holding office were the most proper to decide on the subject of salaries, and therefore it had been referred to a Committee of that House. Though the Committee had recommended certain reductions, still it was fair to say, that the Government was responsible for their adoption. If the recommendations of the Committee appeared to be unfavourable to the public service, though the Committee might be blamed for making such recommendations, still the Government must come in for their share of censure in acceding to them. He admitted that official salaries should not be so low as to exclude persons of small property from taking situations connected with the Government of the country. Such a system would take away from different classes of society a strong encouragement to accept office, and it would throw the Government entirely into the hands of persons who had large private fortunes. This, he conceived, would be very detrimental to the public service. At the same time, he could not acquiesce in the doctrine, that salaries should be so constituted as to induce individuals to make the acquirement of office a profession. There were many reasons, quite independent of emoluments, which induced individuals to take office. Gentlemen frequently felt themselves bound, not only without any desire on their part, but absolutely against their will—acting under a strong sense of public duty—to take office. He did not, however, think (in, reference to the observation which he had heard, that the pursuit of office ought to be made a species of profession)—he did not think that it was likely that any man
836
would thus rear his son with a view to public life. Ministers were frequently changed; when that was the case, office must be vacated; and therefore it was impossible, uncertain as the tenure was, that the amount of salary could induce individuals to enter into the public service in high situations. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) had said, that, in apportioning salaries, they ought to leave entirely out of the question the incidental expenses to which office was more or less liable. He dissented entirely from this doctrine. In his opinion, if an office were of such a nature as to compel the individual holding it to incur expense which he otherwise would not incur, that circumstance ought to be taken into consideration. He knew that in settling a question of this kind, it was difficult to say whether the salary would or would not be sufficient, if 400 l. or 500 l. were subtracted from it. But it appeared to him, that the plain question was, whether they could, at the salaries proposed, have a sufficient choice of persons capable of performing the duties of office satisfactorily to the public? It had been said that this office should be filled by a statesman of the first class. That he admitted. But then it was argued, that he should not be suddenly removed from office, This was an inconsistency; for it was quite clear that an individual, coming in with a particular Administration, could not remain in office when that Administration went out and gave place to men of different principles. The labour attached to the office he allowed to be very great, but if they could, for 3,500 l. a year, obtain in that office the services of an individual of first rate talent, he contended that they would not be justified in not agreeing to avail themselves of that talent. He should, therefore, support the recommendation of the Committee.
Sir Charles Forbeswas of opinion, that the salary proposed, even taking into consideration the trifling patronage attached to the situation, was inadequate, when they looked to the duties to be performed in comparison with other great offices in the State. In his opinion, the affairs of India were too much neglected in that House; and he wished that the good old custom should again be resorted to, of having an annual Indian budget brought before them. Economy in India had been

837
spoken of. The Company had begun there at the wrong end. They were screwing down the poor civil and military officers in order to enable their revenues to meet the enormous debts which some Governors-general had contracted. The European and the native army were both disgusted at the petty reductions that had been made.
Mr. Sanfordsupported the recommendation of the Committee, which he believed was fully justified by the most careful consideration of the circumstances.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the system of paying large salaries might be carried too far, if salaries were more than were fairly required for the labour to be performed. Now the Committee, after careful consideration, had recommended a reduced salary with respect to this office; and in proof of the principle he had before mentioned, he would only observe, that the last annual accounts, or what he might call the last annual budget, with respect to the government of India, had been laid before that House in 1807, by the present Earl of Carlisle, at that time Lord Morpeth, who then received the inferior salary. Since that time there had been no such accounts, so that the course of conduct of those who had received the superior salary did not show that an increase of salary, beyond the necessary amount, created an increased amount of exertion. He did not think that high offices should be sought merely for profit, or that politics should be adopted as a profession, and followed for the profit they could produce. He himself had been twenty-eight years in that House without having any such object. If, during that period, he had followed the profession of which he was an unworthy member, he should probably have been much richer than he now was; certainly, he could hardly have been poorer.
Mr. Stuart Worthyin reply, said, that he should not think of dividing the House, but he was satisfied that he had only done his duty in bringing the subject under its consideration.
The Resolutions negatived without a division.

GRAND JURY LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. Stanleyrose to call the consideration of the House to this subject, with a view to a speedy settlement of a question which had already engrossed much time and attention.
838
He did not intend to do more in the present Session, than merely to submit to the House the nature of the measure he at present felt disposed to introduce with regard to Grand Juries, and Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland. He had not distinctly and positively determined upon the provisions of the measure he should introduce, because as yet he did not feel fully informed upon all the details of this important subject. He was speaking on a matter with which he was not practically acquainted, but he spoke in the presence of those who were acquainted with it, and should most probably receive the benefit of their better information. In what he now proposed to do, he followed the principles which common sense seemed to indicate, which appeared to be fully borne out by the evidence that had been taken on this subject, but he feared it would be found impossible for him at present to do adequate justice to this important question. The constitution of Grand Juries, their powers, and the presentments they made, had, year after year, been the subject of complaint in that House, yet no measure for remedying the defects of the system had been laid on its Table. The matter had been the subject of discussion so long ago as the time when the right hon. member for Tamworth held the situation which he (Mr. Stanley) had now the honour to fill. The right hon. Baronet had himself stated that fact. There had been Committees appointed to investigate the subject in the years 1815, 1816, 1822, and 1825, and the latter of these had directed the attention of the Government to the Grand Jury laws, and to the fact, that though complaints of them had long existed, no remedy had been proposed, but that the defects had been allowed to continue unaltered, which the Committee recommended they should no longer be permitted to do. Even after that report and that recommendation, nothing had been done in the matter. The consequence of the Grand Jury presentments under the present system was, a large augmentation of the taxation of the counties of Ireland; but then, in answer to that objection, it was urged, that the produce of this taxation was expended in the internal improvement of the country. If that was the fact, it would at first sight seem an advantage. The internal improvement of a country might be, under

839
some circumstances, an evidence of the increased prosperity of the country—of its power to bear an increased pressure; but, under other circumstances, it might be an evidence of no such thing; or, at least, the advantage of the internal improvement might not compensate for the increased pressure at the cost of which it was obtained. He feared that in this instance the latter was the case with Ireland. Still, however, all the expenditure that was complained of, could not fairly be laid to the charge of the Grand Jury. From 750,000 l. expended in this manner, there was to be deducted a sum of 360,000 l., over which the Grand Jury had no control. He ought here to observe, for the information of those who were not acquainted with the internal affairs of Ireland, that the Grand Juries of that country could not be compared with the bodies that were known by the same name in this country. The composition of the two, and the rules that governed them, together with the power they had to exercise, and the duties they were called on to perform, were quite different. The disposal of the criminal charges in their country was but a small part of the business of an Irish Grand Jury; they had a considerable share in the regulation and control of the whole of the internal business of the county. They regulated its civil concerns fully as much, if not more, than they decided upon its criminal business; they determined upon what public works were to be performed; what was the price to be paid for them; and they taxed the public for that payment; but they did not pay the burthen which they thus imposed on the county. The works that were to be performed—the payment that was to be made in respect of those works—the prices at which the labour and materials were to be furnished, were all determined upon by the Grand Jury, and determined on by them in secret, and without the check of responsibility, and all the varied and multiplied labours that fell to the lot of a Grand Jury, were performed within the short space of three or four days only. Under such a system it was impossible that the duty should be performed with satisfaction to the country; it was next to impossible that it should escape from suspicion—unjust suspicion, perhaps, in some cases, but still suspicion in all; and it was absolutely impossible that the country should believe all these duties were
840
well, even if they were honestly performed. As a proof of the sort of business performed by the Grand Jury, he should refer to the returns from six counties, which he had taken indiscriminately, and in which it appeared, that in the course of one year the average number of indictments and presentments disposed of by the Grand Jury in these counties amounted to 5,369. The average number of days during which the Grand Jury sat was three or four, so that the average number of presentments and indictments disposed of by each Grand Jury amounted to 244 in that short space of time. He would ask, whether any man could believe it possible that 244 subjects, many of them of the deepest interest, and all requiring careful examination, could be properly disposed of within the short space of four days? The fact was, that the system was one that depended entirely on the credit which one Grand Juryman gave to the representations of another. One Grand Juryman from one part of the county said that a certain thing was necessary to be done; then another, from a different part, said that something else was required in his district. They said to each other, "give me credit for what I say, and I will give you credit for what you say." Each did give the other credit; and in that manner the complicated business of the county was despatched. This system of combination was carried on without any dishonest intentions on the part of the Grand Juries, and was the necessary consequence of the amount of business they had to perform, and the short space of time in which they were assembled for that purpose. In consequence of the same causes, the Grand Juries had subdivided themselves into so many distinct divisions—each for a separate part of the county they were all met to regulate. Two gentlemen, perhaps, came from one barony, and all the business of that barony was left in their hands; one gentleman came from another, and its affairs were in like manner intrusted solely to his management. The great body took the representations of each particular individual for true, because they had neither leisure nor the means of information to form a judgment on them; and in the end, the system of Grand Jury presentments amounted to nothing more nor less than a mode of carrying into effect, at the public expense, improvements suggested by private

841
and individual interest. The Grand Jury fixed the work that was to be done, the workmen that were to be employed upon it, the price that was to be paid; and then he wished to know, what were the motives that would make them sparing in the application of the public money? First, who were the persons of whom the Grand Jury was formed? They were generally selected from the landed proprietors of the county, but the absence of the landed proprietors was often supplied by their agents, who represented the absentees, and by inferior persons, who sometimes were necessarily called in to complete the required number. The taxes imposed by the Grand Jury were not paid by these persons, but by the occupying tenants of the land. It might, he knew, be said, that though paid in the first instance by the occupying tenants, the expense ultimately came on the landlords, in the shape of diminished rent; but that did not always happen. When a tenant held a lease for twenty-one years, every annual augmentation of the burthens of the county fell upon the occupying tenant, and was never reimbursed by the landlord. He repeated, that these evils must be expected under such a system as this, where the Grand Jury had neither time nor information to guide them, but where, even if they had both, there was not that check upon them which the receiving of evidence on these matters publicly would afford. In consequence of this, there was a general opinion abroad that a system of favouritism prevailed in the choice of the persons selected to perform the work thus resolved on by the Grand Jury. The works, too, were often done in a slovenly manner—the accounts of the expenses were lax—there was no check on the expenditure—the works were often undertaken, not for public advantage, but in many cases for private benefit alone. As a proof of this, he would mention a case that had occurred in the county of Mayo [hear, hear]; he meant nothing with reference to the hon. member for Mayo, who was crying "hear, hear," behind him. He took it from the evidence. "I know," said the witness, "one case where work was done under the pretence of making a bridge, which could be of no public convenience where it was placed; it was intended to be made an embankment; when the work was completed it was ready to fall, and scarcely had the account of the money expended
842
in its construction been furnished before it did fall." The House would most probably ask, how a bridge could be converted into an embankment?—the answer was easy and simple; "by stopping up the arch, so as to prevent the sea from flowing throught it, and then by suffering the sea to pass along by it to another level." To be sure, if a work could be made to answer the purposes of both bridge and embankment by one expense, it would be a piece of economy; but it had not that merit, for there was no road leading to it on either side. The witness, in his account of the matter, added— "There was no road intended to be made, and I imagine there was no use for a road there, as there was a bridge within a quarter of a mile of the place." It was to be hoped that such instances as these were rare [hear, hear]. He did not know the meaning of that cheer—did the hon. Member behind him mean to deny the truth of the statement?
Mr. Dominick Browne: Oh ! I approve it entirely.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that was more than he did—for he disapproved of it.
Mr. Dominick Browne: I mean, I approve of what the right hon. Gentleman says—I disapprove of the system.
Mr. Stanleycontinued: The Special Session might be some check to these abuses, but that the Grand Jury afterwards possessed the power of reversing the decisions of the Special Sessions. To remedy these evils, he proposed to introduce a measure which, he acknowledged, was not now fully matured, but which would present something tangible as a cure for these abuses. He should introduce the Bill, and get it printed, with the view of getting information on the subject. In the first place, his Bill would repeal and consolidate from sixty-five to seventy Acts of Parliament, and would become a sort of manual for Grand Juries, containing a complete summary of their duties, and a guidance for them in the civil business of their county. In the first instance, he proposed to separate the civil from the criminal business in the hands of the Grand Jury. One arrangement which he had to propose was, that all public works, before they went to the Grand Jury, should be presented to the Magistrates in Sessions, and that they should be allowed a negative on the subject; and he also proposed to take away from Grand Juries the

843
power of passing presentments which any Special Session should have declared to be unnecessary. It was also to be enacted, that the whole of the Special Session presentments was to be sent to the Secretary of the Grand Juries, who was to give notice of the amount of business to the High Sheriff, and who, upon that notice, would have to fix a day (not less than three days, and not more than ten, after) on which the business was to commence. With respect to the qualification for a Grand Juror, he had not made up his mind as to that; and he should, therefore, propose no further qualification than that nominal one which existed already. He also proposed that it should be mandatory on the High Sheriff to select persons from each barony to serve on the Grand Juries; and that, of the twenty-three Grand Jurors first named, there should be one at least from each barony and half-barony. Another of his propositions was, that in every county there should be appointed one or more Surveyors, to be examined by an unpaid Board, and to be attached to the different counties, and remove able on a complaint from the Grand Jury. These appointments he proposed should be invested in the Lord Lieutenant; and he did so, because, as there would be great responsibility attached to the office, he thought it better that they should emanate from that high authority than from the local Grand Juries. Another of his proposals was, that the Grand Jury, having been summoned and sworn for the despatch of civil business, should sit in open Court, and that the evidence before them should also be given in public; though, should they consider deliberation to be necessary, there could be no harm in their retiring for that purpose into a private room, and subsequently giving their decision again in open Court. With respect to the public works, he proposed that they should all be executed by contract—that special tenders should be given in, and that, unless there was some serious objection, the lowest tender should be accepted, the contractors being compelled to pay by money payments all those whom they might employ under such tenders. He likewise proposed to do away with the office of Supervisor, as well as that of the Overseer of Roads, and to invest the whole of their power in the contractors, with a controlling influence over them in the Surveyors. He also proposed to abolish
844
the mode of accounting by affidavit. It had been suggested that the Grand Jury ought to be an elected body, in order that those who imposed the taxes might be chosen by those who had to pay the taxes; but he thought that, as there would be payments to be made in the neighbourhood where the Grand Juries were, the making of them an elected body would lead to jobbing; and that the only fair way of making the tax-imposers tax-payers would be, to provide that the county cess should be charged in all future leases, not on the occupying tenant, but on the landlord who was in possession of the property. To this general arrangement, however, he proposed the exception, that in the event of the country being in a state of disturbance, certain charges should be payable by the tenant, and he did this for the purpose of impressing on their minds that it was their interest to endeavour to put down disturbance. With regard to the presentments for the repair and making of new roads, it was but fair, upon the same principle, that those who derived the benefit should bear the expense. He proposed, therefore, to fix upon the landlord, and not upon the tenant, the payment of all charges for the repair and making of roads. He had then gone through the principal points of the Bill which he proposed to introduce. He was aware that he had done so very imperfectly and inadequately. He was aware that much of what he had laid down might be open to improvement; at the same time, however, it would be a very considerable improvement if, for a system of secrecy, a system of publicity were substituted—if, for a system founded upon party prejudice and individual interest one were introduced calculated to work equally for the good of all—if a system of favouritism were superseded by one of impartiality—if, for a system of affidavit, one of verbal testimony publicly given in an open Court, came into practice, and, finally, if for the system which exempted the Grand Jury from the taxes they laid on others, the House established a system which would make those who imposed the taxes, and benefitted by them, pay them from their own pockets. Whatever might be the fate of the measure, or into whosoever hands it might hereafter fall, it would at least be satisfactory to him, that he had been so far more favoured than his predecessors, that he had been allowed to lay upon the Table of the House a measure which he

845
believed, would greatly amend and improve the system of Grand Juries in Ireland. He had introduced the subject with the deepest sense of its importance, and of his own incompetence and inadequacy properly to discharge the task which his official situation imposed upon him, and he had only to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Grand Jury-laws of Ireland.
Mr. Wyseconcurred in the opinion of the right hon. Secretary as to the necessity of an alteration of the present system; but he could not help differing from him as to some of the means by which he hoped to effect that improvement. As to the regulation of having all the business transacted in open Court—when he considered that even in that House, open as it was to the control of the Press, and subject to the inspection of the public, enormous abuses had formerly existed in the management of the public money, he feared that they must look to some other cause than the mere want of publicity to account for the evil. With all the precautions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the grand evil would remain. Why was one part of a county assessed and another not? Why were the Grand Jury selected from one district, and not from another? No effectual amendment could be achieved until they applied to the Grand Jury system, the same reform which they were now adopting in the legislative body, and gave to every person paying taxes a voice in the election of those who were to impose them. Not that he would have the Grand Jury, as a judicial body, elected. There was then no other alternative than to separate the judicial from the financial functions of the Grand Jury. He should be glad to see in each county a County Board, distinct from the Grand Jury, with full powers to administer the financial affairs of the county. This plan was adopted with the most beneficial effects in other countries, and particularly in the Netherlands. The people of Ireland were bent upon one object—namely, justice, and they could not conceive that that could be obtained if the control of the public money were given to an oligarchy, however abuses might be checked or controlled. The right hon. Gentleman would do some good, and he thanked him for it; but the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he imagined that this Bill would satisfy the people of Ireland.
Mr. Huntexpressed his opinion, that this plan, brought forward after nine months' preparation, instead of getting rid of the Grand Jury system, which no one had described in such hard terms as the right hon. Secretary himself, was only after all an alteration, an amelioration they might call it if they pleased, but in fact it was nothing more or less than a bad system made easy. He very much doubted whether the plan would give satisfaction to the Irish public.
Sir John Milley Doylethought it impossible for human ingenuity to devise any system so ruinous to morals as the present Grand Jury system of Ireland. He should be glad if the plan of his right hon. friend had gone further than it did. He should vote for this measure, because he thought that any change must be for the better. The present was not the fit time to discuss the details, but he should be prepared to offer some remarks upon them at the proper opportunity.
Sir Robert Batesoncongratulated the country upon having at last some remedy proposed for the abuses which all parties admitted to exist. He should be ready to give any assistance in his power to forward so desirable an object. He thought it better to endeavour to improve the system, if possible, than at once to abolish it, and adopt a mere visionary scheme, the advantages of which existed only in the imagination of Gentlemen. He thought the right hon. Secretary had rather overcharged the picture he had drawn; at least, on the Grand Juries which he had attended, there were precautions taken to prevent fraud, with which the right hon. Secretary appeared quite unacquainted. He was willing to give the Bill a fair discussion, and should support those parts of it which he approved of. He was pleased that the Government had taken up the subject; and though he did not expect the proposed Bill would remove all the evils arising out of the present system, he was glad to see a beginning made, and he doubted not but it would lead to other measures advantageous to Ireland. Much had hitherto been promised, but very little performed for that country.
Mr. Henry Grattanjoined with other Gentlemen from Ireland in returning his thanks to the right hon. Secretary for this Bill. He considered that it was high time some alteration for the better took place, as it was admitted that great abuses

847
had existed, and were known to exist, for the last thirty years. He, however, thought that the right hon. Secretary had somewhat over-garnished his statement, and it was not by crying down all parts of a system which had been adopted for a century that the new Bill was to produce every remedy, He approved of that part of the proposed Bill, which assessed the landlord instead of the tenant. He had brought in a Bill for this express purpose three years ago, but it had been rejected. This alteration would, in his opinion, remove a portion of the evils; but he certainly disapproved of any contemplated plan of electing the Jurors. The right hon. Gentleman was only making an alteration in this system; for the Grand Jurors were also Magistrates, and they would, under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, do that as Magistrates which they now did as Grand Jurors. He admitted that it would be a great improvement if the civil and criminal duties of Jurors were made distinct from each other. He also considered that the charge of jobbing was not to be laid to the individuals who had to perform the duties of Jurors, but to the system existing in this country. The great instrument of taxation was that House, which, by one of its bills—that to establish the police—laid a heavier tax on the counties of Ireland than was laid on by all the Grand Juries of Ireland for a series of years. The Bill would certainly tend to correct many notorious abuses, but it was not precisely the system he wished to see adopted.
Mr. Leadersaid, the present Grand Jury system was only calculated to support hereditary patronage. Many individuals, it was well known, would never have attended the Assizes but for this circumstance. He agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last in wishing to see the fiscal separated from the criminal duties. Many great abuses undoubtedly had existed, and he felt happy in seeing that Government had taken up the subject, and they were likely to be abolished. He wished to see a set of Commissioners appointed to look after the roads, and he wished the people to have a voice in the election of those who disposed of their property, but he was afraid it would be a long time before such improvements were extended to Ireland.
Mr. Blackneywas also aware of the great abuses existing, but doubted the efficacy of the present Bill to remove them.
Mr. Ruthvenwished to understand, in the alterations that were proposed in the Grand Jury system, what arrangements were to be made with regard to the parliamentary business of the Assizes. As to the appointment of County Surveyors, he hoped the expense of that office, although he believed it was necessary, was not to be paid by the counties: he very much regretted that any circumstance should have induced the Government to postpone the consideration of this important subject to so late a period, and then not be prepared with a complete measure.
Mr. Sheildid not altogether understand how the money was to be advanced, and the estimates made. Were the Commissioners to determine as to what was necessary for the completion of the works, without the power of intervention on the part of the Grand Jury?
Mr. Cramptonsaid, an arrangement of that sort was the only security they could have, that the public money should not be thrown away on useless undertakings. It was absurd to begin works without the means of completing them. It was positively necessary that the Grand Jury should be compelled to complete works which they had induced the Commissioners to commence.
Mr. Stanleysaid, this regulation was in force before, and merely authorized the Commissioners to come upon the Grand Juries.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time; Game; Decrees in Equity.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ROSEBERY, in favour of Parliamentary Reform from the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Linlithgow; from the Guildry and Corporation of the Borough of Linlithgow, from the Inhabitants of Kirkliston, and from the Incorporated Tailors in the City of Edinburgh. By Lord KENYON, from the Owners of Slaves in the Island of
772
Antigua, praying for Compensation. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Barna in Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Abingdon, in favour of the Reform Bill. By Lord DUNMORE, from the Magistrates of Stirling, in favour of Reform. By Lord ABBRCROMBIE, similar Petitions from the Incorporated Trades of Stirling, from the County of Kinross, and other places in Scotland.

CARE OF LUNATICS.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had to present, to their Lordships a Bill, which completed the series of measures he proposed to introduce for the Reform and Amendment of the practice of the Court of Chancery. He had already introduced this Bill in the former Session of Parliament, and he believed that it had so far received the sanction of their Lordships then, that it was read a first and second time on that occasion. The object of this Bill, which he had now again to present to their Lordships, was to provide means for taking better care of those unfortunate persons who, on being declared lunatics, came under the care and jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. It appeared to him that the operation of this Bill would be one attended by the most beneficial effects, and it was but right to say, that the Bill itself was founded on a plan which had been drawn up by his noble predecessor, with a view to provide for the due care of those unfortunate persons. One great object of this Bill, as he had already said, was to provide for the due care of lunatics; another principal object of it was, to effect a change in trying Commissions of Lunacy. He proposed that they should be tried before one of the Judges of the land, instead of three Commissioners appointed by the Keeper of the Great Seal, the number which was necessary under the existing practice. The introduction of such a change as that would enable them to dispense with several officers of the Court, who were as the practice at present stood, concerned in the execution of Commissions of Lunacy, and would secure the advantage of having such matters executed by one of the Judges of the Land sitting in Court, without the expense, delay, and considerable risk of misdecision, which were attendant upon the existing mode of executing such Commissions.
The Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

REFORM—EDINBURGH PETITION.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the Petition he was about to present to their Lordships—

773
he would not say he held it in his hand, for that was nearly impossible, came from a most important body, and a very numerous class of his Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects—he meant, the inhabitants of the ancient city of Edinburgh; and if he should state, that it was signed by nearly all the male inhabitants of that city who were entitled to sign it, he believed that in saying so he should be guilty of no exaggeration whatever, for it was signed by no less than 36,150 persons. Aware as he was that the greatest pains had been taken to prevent improper persons, and persons of unripe age, from putting their names to this petition, he knew that he might fairly take it for granted, that it had been signed by every male inhabitant of the adult age—that was to say, capable of bearing arms—in the city of Edinburgh. According to the ordinary calculations of political arithmeticians and statistical writers, that part of the population—namely, the male adults between the age of sixteen and sixty—formed the one-fourth part of the entire population in any place. Now, assuming that the whole population of Edinburgh amounted to 140,000, and he believed that that was giving a large population to the northern metropolis, it was clear that the entire male adult population of that city, that was to say, the population which was between the age of sixteen and sixty, and capable of bearing arms, had put their names to this petition. This was a most important fact, as illustrative of the progress which the great question of Parliamentary Reform had made with the people of Scotland. He knew that about twenty years ago, it might have happened that the ease, instead of being as this petition proved it to be, would have been nearly the reverse in the city of Edinburgh, If any person, twenty or twenty-five years ago, had ventured to call upon the people of Edinburgh to sign a petition in favour of Parliamentary Reform, he would not say that this proportion of one-fourth of the population—namely, all the male adults—would have refused to sign such a petition, but he was certain that a very inconsiderable number of them indeed would have affixed their names to it at that time. Such was the general feeling in Scotland about twenty-five years ago with regard to Reform. But see how matters had changed in that respect. This petition afforded a tolerable proof of the immense
774
progress which the question of Parliamentary Reform had made with the very thinking, solemn, and reflecting people of Scotland. If ever there was a people less liable than any other to be carried away by sudden impulses—to become the tools of party agitators, and the prey of factions—the people of Scotland was that people. There was no people that he was aware of on the face of the earth, that was less liable to be influenced in that way than the population of Scotland. Now this people, the whole population of Scotland, after a solemn and mature deliberation, and after thoroughly discussing and investigating the whole subject, had come to the resolution, one and all, of supporting those measures of Reform which his Majesty's Ministers had introduced to redress their grievances. The prayer of the present petitioners, who so truly represented the 140,000 or 150,000 persons that formed the population of the northern metropolis, was, that their Lordships would pass the measures which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Government for effecting a Reform in the Commons House of Parliament. It was true that that population enjoyed the privilege of having a Member to represent them in the Commons House of Parliament, but they enjoyed not the privilege of electing that Member, of concurring in his election, or of assisting at his election, or even of holding any communication with those who solely and altogether elected that individual, who was denominated their Representative—the Representative of the inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh. He was their Representative, because he did not represent them; he was their Member, because they had not chosen him; and he represented the burgesses of Edinburgh, because Edinburgh had no more elected him than had Constantinople. He was chosen and elected Member of Parliament, it was true, but he was not so chosen by the city of Edinburgh. Perhaps their Lordships would be curious to know how this Edinburgh Representative was elected. Perhaps they might suppose that a great majority of those who had signed this petition had the right of voting at the election of a Member for that city. Such, however, was not the case, and not a single man of them had anything to do with the election of their Representative. Assuring them that the number of his constituents was not large, their Lordships might perhaps imagine that they amounted

775
at least to 1,000, which would be a small and limited number in such a great town with a population of 140,000 persons. But even of that limited constituency this worthy Member could not boast. No: he was not elected by the tenth part nor the eleventh part of the population of Edinburgh, nor by the 100th part, nay, not even by the half again of that 100th part of the population of that city. In short, not to detain their Lordships, and to put them out of pain, he begged to state for their Lordships' information, that this worthy Member was elected by thirty-three persons, and by not one less than thirty-three. And Edinburgh, it should be recollected, was much better off in this respect than were many other places in Scotland, the Scottish counties especially, under the existing much-honoured and highly revered system, which was now drawing, he devoutly hoped and prayed, to its close. It was under that time-honoured system that those abuses had grown up, under that system which some would fain represent as the result of the wisdom of our ancestors. But in justice to our ancestors, he must say, that there were but few of the evils which they had left to us, that had not been remedied and removed, or were in progress of being so, by the superior knowledge and wisdom of modern times, It had been well observed by his greatest predecessor in the office which he had the honour to fill—he meant Lord Bacon—that we are the truly old persons, as compared with our ancestors—that they represented the youth of the human race, while we, possessed as we were of the improvements and experience of modern times, represented its manhood, or rather its old age. He did hope and confidently trust, that this remnant of the wisdom of our ancestors—this close, and of necessity corruption-begetting system of Representation in Scotland—was very quickly approaching to its last end. The fact was, that the counties in Scotland were closer than the closest boroughs in England. The Members for those counties were elected, not by the proprietors of land there, but by persons who might not have an acre of land there, or any where else—by the owners of superiorities, who might be, as had been once said in another place, persons of the Jewish persuasion, living in Lombard-street, and possessing, by the ownership of those superiorities, the right of voting for those counties, while the pro-
776
praetors of property there had no such right of voting at all. He should just mention an instance of the result of this close system of Representation in Scotland. About twenty years ago an election took place for a county in Scotland; there was not a single person in the county, who, had the right of voting but the Sheriff of the county, who, being the returning officer, was thereby disqualified from voting. Nobody, in fact, did exercise the right of voting, and yet a person was returned, and sat as Member for the county in Parliament, and there was nobody to object to his doing so, as there was no person qualified to petition against his return. That was an instance of the close system in Scotland. Indeed, so bad was that system, that he did not suppose that it would meet with any defenders. However, when they came to the discussion of this question on Monday next, he would not allow a line to be drawn with regard to Scotland; he would not permit it to be contended, that though Scotland was ill off, England was well off; and that though Scotland might require Reform, England did not require it at all. If such a line of argument as that should be followed on Monday next, he would take upon him the defence of the close and narrow system of Representation in Scotland, and he would maintain, that it had as good a right to be preserved to Scotland, as the corruption and rottenness of Gatton and Old Sarum had to be continued in England.
Lord Wharncliffedid not rise to impugn any thing that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, but he rose to say a few words in reference to what had been stated by the noble Lord as to the decision of the House upon the subject which was to come under their consideration on Monday next. He begged to say, that the noble Lord had no right to assume that by the vote which he (Lord Wharncliffe) should give on that night, or at the conclusion of the debate which stood for that night, he (Lord Wharncliffe) would in any degree decide as to the propriety of the present mode of electing Members either for counties or burghs in Scotland. He begged that it should be understood, that if they should think it right to reject the Bill for amending the Representation of England, it should not be taken for granted, that they were therefore unwilling to reform the Representation of Scotland. Though they

777
might be of opinion, that the state of the Representation in England did not require Reform, it did not follow as a consequence that they entertained the same opinion with regard to the Representation in Scotland, which was of a totally different description. Indeed, he had no hesitation in at once declaring it as his opinion, that the state of the Representation in Scotland presented a case which did require Reform and amendment. Before he sat down he begged to ask whether, even under this system of Representation in Scotland, which he was ready to admit required amendment, Scotland had not prospered even, beyond ordinary human calculation? That fact, which he supposed would not be controverted, showed that in the instance of Scotland, where a Representation existed that it was admitted wanted amendment, they should proceed in the adoption of any new regulations with the greatest caution, and with most deliberate consideration.
The Lord Chancellorwas most happy to have been the means of eliciting from his noble friend this admission—that the state of the Representation in Scotland was too bad to be defended even by the Anti-reformers, and that the system required revision and alteration. This admission was to him most refreshing, for this was the first time that he had ever heard it admitted by an Anti-reformer, that the Scotch system was too bad to be allowed to continue. So, then, Scotland was to be blessed with a Reform, while England was to remain without it. He had anticipated that some attempt would be made to draw a line of distinction between Reform in England and Reform in Scotland, and had grappled with that notion by adverting to the state of Old Sarum and Gallon. If the people of Scotland were to have a reform in their Representation, were the people of England still to continue to be represented by Members for such places as Old Sarum and Gatton? If the old system in Scotland was to come tumbling down, why should Old Sarum and Gatton continue to send Members to Parliament? But as his noble friend had admitted, that although Edinburgh had a Representative, and Glasgow a fourth part of a Representative, the Scotch system required Reform, he was prepared for the next concession, which would be, that the system of Representation in England also
778
required Reform, and that his noble friend would go a great way towards effecting that Reform, although he would not go to the extent of this Bill.
Lord Wharncliffedid not mean to enter into any discussion on the subject of Reform that night. He had not said anything as to how he intended to vote on the English Reform Bill, nor had he given any opinion as to whether the English system required Reform or not. His noble and learned friend had supposed that he entertained a certain opinion on that subject; but his noble and learned friend did not know what his opinions were, and had no right to ask what were his opinions, or to suppose that he held the opinions which his noble friend chose to ascribe to him.
The Earl of Camperdownwas anxious to make a few observations on what the noble Lord had said in regard to the prosperity of Scotland. The noble Lord—his noble friend, if he would allow him to call him so—had said, that Scotland had thriven remarkably under its present system of Representation; but that prosperity certainly did not arise from its Representative system. Nothing could be worse than the state of the Representation in Scotland; but Scotland had prospered because of its connection with England, in spite of its bad system of Representation. Whatever Scotland might have sacrificed by the Union with England, it must be acknowledged that it had derived great benefits from having the advantage of the English system of Representation, which, with all its faults, was, upon the whole, much superior to that of Scotland, in which there was no Representation that deserved the name. The English system itself had been deteriorated by having the Scotch infused into it.
Lord Melvillesaid, that he must join in the protest which had been made by the noble Lord below him (Lord Wharncliffe), against its being assumed that the vote to which they would come with respect to the Bill which was to come under discussion on Monday next, would in any degree bind them with respect to any Reform which they might consider necessary in the Scottish system of Representation. From the observations made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he expected to hear it hinted by that noble Lord, that it would be more convenient for their Lordships to.

779
have the Scotch and English Bills before them at the same time. If the English Bill should be rejected, it did not follow that some alteration might not be adopted with regard to the Scotch Representative system. He (Lord Melville) should be prepared to state his opinion as to the English Bill when it came under discussion; and no noble Lords had a right to inquire what that opinion was until that time arrived. He was ready to concur in the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, that a great proportion of those who had votes for Scottish counties possessed no property in them. So far was he from thinking that the system in Scotland did not require amendment, that he had been for several years endeavouring to carry measures for its improvement. He must protest, therefore, against being classed with those individuals who approved of the Scottish system in all its parts, though he was not inclined to go the length of the wild propositions which were so hastily advanced on every side. With regard to the calculation of the noble and learned Lord, of the population of Edinburgh, he apprehended that there was some mistake, or if 140,000 was taken as the number of the inhabitants, it must mean that of the city and the county of the city. He also doubted the unanimity which the noble and learned Lord alleged prevailed in Edinburgh on the subject of Reform, and he imagined that the extent of that feeling was not a little overrated.
The Earl of Carnarvonalso protested against mixing up the question of English Reform with that of a reformation of the Scottish Representative system, for though many noble Lords might be opposed to any alteration in the English system, it did not follow that their opinion was the same with regard to the system in Scotland.
Petition to be laid on the Table.

REFORM—CITY OF LONDON PETITION.
The Lord Chancellorhad also to present to their Lordships a petition from the corporation of the city of London, in favour of Parliamentary Reform. He was sure that their Lordships, when they came to consider who the petitioners were in this instance, would give to the prayer of the petition that consideration and that attention to which the weight and importance of the petitioners entitled them. This petition did not emanate from the Common Hall of the city of London, though, if it had, he
780
should have presented it with every possible respect; but it was a petition from the Corporation at large of the city of London—from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Liverymen, publicly assembled in Guildhall for the purpose, and it was signed by the Lord Mayor on behalf of the meeting. The petition, as he had already said, was in favour of the measures of Parliamentary Reform which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Government, and it strongly urged upon their Lordships the propriety of adopting and speedily passing those measures. The Edinburgh petition which he had just presented, he should have stated, was also in favour of Reform generally, and not of Scottish Reform alone. He was glad to find that the noble Lords (Lords Melville and Wharncliffe) were not to be classed amongst thorough-going Anti-reformers, and that they admitted the necessity of some change, at least in Scotland. But it would not do when the Reform Question came on for noble Lords to say—"England is well enough, and we will not touch it; but Scotland is not so, and some alteration must be made there." Let him tell those noble Lords, that such a course as that would not do for England. Neither would such a line of proceeding satisfy the Anti-reformers in Scotland, for they would ask, and justly too, why should Gatton and Old Sarum be retained in England, and the experiment of reformation alone tried upon Scotland? Nothing could be more absurd than to talk of the prosperity which Scotland had enjoyed under the existing system, in spite of which, as a noble Lord had truly said, that country had prospered. The same absurd remark might be applied to England. There was no doubt that this country was flourishing and prosperous, even before we had abolished the African slave-trade; and yet no one would now rank himself with felons, by praising that system which it was a felony to uphold. The country was prosperous before Catholic Emancipation was granted, and yet no one now doubted the propriety and justice of that great alteration in our existing system. In truth, this absurd argument, if it were to have any weight against improvement and change, would put an end to his (the Lord Chancellor's) contemplated law improvements and amendments, for the country was prosperous while the Court of Chancery was flourishing in perennial

781
delay. The petitioners expressed their confident hopes that their Lordships' wisdom, patriotism, and good sense, would induce their Lordships to accede to the prayer of the petition, and to pass the measure of Reform which would be submitted to them. The Reformers of the United Kingdom, in common with the petitioners, relied with confidence on the wisdom of their Lordships. He trusted that the result would show, that they did not flatter their Lordships by placing such a reliance on their decision in this important matter; and, above all things, he fondly hoped that that result would not be the rejection of those measures—a result which would be to all the friends of the tranquillity and prosperity of the empire, a subject of the deepest regret.
Lord wynfordwould take that opportunity to deny that he was an Anti-reformer ["hear, hear."] He should not be prevented by that cheer from stating his opinion in distinct terms. In consequence of what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and of the threats which had, in fact, been thrown out by that noble Lord, he (Lord Wynford) begged to say, that he would rather reject any measure of Reform, than adopt the amendments proposed by this Bill. He would state his objections to it on Monday next, when he hoped to be able to show, that it was not such a Reform as was consistent with the principles of the Constitution, as would give security to the two Houses of Parliament, and would preserve the liberties of the people. He hoped to be able to show that this was a measure calculated to endanger the peace of the country, and, that if it should be passed, it would be inconsistent with, and subversive of, the principles of the Constitution, destructive of the independence of Parliament, and destructive of the liberty of the people of England, who required a liberty that was regulated by law, and supported by the institutions of the country. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had argued as if there had been a change of opinion with regard to this question, on the part of the noble Baron (Lord Wharncliffe). Had there been no change in the opinions of the noble and learned Lord himself on the subject? If they could see the Reform Bill which that noble Lord had himself drawn up last year, he was sure it would be found to differ greatly from this mea-
782
sure —he was sure that nothing would be found in that Bill destructive of Gatton or Old Sarum, or of any other rotten borough in the country. He was certain that that Bill did not commence with a sweeping disfranchisement of those boroughs. When the noble and learned Lord himself exhibited changes of opinion with respect to Preform, the noble Lord should pause before he charged others with vacillation of sentiment. Notwithstanding the strong-body of authority that had been produced on the opposite side, he felt confident that they should be able to stand satisfactorily before that House; and, what was much more, before the country at large, and demonstrate to the conviction of every thinking man, that the Bill, instead of securing the liberties of the people, would place beyond the pale of those liberties a larger proportion—ay, and a better and more improved proportion—of the community, than would be included in it.
Lord Hollanddid not understand that his noble friend on the Woolsack had taunted any Peer in that House with a change of opinion. But the noble Peer who had just sat down had taunted his noble friend with a change of opinion, and the reason was, because he thought, that the noble and learned Lord might have supported a Bill on some former occasion, not containing all the clauses contained in the Bill about to be Brought before that House. He did not rise to defend his noble friend—he was quite competent to the task of pleading his own cause; but he must say, that the observations of the noble Lord contained a most pregnant remark for the consideration of that House, if true. If it were true that men, gifted with the powers of his noble friend, thought, on former occasions, that certain Reforms were necessary to the welfare of the country—if these Reforms, aided by the energies of his noble friend, and aided by those persons now so anxious to be considered Anti-reformers—if these partial Reforms were uniformly rejected; and if, not with standing this rejection, the country was now disposed to support a Reform more comprehensive in its character, and greater in its results, it was for that House solemnly to weigh, and deeply to reflect, what would be the consequences if they persevered blindly, stupidly, and dangerously, in rejecting the Bill. That House, he repeated, was called upon to consider what would be the effect on all

783
deliberating minds if they rejected a measure adapted to the character of the times, in harmony with the wishes and interests of the people, and essentially calculated to leave the real Constitution of the empire improved and confirmed. There was one feature in the discussion which had given him great satisfaction, and he referred to it with pleasure. There was no stubborn hostility apparent, but every person was anxious to prove himself a Reformer to a certain degree. Of these concealed Reformers, he must say, that he held it to be a very grievous calamity, that among the multifarious plans of Reform suggested to them, there was none which they could make up their minds to approve. If the Reform proposed by other men filled them with so much horror, they ought before this—for now, indeed, it was too late—the opportunity was lost—to have come forward with some plan of their own. He would beg their Lordships to bear in mind, when the subject came regularly before the House, the admission of one of the ablest opponents of the Bill on two important points. First, that the Representation of Scotland required complete Reform ["No," from Lord Wharncliffe.] Well, at least the noble Lord allowed that the Scottish representative system was defective, and required amendment, and that he was ready to support a reform of it. The second admission was, that when he came to consider Reform, he could not forget that it was under that defective system (which the noble Lord had shown himself so anxious and ready to improve) that Scotland had flourished exceedingly—thus throwing overboard the sophistical doctrine of which they had heard so much, that the system worked well, and therefore any alteration was unnecessary. The noble Lord, be it remembered, had distinctly admitted, that the people had thriven under the old system; yet, nevertheless, he declared that the system was defective, and ought to be improved. He hailed this acknowledgment as an auspicious omen. They were not now to contend against the principles of Anti-reform, but only as to what degree of Reform it was necessary to carry. "And great," said the noble Baron, "great, indeed, must be the difference of degrees, which could induce the House of Lords, whose interests are identified with the welfare of the whole community, to disappoint the wishes of the overwhelming
784
majority of the people of this country, demanding and requesting Reform."
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the sentiments which his noble friend had adverted to with a slight tendency to exaggeration, were not the result of any new light that had broken in upon him. He was opposed to the measure on its way to that House, and the ground of his opposition was supplied by the measure itself. With that Bill before him, he was prepared to show the country, that the intended Reform was subversive of their liberty, and destructive of every part of the Constitution.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to set his noble friend (Lord Wynford) right, as to what he had stated respecting his having taunted noble Lords with a change of opinion. Very far indeed was he from meeting such a happy alteration by a taunt; on the contrary, it filled him with the greatest possible joy and satisfaction. He also begged leave to correct a misconception of his noble friend, in attributing a change of opinion to himself. His noble friend said, he was sure that if he saw the Bill he (Lord Brougham) had drawn, in the beginning of last Session—["hear" from Lord Wynford] it would be better for the noble Lord to listen than cry "hear"—if he saw the Bill drawn up at that time, he would discover no clauses in it for the disfranchisement of Gatton and Old Sarum. He would admit that the noble Lord had made a happy guess—he freely acknowledged that he was correct in his divination—yet he was sorry to be obliged to take him down from the towering pinnacle on which he was enthroned, but take him down he must, for had he seen the bill in question, he would have found no clause in it of any kind. There never was such a bill as his noble and learned friend had alluded to. There was a great deal of discussion as to the outlines of a measure which he (the Lord Chancellor) was about to bring forward, but the bill was never drawn up. The heads of the bill had never, in point of fact, been reduced to writing. He had given notice of a motion for the introduction of a Reform Bill elsewhere, but the Monday before that motion could be brought forward, an event happened which called upon him to consider, in other circumstances, what measure of Reform would be satisfactory to the people. He had no hesitation in avowing, however, that there was a great difference between

785
the measure which he intended to bring forward and that now before the House. His plan embraced the whole of the Scotch Bill, and great part of the English Bill, but he frankly declared that the present Bill went further than he had proposed to go. On the proper occasion he should be prepared to show how and why it went further. It was sufficient for him now to state that, in order to obtain the consent of the greatest number of the Members of the Legislature, he was anxious to go as far as possible without sacrificing the principles which he thought necessary to conciliate, and to render the measure he proposed to bring forward as little objectionable as possible. Acting on these views, he did adopt a measure materially different from, and falling far short of, the present. He was now telling no secret, and making no confession. He had stated at the great meeting at Leeds, and in his place in Parliament, that though he should propose what he considered a great, safe, practical, and effectual Reform, yet it would not be such a Reform as he would propose if he had his will. His noble and learned friend, too, ought to recollect, that it made a great difference when a measure was brought forward which had been too long delayed, and after declarations, unbending and unqualified declarations, had been made from the highest quarters, against all Reform. When his noble friend (Lord Wynford) attained that office of which he was at present the unworthy possessor—an office to which the members of the legal profession naturally aspired as the reward of their toils, and which the "young ambition" of the noble Lord might fairly look to—when his noble friend, as the Chancellor of a future day, brought forward his schemes of Reform, he could assure him, with much sincerity, that he should be delighted at their success. If law reforms came from the Great Seal, like his plan of Parliamentary Reform, he should give them his best support. When the hour arrived, he should be found quite ready to redeem that pledge, and he did not much care how soon he should be called upon for its redemption. He trusted, that throughout these discussions, by the issue of which they hoped to satisfy the country and their consciences, they would view the momentous theme of their deliberations solemnly, dispassionately, and without personality; that, instead of abusing their time by
786
the introduction of argumenta ad hominess, they would keep a single eye to the merits of the case before them—a case, they would give him leave to say, the most important to that House, whether they viewed it in connexion with the dignity of the Monarch, or of the prosperity of the people, or the liberties and property and lineage of the land, or the grandeur of all. As regarded the standing of that House in its own estimation—as regarded the security of their rights and constitutional privileges—never did they stand on the brink of a more deeply important discussion than now that they were on the eve of the debate upon Parliamentary Reform.
Lord Wynfordexplained, that in adverting to the bill of the noble and learned Lord—drawn since he came into that House—he stated that it did not embrace any disfranchisement of boroughs.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Lord had been misinformed. His plan did take away at least one Member from a great number of boroughs.
Petition laid on the Table.

BELGIUM.
The Marquis of Londonderryclaimed their Lordships' indulgence while he, as shortly as circumstances admitted, stated the reasons which induced him again to bring the affairs of Belgium under their notice. He regretted the absence of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, in consequence of a domestic calamity, because he should be very sorry if anything he should say in his absence could be construed into a supposition that he intended to offer any observation uncourteous to that noble Earl. He could assure their Lordships, that it was the furthest from his intention to do or say anything that could lead to such a supposition; but he might be naturally led into animadversions on various points, which the noble Earl and himself had already discussed. He, however, was gratified to see the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his place, because he should be anxious to hear from his noble friend, if he would permit him to call him so, whether he concurred in the views—and was disposed to argue them under former principles—which his Majesty's Government had taken with respect to Belgium; and, more especially, whether he concurred in those severe and uncalled-for animadversions

787
and philippics which the noble Earl, his colleague, had so unsparingly dealt out against all those great public transactions of 1814 and 1815, which formed the basis of a peace of seventeen years in Europe, and in which negotiations the noble Viscount himself bore a conspicuous and confidential share. This evening would probably put the House in possession of the noble Viscount's views, and shew whether his former principles and opinions were changed, in deference to the new friends by whom he was surrounded. His noble friend would likewise afford him satisfaction by expressing his opinions as to Holland, and stating how he thought that country had been used by his Majesty's Ministers; because he was anxious to learn whether the noble Viscount concurred in the line of policy which had been pursued towards our old and attached ally, he having been long a member of that Government which took so honourable and important a part in the arrangement by which Holland and Belgium were united, for the advantage of British and European interests, and having been one of those who defended that transaction. He should be glad to learn whether the noble Viscount was prepared to argue, that Holland had not been most unfairly, unjustly, and ungenerously treated, according to the conventions which exist between that country and England. Could his noble friend approve of that decision which excluded Holland from any participation in the arrangement with respect to the demolition of the fortresses, that measure being about to be determined on by the four Powers, and Belgium, without even the presence or participation of any negotiator on the part of Holland, through whom its opinion or wishes could be consulted? He begged leave to remind the House and the country, that for ten or twelve months, negotiations had been going forward on the questions of Holland and Belgium, every day increasing in anxiety, interest, and importance; but the Parliament of England had been kept in entire ignorance of every part of the negotiations, although a prince had been sent out from this country—supposed to be an independent sovereign—but, up to that moment, their Lordships were entirely ignorant whether the other great Powers—Austria, Russia, and Prussia—had recognised him. Numerous protocols had appeared from time to time, more numer-
788
ous, he would take upon himself to say, than ever appeared in respect of any negotiation whatever—more than the Congresses at Vienna, Troppau, and Lay-bach, together ever issued; still their Lordships were not informed, whether or no any one point of these important transactions were settled. These protocols were pitiful expositions; there was one, issued to-day, declaring that the principle which it laid down was irrevocable; and another was sent forth the next day, which overturned the irrevocable and unchangeable decree, and rendered it mere waste paper. There seemed indeed a protocol laboratory in Downing-street, whence these prescriptions and drugs issued wholesale; but the patient was still unfortunately suffering under the disease, without the smallest hopes of recovery. Like the cholera, the march of the protocol appeared irresistible. The infection had bounded to the banks of the Rhine, as the cholera had advanced to the shores of the German ocean, and its ravages in the Confederation seemed to be very dreadful. One protocol, issued by this august German Assembly, was rather of a strange description; and it would be necessary to see how this protocol would affect those issued from Downing-street. Whenever a strong case was made out against the conduct pursued by his Majesty's Government—and a stronger case was never made out than that which he had made out, of it being the intention of the government of France to leave 12,000 troops in Belgium—then out came a protocol to account for that measure, by a number of frivolous set paragraphs, wholly unworthy of great statesmen, and forming miserable excuses for impolitic and unforeseen omissions. What said the protocol of the German Confederation? Why, that Luxemburg belonged to the House of Nassau, and was not to be alienated; but, in the mean time, his Majesty's Ministers allowed Prince Leopold, by consent of his Majesty, to occupy the throne of Belgium, and to take the oath of the constitution of the Belgians, which provided that Luxemburg should form a part of his kingdom. The king of England, therefore, and the king of Hanover, though identically one and the same person, were, in fact, opposed to each other in these negotiations, as the king of Hanover was a member of the German Confederation, and the protocol of that body was directly

789
opposed to the arrangements of Downing-street. And thus it was, that when noble Lords in opposition felt themselves called upon, he might almost say goaded, to ask questions of his Majesty's Ministers, which might be inconvenient to them, but which were rendered indispensable by the singular position in which our negotiations stood, then they were told, that they were involving this country in war, and that their conduct was inconvenient, vexatious, and factious. The silence observed by his Majesty's Ministers was very different from the course pursued by his lamented brother; for his noble friend would recollect, that on that regretted statesman's return from the Congress at Vienna, he was attacked by Mr. Whitbread in the House of Commons, who moved an humble Address to his Majesty—"That he would be graciously pleased to direct a communication to be made to the House of Commons, of the progress made at the Congress now sitting at Vienna, towards the final adjustment and permanent pacification of Europe, of such transfer and annexations of territory, as may have actually taken place, together with other information touching matters still under consideration, as may be given without prejudice to the public service."* What was the conduct of his Majesty's Secretary of State on that occasion? With that candour, and with the manliness and openness of character, which so distinguished that eminent individual, he seconded Mr. Whitbread's motion. And, at the same period, a noble Marquis (Wellesley), now Lord Steward of his Majesty's Household, made a similar motion in the House of Lords, when Lord Liverpool declared, that every information should be laid on the Table that could be constitutionally and diplomatically afforded. It was curious to observe, also, that in the debates of 1815—and he referred to them because his Majesty's Ministers had taunted noble Lords with being disorderly in asking questions—Mr.Tierney, in an assembly which was praised for its due observance of order over their Lordships' House did, on many occasions, ask no less than six or seven questions, one after another In the debate May 26, 1813, on the subsidies to the Allied Powers, Mr. Tierney asked—first,for some information as to Denmark; second, Mr. Tierney wished to know what
*Hansard's Parl, Debates, vol. xxx. p. 282.
790
part Spain was to take; third, Mr. Tierney inquired, whether any part of the disposable sum of 2,500,000 l. was to be given to Portugal; fourth, whether any, and what part of the sums, Sweden or Portugal was to obtain. His object in referring to the motion made by Mr. Whitbread for an Address to his Majesty, and which was seconded by his lamented brother, the late Lord Castlereagh, for the production of papers, was, only to show the readiness with which former Governments had met such demands, and that there was nothing either unusual or improper in his having asked for the production of papers connected with our foreign relations; and it should be recollected, the negotiations of that time embraced all the transactions of Europe, whereas, those of the present day only related to the creation of an unhappy king, and an undefined kingdom. Noble Lords on that side of the House, as well as himself, had been asked, when putting questions, whence they obtained their information? He could only say, that they derived it from no improper channel. They had no secret service money, but they had the confidence of those who did not trust his Majesty's Ministers. If they were attacked for getting their knowledge from the newspapers, he could only reply, by referring to the speech of Earl Grey, April 7th, 1815, on the events in France, when the noble Earl said—"The public journals were the only sources from which he could, of course, obtain information." He had an undoubted right to follow the noble Earl's example; and it was quite clear, that his noble friend's (the Earl of Aberdeen's) information, as regarded affairs at Lisbon, was much more accurate than any which reached the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, as was and, he rejoiced at it, now finally admitted. The next point to which he begged to call the attention of their Lordships and of his noble friend was, as to what had taken place, in respect of the assurance given by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, that the French troops, more especially the last division of 12,000 men, would evacuate Belgium; and whether that assurance was likely to be carried into effect? Certain it was, that up to that day, the French troops remained in that country, and he did not hear that any positive time was fixed for their departure. If general report was to be believed—but he owned he could not for a moment give

791
credit to so monstrous an absurdity—it was said that a very large proportion of French officers were to be allowed by the Conference and his Majesty's Government to remain, for the purpose of organizing, drilling, disciplining, and acting with the Belgian army. He could not believe for an instant that such a proposition could be sanctioned by the noble Earl. The circumstance of 12,000 troops remaining in Belgium was unimportant, compared to giving any number of French officers the control and disciplining of the Belgian army. He should never have brought himself to mention such an arrangement, if he had not seen a numerous list of officers, who were understood to be positively named, and the particular branch of the army to which they were severally attached. There was Lieutenant-general Count Goundler, Baron Belnard (Infantry)—Baron Picquet, a distinguished officer under Napoleon (Cavalry)—Lieutenant-general Baron Evain (Artillery)—Lieutenant-general Desprez (Etât Major) Major-general Nempole, Engineer—Colonels Dillon, Chatry le Fond, &c. &c., Lieutenant-colonels Devaux, St. Peau, &c., and various others placed at the disposition of the above officers, altogether amounting to 300 or 400. An army like that of Belgium, under the command of French officers, would be French. All promotion in the army must go through those officers—and he put it to any one acquainted with military matters, whether King Leopold would have any command over a force so constituted, or whether it would be possible for him to do as he wished with an army so officered? He would ask his noble friend who was at the head of the Portuguese army, (Lord Beresford), whether that army, officered and disciplined by British officers, was not almost the same as a British army? Such an arrangement as allowing the Belgian army to be officered by Frenchmen, could not be submitted to for a moment. It had been said, in another place, that King Leopold was an independent Monarch, and must be allowed to keep what officers he pleased in his service. If King Leopold was independent, why did the Conference interfere to prevent 12,000 French troops from remaining in Belgium? The king of Belgium had been sent, by an arrangement of the Allies, to endeavour to make that country, by universal consent, an independent kingdom; but he could not be
792
considered in every respect as independent, because he must necessarily be under the direction of the Conference, through whose instrumentality he had been created King. But was it possible that his Majesty's Government, who urged the French government, with all the powers of language they could use, to order the French troops to evacuate Belgium, could now tamely acquiesce in an arrangement by which the army of that country was to be officered by Frenchmen? He put it to his noble friend, whether he did not conceive that some satisfactory explanation ought to be immediately called for from the French government on this subject? It appeared to him that the French government was endeavouring to undermine this country, and to make our Government truckle in all the arrangements of these Conferences, and on every other occasion. They were no sooner driven out of one fortress—(as they were by the eloquent speech of the noble Duke near him, on the subject of the Belgian fortresses, and the evacuation)—than "their wily politician" (he understood, when he used this phrase before, it gave offence, but he repeated it, because he thought it a proper phrase)— than their wily politician, the representative of the French government in this country, burrowed himself in another. No sooner was the arrangement made for the evacuation of Belgium by the French troops, than this curious arrangement was commenced, which would give the French infinitely more power in that country than keeping 12,000 French troops in it. To refer back to our former relative positions with Holland and Belgium. He hoped their Lordships would not consider it tedious if he detained them by reading some extracts from the statements made with regard to the junction of those countries, when that event took place under the sanction of the Allied powers and the direction of his lamented relative. Those statements shewed how Holland was placed with respect to the Belgian fortresses, and that she had a right to be a party to any and every arrangement respecting them. He hoped that their Lordships would be of opinion, that his noble friend would not be able to controvert the statements he had advanced, that our conduct with regard to Holland had been unfriendly and inexcusable. Holland was precluded entirely from all negotiations as to the fortresses which, though de fait in the power of Belgium,

793
are, du droit, unquestionably the property of Holland. His Lordship then read the following extract—
"Here was an arrangement between two crowns, in which certain colonies were ceded to this country, in consideration of our paying the half of certain charges which would otherwise have fallen on Holland alone. These colonies were materially connected with the interests of this country—they were important with a view to our possessions in the East Indies; and in Demerara, Berbice, and other Dutch settlements in the West Indies, three-fourths of the whole British capital in the West-India colonies might be considered to be vested. It became important, therefore, to bring these colonies under the natural protection of this country. This was not a proposition connected with war, but Parliament would be called on, in the course of the present year, to contribute one million in conseqence of that arrangement. That was the only part which would come into consideration in the course of the present year. There was another arrangement, which was not in the nature of a grant, of a specific sum, the interest of the loan obtained by Russia in Holland, which was applied towards the fortifications in the Low Countries."
"The total sum borrowed was three millions, but two millions of it only were applied to these fortifications. One hundred and fifty thousand pounds had been agreed to be paid as a consideration for that loan for a certain number of years. The object of that outlay was, the rendering of that part of Europe less vulnerable than it was when it was obtained possession of by the Allies. Russia was to be relieved of the charge of this loan, which was to be borne jointly between Great Britain and the king of the Netherlands. The price for the colonies could not be considered excessive; and it would not only go to create a system of fortification on that barrier, but it would make it the interest of the Emperor of Russia, as well as his duty, to prevent the Low Countries from ever falling into the hands, or being under the control of France. There was, therefore, this security for that country, in addition to the advance of Prussia to the Rhine, by which she became also interested in the safety of Holland.*"
"It would have been in opposition to the feelings of the nation to have treated Holland in any other respect than as a country with which it was our object to maintain the most friendly relations; and much as he should have lamented if an amicable arrangement could not have been made by which England could retain the Cape of Good Hope, which was so important to this country, from its connexion with our territories in the East, and reluctant as he should have been to have lost an opportunity of placing so large a mass of British property
*Hansard's Parl. Deb., vol. xxxi, p. 455–6.
794
as was contained in the islands of Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo, permanently under he protection of the Crown of England; much is he should have regretted such important cessions, still would he have been content to forego all the benefits of retaining them, rather than have failed to act with the utmost friendly liberality and justice towards Holland. It ought not to be disguised, that though France might have overrun Holland from the lust of conquest, much of the misery which had fallen on that unfortunate country had been inflicted on account of the attachment and devotion it had cherished for England. This feeling, so difficult to extinguish, has never ceased to manifest itself; and it was possible but that for this, Holland might for a much longer time have escaped the storm by which she was overwhelmed.*"
"The system of fortifying the Netherlands he considered wise, even as a measure of economy. It was necessary to preserve Holland and her navy independent of France, and this could only be secured by making the Netherlands strong as a military position. This would save the country the excessive expense of repelling the attempts which France might be induced to make at any future period. With this view of the subject, he conceived this country to be highly interested in fortifying the Netherlands in the manner proposed, the expense of which would be met gradually.†"
"The state of things which had called upon us to take this charge upon ourselves had given us an opportunity of fairly, and without the appearance of illiberality, proposing to Holland the cession of her colonies to England. He had much satisfaction in stating that our conduct in this respect had been justly appreciated on the part of Holland. She had viewed it as a fair proposition made by a friendly power, and not considered it as the demand of a nation who, having obtained possession of her colonies in time of war, refused to relinquish them on the return of peace. The colonies obtained by the arrangement entered into with Holland were of great importance to this country, not only on account of their connexion with our eastern possessions, but on account of the situation in which they placed us with respect to South America, by which a constant supply of cotton was secured, which would prove an important advantage to the manufacturers of one of our staple commodities."
When he looked back and considered those speeches, and the manner in which his Majesty's present Government had acted towards the king of Holland, he could not but feel indignant as an Englishman. He would wish to know whether Holland might not justly demand restitution of those colonies which she ceded in return
*Ibid. p. 743–4. †Ibid. p. 745.

795
for the erection of those fortresses of which she was now deprived, and was not even allowed to interfere in the arrangement for disposing of them. Those fortresses were now in the possession of Belgium; but tomorrow they might be in the possession of France, and turned to purposes injurious to the interests of this country and of Holland. Here, then, was a case of much importance, and which deeply concerned the honour of this country, on which he wished for a satisfactory explanation and information; but his principal object, on the present occasion, was, to obtain information upon the subject of this strange plan for the Belgian army, to which he had already alluded; and he never could imagine that it would be permitted that it should be officered by Frenchmen. He was desirous not to trespass longer on their Lordships' attention; but, before he sat down, he must say a few words on the general foreign policy of the country, and on his own humble sentiments on the subject. A noble and learned Lord said that he was anxious for a war with France. He positively denied that inference. The difference between the noble and learned Lord and him was this;—the noble and learned Lord wished to embrace France closely as a friend, believing that if we were at peace with France, we must be at peace with all the world: he did not consider that all the endeavours of our Government to preserve peace with France might be subverted, as they would be, if the war party in France obtained power. All the concessions made by this country—all the efforts made to preserve peace—the abandonment, of our allies, and our acquiescence in their degradation—the robbery of the Portuguese fleet—the demolition of the fortresses—the occupation of Belgium—the Belgian army's being officered by French officers, would then all go for nothing. France was our natural rival, and as such must be considered our natural enemy. History pointed out this indisputable fact; and though it was well to treat an enemy with perfect honesty, courtesy, and civility, yet it was, in his humble opinion, always most prudent, and most congenial to the feelings of Englishmen, to keep him at arm's length. Instead of this, however, our Government was allowing that of France to keep us so close in its fraternal hug, that it squeezed out everything it wanted from us. There was a sort of flirtation
796
carried on between the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and the French government, which he could not say he beheld with approbation. We were obliged to yield every thing rather than incur the risk of overturning the present government of France, and run the hazard of a war with our crippled finances; and on its part it was ready, occasionally, in lesser points, to tamper with our negociators, and to meet the views of the noble Earl, in order that it might not upset the Reform Bill in its progress. The French Ministry believed the Reform Bill and the noble Earl's Ministry would favour France; but if, unfortunately, the Reform Bill should be passed, and the country be got into confusion by it, as he believed would be the case, we should then see whether the government of France would any longer desire to keep peace with a Government of this country, deprived of its advantages both of position and of character. By the great Treaties in 1814 and 1815, the Quadruple Alliance was formed to arrest the aggression and aggrandizement of France, and when peace was established, France was permitted to enter, at Aix-la-Chapelle, the general Quadruple Alliance for the maintenance of the repose of Europe; but Great Britain had never an idea of uniting closer in the bonds of alliance with France than with any of the other great Powers, and this policy and this attempt he deprecated, more especially when he saw the sacrifices made for it. These were his opinions on foreign policy. He was not anxious for war, but wished it to be avoided. At the same time, this country was bound to repress aggression, and to defeat projects of foreign aggrandizement, and, though desirous to avoid a war, in a just cause he was not afraid of it. He had formerly made use of some strong expressions with regard to the distinguished diplomatist who represents the government of France in this country, for which he was reprehended by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—who, however, it must be recollected, said much stronger things both of the king of Holland and Don Miguel. He said nothing contrary to the private respect and esteem he entertained for that individual; but his public character was on record, and he dealt with it as a matter of history. That distinguished diplomatist was a Minister of Napoleon, of Louis 18th, of Charles 10th, and now of Louis Philippe. This Minister, therefore,

797
could not be looked upon or spoken of as if he came into public life for the first time. He had not stated his opinion of his character in any underhand way, but in a way which gave him a full opportunity of knowing what was said. What he had said had found its way into the public journals, and it was competent for that diplomatist to contradict anything which he found was not borne out by facts. When he found it stated that this individual was constantly near the King's closet, that despatches were shewn to him in that quarter before they reached the public, and that his Majesty's Ministers went one after another to him, appearing to consult, invite, and to wait for his decision, he, as an Englishman, heard of such proceedings with some degree of disgust. They were indecent, and probably dangerous. He did not wish to express himself unfairly towards any one; at the same time he could not retract anything he had said; and if any noble Lord wished him to state the source whence he had derived his information, or the foundation for any expressions he had used as to the great power and ability with which Prince Talleyrand served his own Court—while his opinions never had been favourable to England—he would refer to the memorial of Talleyrand to Napoleon, as first Consul, dated 15th Brumaire, year 11, which was universally in print, and must have due weight on all minds that read it, especially if our policy now leans to what was advised in that document. He had a right, then, to advert to the public character of this individual, to doubt the propriety of the course pursued by his Majesty's Government towards him, and to suspect that his proceedings would be a little too much for the interest of his own government, and would tend in no degree whatever to advance the interests of this country. He was well aware that Prince Talleyrand was in habits of close intimacy with his noble and lamented relation, who fully admitted his great abilities and private amiable qualities. But his noble relation was not a person to be influenced by any individual. It was his habit to take his own course on all public matters, and to steer clear of any attempts to exercise an undue influence. No one could ever feel at that period that France domineered over the councils of this country, in order to carry her own objects, or that England on any occasion had truckled to France in the negotiations in
798
which he was concerned. France was not then allowed to act as she had done of late, nor would she now have been so allowed had that Statesman been spared to his country. Feeling as he did on these subjects, it was impossible for him not to state his sentiments unreservedly. His Majesty's Ministers had reproached and blamed him for these discussions; but, they had done an infinite deal of good. The tone of the speeches delivered on that side of the House had been taken up by his Majesty's Ministers. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, had talked of pursuing "the even tenour of his way," and had said, that he treated the Opposition with perfect indifference, and that nothing said on this side of the House had any effect on him or the measures of his Administration. As the noble Earl stated this on his honour as a Peer of Parliament and a Minister, he was bound to believe him; but if any of his noble friends behind him should ever again come into possession of the portefeuille of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—which, if Whig supremacy under the passing of the Reform Bill be not made eternal, may be the case—he should certainly beg to be allowed to see whether there were not some strange alterations in the Instructions sent after the debate which took place on the Monday as to Belgium. He should like to know what was done at the Conference immediately after this debate, on the Wednesday, and whether there were not some little memorandums then drawn up? He should like to see a copy of a certain short Protocol as to the fortresses, and also a certain private Letter, said to be addressed by the noble Earl at the head of the Government to M. Cassimir Perier, after the discussions in this House. He maintained that the speeches made in this House on that occasion (particularly the speech of the noble Duke near him) made a powerful impression on his Majesty's Ministers, which was visible at the time those speeches were delivered—it was universally noticed, and the discussion made the country know and feel that the course of his Majesty's Ministers, was most discreditable and disadvantageous. He believed that the debate had induced them to change—and insist upon the French troops being withdrawn from Belgium; otherwise they would have remained in that country. Before he concluded, he would beg to ask his noble friend whether

799
their Lordships were ever to have the communications respecting Portugal, which had been so long promised? Not a tittle of information had been laid before Parliament on our foreign affairs, since the present Ministry came into office, although negotiations had been carried on which had led to the most important results. The transactions with regard to Portugal were still wrapped up in mystery; and, if any reference were made to them, his Majesty's Ministers sheltered themselves by stating, that the House was not in possession of the papers which would enable it to come to an accurate conclusion; and now, if Parliament was to be prorogued—as it might be, according to what had passed in another place—and if no information was previously laid on the Table with respect to Belgium or Portugal, our foreign relations would be entirely at the mercy of his Majesty's Ministers, who had gone on so long without affording Parliament the slightest information on any one of those subjects with which it was most important their Lordships should be fully acquainted. The noble Marquis concluded by moving, "That an Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to order, that there be laid before the House Copies or Extracts of all Communications that have recently taken place between his Majesty's Government, and the Governments of France and Belgium, relative to the employment of French Officers for the avowed purpose of disciplining, organizing, and acting with the Belgian Army.
Viscount Goderichwas afraid that, in the few observations which he should have the honour of addressing to their Lordships, he should be under the necessity of inflicting a grievous disappointment upon his noble friend who had brought forward this Motion. His noble friend appeared to think that it was the duty of the Government on this occasion to take an opportunity of entering into a general discussion of a most discursive nature, not only upon every point connected with his Motion, but also upon every other point which his noble friend had raised with regard to Portugal, to France, and, indeed, with regard to the foreign policy of this and of all other countries in Europe. Now he must be allowed to tell his noble friend, that either he or his noble friend had altogether mistaken the duty of an Administration, circumstanced as the present was, and
800
that he should, far from embracing, take care to avoid the opportunity which his noble friend had so temptingly furnished him with. A discussion like that in which his noble friend had embarked, was not only inconvenient, but even painful to the Ministers, under existing circumstances, because there was no other mode by which they could vindicate themselves from the imputations which his noble friend had cast upon them, than to abandon their duty by entering into explanations which would be in the highest possible degree detrimental to the public interest. His public duty restrained him from entering into the statement of those facts which were necessary for the vindication of himself and his colleagues; and his noble friend, therefore, must be left in the enjoyment of all the triumph he could obtain by casting imputations, which were not the less unfounded because it happened to be necessary that the public service required that the refutation of them should be delayed. He hardly knew how to deal with the motion of his noble friend, or, he should rather say, the speech of his noble friend. If he admitted any of the propositions which his noble friend had laid down, then his noble friend would claim credit to himself for having drawn correct inferences from those propositions; and if he gave his noble friend any explanation at all, his noble friend would be sure to ask for more. His noble friend appeared to think that discussions of this nature were the easiest possible. ["No, no" from the Marquis of Londonderry.] No: he knew that his noble friend had not said so; but then the clear and obvious inference from the course which his noble friend had pursued was, that nothing could be so easy as to discuss publicly, negotiations which, besides being the most important and most delicate possible, were not yet completed. He must contend that this was not a fair course of proceeding, and that there was as little of justice as of good reasoning in his noble friend's saying—"If you do not give me the information I ask, then the accusations I make against you must be true." This, he said, was not fair, because, though his noble friend would doubtless be very much gratified with that information, yet his noble friend ought to know that it was information which the Ministers were bound in duty not to give him. Unless his noble friend could prove that it was fair to assail an opponent whose

801
hands were tied, his noble friend must fail in demonstrating that the course of his proceeding was not unfair. This, then, was his answer to the motion of his noble friend; and with this answer he should cheerfully throw himself upon the good sense and justice of their Lordships, but that he felt himself called upon to advert to one or two points of his noble friend's speech. The first of these points—though the most insignificant of them—which he felt himself called upon to notice was this; his noble friend had asked him how it happened that, he, who had been a party to, and a coadjutor in the great settlement of Europe in 1814, could agree with his noble friend at the head of the Administration in the observations which his noble friend had made against many portions of that settlement. Now he assured his noble friend that he had given him credit for a part which he had not taken in that settlement. He was not even a member of the Cabinet at that time, although, through the kindness and attention of a relative of his noble friend, he had been made acquainted with the grounds of that settlement. He had no hesitation in saying, further, that he cordially agreed in that settlement, not because he thought it the best settlement, but because he thought that it was the best which could be effected under existing circumstances. He might have thought that, with regard to many parts of it, a much better settlement might have been made, and his noble friend was mistaken if he supposed that others, who were really what he was not—parties to the settlement—did not entertain the same opinion; but the question was, not what might be the best settlement, but what was the best settlement that could be made under all the various circumstances which must of necessity be considered in order to make any settlement at all. According to the limited means of judgment which he possessed at the time, he thought that the best settlement that was practicable was then made. Whether, will better means of forming an opinion, he had altered that judgment, or whether he retained that judgment still, were matters of no moment whatever; because, as a Minister, he was not called upon to look back to what things were seventeen years ago, and act in conformity with them, but it was his business, and the business of every other Minister, to look at existing circumstances, and to deal with them as
802
prudence, and justice, and the national interest required. But his noble friend had said to him further—"How could you, a party to the great settlement of Europe in 1814, agree to the separation of Belgium from Holland?" This was really a most extraordinary question. Had he or had any of his colleagues been parties to this separation? Did they not find that separation effected when they came into office? Had not the present Administration, on their accession to office, found both the Revolution in France and in Belgium completed? His noble friend must, upon a moment's reflection, see that the present Government could have had no hand in consenting to either of these events, and he could assure his noble friend, that the one great object of himself and his colleagues had been, to render those events as innocuous as it was possible to render changes so important and so extensive as these changes were; and he need hardly observe, that all changes which were sudden in their advent, and extensive in their effects, might, though tending to the most beneficial, lead to the most disastrous results if not watched over. Far be it from him to blame any one who had been a party to these events, and he had made these observations for no other purpose than to show how unreasonable was the imputation of inconsistency which his noble friend had been pleased to make against him. Another part of his noble friend's speech to which he desired to advert was that which related to Prince Talleyrand, whom his noble friend had supposed to have great influence upon the councils of this country, and whom, proceeding on that supposition, and upon certain parts of that illustrious person's past life, this noble friend had thought he was justified in pursuing with the most acrimonius animadversion, although an ambassador from a friendly power. His noble friend, to do him justice, had not dipped his arrows so deeply in gall on this as on a former occasion; but still he must say, that his noble friend had, even on this occasion, indulged in language the most imprudent and the most indiscreet, that any public man could be betrayed into with regard to the ambassador of a friendly Power. He would not willingly have touched upon this part of his noble friend's speech, because he thought, that the sooner it was forgotten the better; but then, if he were wholly silent on the subject, it might be

803
supposed, that the Government were of opinion, that these animadversions were not misplaced; and if that were the case, the plain inference was, that Prince Talleyrand ought not to be allowed to remain here. If the Government entertained the same opinion as his noble friend of Prince Talleyrand, it would be their duty to represent to his majesty the king of the French, that they could not transact business with such a person. He felt it necessary, therefore, to speak as he had spoken respecting these aspersions of the character of an individual whose station ought to have shielded him from such an assault. He knew that his noble friend would say that, because he protested against this indiscreet, and imprudent, and unjustifiable language, the Government were truckling to France. Let him, however, remind his noble friend, that Prince Talleyrand had been the Minister of the last two kings of France; and that Prince Talleyrand had also had a large and important share in the deliberations of the Congress of Vienna—the result of which deliberations the noble Marquis thought so wise and so good. Surely the noble Marquis might have remembered these facts; but if he had, he would never have entered upon the unjust, as well as the invidious, occupation of ransacking every portion of Prince Talleyrand's life, and bringing up in judgment against him, as present deeds and as acts of this day, transactions which had taken place when the circumstances of France were so different, and when no man could act as his reason or his inclination dictated, but as the strong and uncontrollable tide of affairs compelled him to fashion his course. He should be glad to meet in detail if he could, the charge of his noble friend, that this Government was truckling to France; but his noble friend had found the justification of that charge in a heap of measures and transactions which his noble friend had so huddled together, that he confessed he could see nothing but confusion in them. With the charge, therefore, and with that only, was it possible for him to deal. In the outset he indignantly denied, that there was the slightest ground for the accusation. The conduct of this Government towards France had been regulated only by considerations of amity and justice, which considerations had regulated their conduct towards every other power; and never,
804
he was happy to say, had there been a time at which a more cordial unanimity existed between a Government of this country and the representatives of all the Great Powers of Europe than the present moment. His noble friend had, indeed, stigmatized the policy of the Government in the harshest terms, and had given his advice as to what their policy ought to be, but he hoped, that no future Ministers would be absurd enough to take his noble friend's advice, however kindly it might be offered; and he could assure their Lordships, that the present Government to whom that advice was offered in any but terms of friendship, would never dream of taking his noble friend to their councils. He had only now to notice the nature of the information which his noble friend sought to acquire by this motion, which information related to the intention of king Leopold to include in his service foreign officers, and, among those, French officers. He had already stated, that the public interest precluded him from meeting this subject as it ought to be met. Allow him, however, to observe, that it was by no means a matter of course, that an independent State—for Belgium was an independent State, however difficult might be the circumstances by which it was surrounded—should be interfered with by any other State for the purpose of preventing it from taking into its military service foreign officers. Indeed, this, which his noble friend complained of as an intention of King Leopold, was a common practice with other Sovereigns—he might almost say an universal practice. There was nothing new in it; but, on the contrary, some of the most eminent soldiers who had led armies to battle, had not been natives of the countries whose forces they commanded. This was particularly the case with Russia, among whose Commanders who had not been Russians, it would be sufficient to mention General Diebitsch and Admiral Greig. His noble friend had, perhaps, forgotten, that it was under the auspices of the latter that the Russians first attempted to form a navy. The same was true with regard to Austria, to Prussia, to Spain; and, indeed, to every nation in the world. He need hardly observe, that Holland fell under this rule; or, he should rather say, that her forces had more commonly been led by foreigners than by Dutchmen, General Chassé, he believed, was a Frenchman.
[Here a noble Lord, either the Lord Chancellor or some other noble Lord in his vicinity, made an observation; but in a tone so low that it was not heard at the bar. Viscount Goderich appeared not to have observed it, and was continuing his speech, when]
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, "My Lords, I rise to order. I beg to put it to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether it is orderly for a noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or for any other noble Lord, to prompt another noble Lord when he is speaking. I beg to put this question to the noble and learned Lord."
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to state that I cannot sit here to be bothered with questions which emanate from the ridiculous ideas of individuals, who cannot or will not see anything however clear, nor understand anything however intelligible, and who, whether a noble Lord is engaged in conversation, or whether he addresses the House upon his legs, seem, by an unhappy infirmity of nature, to be lamentably incapacitated from understanding what is going on. I beg, moreover, to state to the noble Marquis, whom I have in my eye, that for the future I will answer no question of his—and will give him no information whatsoever. If the noble Lord feels aggrieved at anything I may happen to do, let him proceed against me by a vote of censure, and I trust I shall know how to defend myself, but I will answer no more of his questions.
The Marquis of Londonderry: I only asked the noble Lord a question as to a point of order, which I conceive that I had a perfect right to do. As to the personal and offensive expressions which the noble and learned Lord has thought proper to use towards me, I beg to tell the noble and learned Lord, that I shall be glad to hear them repeated in another place, and—
The Duke of Richmond: My Lords, I rise to order. I move that the words of the noble Marquis be taken down.
The Lord Chancellor.—No; I trust that my noble friend will withdraw that motion, and allow so trifling, absurd, and insignificant a matter to remain where it is. Perhaps, to your Lordships I ought to answer on the point of order. My answer then, is, that, strictly speaking, for one noble Lord to prompt another—as the noble Marquis calls it—is quite as much out of order as ninety-nine out of a hun-
806
dred of the things which day after day pass in this House—or perhaps I am wrong even in allowing that one of every hundred of those things would be within the strict line of order, if each were subjected to the strictness of the letter of that line. As an illustration, let me observe, that if the strict rule of order had been observed, I ought to have called the noble Marquis to order when, in rising to put a question about Belgium, he made a speech about Spain, and Portugal, and Holland, and France, and Prince Talleyrand, and a thousand other matters. As to the hint which the noble Marquis has thrown out to me—filling as I do the highest judicial office in the land—and in a public assembly like the present, where such hints are not usually given—as to that hint, my Lords, I have only to say, that it has never been my habit to say in one place anything which I would not repeat in another; and that it is not likely I should fall into that habit now.
The Duke of Richmond: I shall certainly withdraw my motion, at the request of my noble friend. I am sure that the noble Marquis, when he talks of order, must see that nothing can, by possibility, be more disorderly than for a noble Lord to rise in his place, and invite the Lord Chancellor—or, indeed, any other noble Lord—to fight a duel; for such was the meaning of the words of the noble Marquis, and it is of no use mincing the matter.
The Marquis of Londonderryrose again, and Lord Goderich with him. The former attempted to address the House, but
Lord Hollandsaid, that he also must rise to order. When a noble Lord was interrupted upon a point of order, as his noble friend had been, that noble Lord had a right to be first heard.
Viscount Goderichhad some difficulty in speaking to the point of order, and had risen for the purpose of closing those observations which he was addressing to their Lordships when he was interrupted by his roble friend. He must, however, say, that if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had made any observation, not one word of that observation had reached him. He would not detain their Lordships any further than to observe, that he might add to the catalogue of officers in the service of countries of which they were not natives, the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, whom every one knew not

807
to be a native of Holland. If, then, the practice of employing foreign officers was common to every Power in Europe, surely there must be a very strong case made out before one country could be justified in interfering with an independent Power, for the purpose of preventing that Power from indulging in a practice which had not been denied to any other Sovereign. He believed that no case had been made out, and he could not consent to give his noble friend the information he sought to obtain by his Motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that in the very few words which he had to offer on this subject, he could assure the noble Lords opposite, that nothing could be further from his wish than to embarrass the Government, or to disturb that good understanding which, he was most happy to hear, prevailed between this and the governments of the other Powers of Europe. He must further assure their Lordships, that there was no man in this country more desirous than he was, to witness the preservation of peace, not only between England and France, but all over Europe. He might differ with the noble Lords opposite as to the best mode of preserving that peace, but he certainly did not differ from them as to the necessity of preserving it, and he should most assuredly do nothing to hamper or to obstruct them in their exertions for the attainment of that most desirable of all objects. At the same time he was free to confess, that his view of the subject before them (which was the employment of French officers in the Belgian army) was different from that taken by the noble Lord who had just sat down. Before, however, he stated what his view of the subject was, he must be allowed to say a few words respecting the illustrious individual who had been strongly animadverted upon by his noble friend near him. True it was, that that illustrious individual had enjoyed, in a very high degree, the confidence of his noble friend's deceased relative; and true it also was, that none of the great measures which had been resolved upon at Vienna and Paris, had been concerted or carried on without the intervention of that illustrious person. He had no hesitation in saying, that both at that time, in every one of the great transactions which took place then, and in every transaction in which he had been engaged with Prince Talleyrand since, the latest of which had occurred during the
808
short period in which he had been in his Majesty's councils after the late revolution in France—he had no hesitation, he said, in declaring, that in all those transactions, from the first to the last of them, no man could have conducted himself with more firmness and ability, with regard to his own country, or with more uprightness and honour in all his communications with the Ministers of other countries, than Prince Talleyrand. They had heard a good deal of Prince Talleyrand from many quarters, but he felt himself bound to declare it to be his sincere and conscientious belief, that no man's public and private character had ever been so much belied as both the public and the private character of that illustrious individual had been. He had thought it necessary, in common justice, to say this much of an individual, respecting whose conduct and character he had had no small means of forming a judgment. As to the subject before their Lordships, he could but remind them, that it was one in which the interests of Europe at large were materially involved, though we had taken the greatest part in it. When King Leopold left this country, he had congratulated their Lordships upon the proof which his Majesty then gave of his desire to be an independent sovereign. He believed that it was the intention of Government that he should continue independent, as well of this as of all other Powers. He firmly believed, moreover, that it was owing to our Government that the French army had been withdrawn from Belgium, and that the Government had insisted upon this withdrawal, from the conviction that King Leopold could not be independent while that army remained in Belgium. It was his opinion, that there never was, in any part of the history of the world, a period at which it would be more easy than at the present, for the independent sovereign of an independent State to assume a station independent of all the world, as a neutral State of Europe. This it was, at present, in the power of King Leopold to do, but it might not be in his power to do so a few months hence, for the events of a few months might make this as difficult as it now was easy. The noble Lord who had just sat down, had said, that, as an independent Sovereign, King Leopold had a right to take foreign officers into his service, and the noble Lord had instanced the practice of other countries in proof of this position. But,

809
allow him to observe, that if Belgium were like Prussia or Russia, which had very large armies, the employment of foreign officers would not be a matter of much consequence, because the number of them must bear a small proportion to the number of native officers, and a still smaller proportion to the number of the troops; Belgium, however, had an army of not more than 20,000 or 30,000 men at most. Let their Lordships remember what the commander of a regiment was—he was the very mind and soul of his soldiers. Let them look at their own Acts of Parliament, and they would find that, by the law of England, foreign officers were not allowed to serve our King. And why had such Acts been passed? It was because we were sensible how vast was the influence which the officers must necessarily have over the soldiers they commanded. Such, too, had been the law of Belgium, until it was altered at the instance of the King. It was said, that there were now in Belgium as many as 400 foreign officers. He had heard, too (he should be glad to learn that this was not true), that 200 cuirassiers had entered Tournay, that there were as many as 800 at Liege, and 300 or 400 in Ath. These reports might be erroneous, but the statements with regard to the officers rested upon good authority. They knew that French officers had received permission from the king of the French to serve in Belgium; but upon what condition? Why, the condition was, that they should wear the French uniform, and wear their national cockade. There was another point, too, connected with this subject, which ought not to be overlooked. General Belliard, one of these officers, was not only a soldier of well-known military talents, but he happened also to be the French Ambassador at Brussels. The noble Lord had said, that King Leopold was an independent Prince. Independent? What, with an army of 20,000 soldiers, officered by Frenchmen? The thing was impossible! But they had been told, that the independence of the king of Belgium was to be guaranteed by England and by the other great Powers of Europe. This, however, was again impossible, for there could be no such guarantee if the king of Belgium was to have an army so constituted. He supposed that this plan of officering the Belgian army with Frenchmen was a substitute for the use of French troops. if so, he must be allowed to say, that the
810
substitute had been most unwisely chosen. But this was not all. By the proposed arrangement, the Netherlands were to constitute a neutral State. He did not quarrel with this arrangement, considering the difficulties which would stand in the way of any other arrangement; and in spite of the inconveniences which might result from it to the other parts of Europe—inconveniences to which he was by no means insensible—he really believed that the arrangement would be found to answer if it were carried into strict execution, especially by France. The Netherlands, however, could never be a neutral State with such an army as it was now proposed to give to King Leopold, and he was sure it was only necessary to allude to these considerations, in order to awaken the noble Lords opposite to a sense of the impossibility of effecting what they proposed. No one could be more desirous than he was, to see this arrangement succeed, in order that the anxiety of Europe might no longer be intently fixed upon that part of the world; but it never could succeed if this military plan were allowed to go on. There was yet another point in which he should wish to put this subject, and that was, that the assistance of French officers was altogether unnecessary. He thought that he might speak with some degree of accuracy on this subject, because he had opportunities of knowing a little of that country and of its army. When the unfortunate dispute between Holland and Belgium broke out, and the expedition of Prince Frederick against Brussels failed, the military force of the two countries separated. All the Belgian officers remained in Belgium, and it was well known, that the service they had seen must qualify them for the duties which it was now proposed to confide to foreigners. Then there was the youth of Belgium. Was it meant to be contended that the youth of Belgium would not take up arms in defence of a Monarch who had been elected by the voice of the people, and that it was necessary for King Leopold to apply to his neighbour, the French King, for military assistance? He denied the existence of any such necessity. But he would not detain their Lordships further. His object in making these observations had been, to expose an arrangement which would make King Leopold little better than a Prefect of France, and lead to consequences that England would deplore.
Lord Hollandmerely rose for the purpose of observing, that, in order to come to a decision upon the Motion before them, it would be by no means necessary for their Lordships to enter into the consideration of the subjects to which the noble Duke had adverted. There was one part of the noble Duke's speech which had given him the greatest pleasure, and which reflected the highest credit upon the noble Duke. He need hardly say, that he alluded to the temper, the manliness, and generosity with which the noble Duke had animadverted upon what had fallen from the noble Marquis with regard to Prince Talleyrand. On public as well as on private grounds he thanked the noble Duke for that part of his speech. There could be little difference of opinion as to the injustice, and the want of generosity, of speaking in harsh and insulting terms respecting the ambassador of a friendly Power, resident amongst us. On the other hand, he felt that there could be no good taste in dwelling upon the virtue and merits of a man's own acquaintance, in an assembly like that of their Lordships; yet he trusted that he might be allowed to observe, that forty years' acquaintance with the noble individual who had been alluded to, enabled him to bear his testimony to the fact, that, although those forty years had been passed during a time peculiarly fraught with calumnies of every description, there had been no man's private character more shamefully traduced, and no man's public character more mistaken and misrepresented, than the private and public character of Prince Talleyrand. With regard to the question before their Lordships, he must remind their Lordships, that in coming to a decision upon it, they had merely to consider whether any parliamentary grounds had been made out for the production of the papers it called for. It might be, that much that had fallen from the noble Duke was of such a nature as to render it deserving of the notice and consideration of King Leopold; but had their Lordships any thing to do with it? He thought not; and if the Motion were agreed to, would that enable the Government to form a better opinion on the subject? Certainly not. The general principle applicable to this subject was, that an independent Prince might employ foreign officers if he thought proper. It was true that we had a municipal law—a very wise municipal law—
812
which prohibited foreigners from Serving in our army; but that law would not give any stranger the right of saying, that though we might choose to repeal that law, still we should not employ foreign troops. This was an internal regulation of our own, and whether we adhered to it or abandoned it, was our own affair, not the business of any foreign Power. Our municipal law did not change the general principle—a principle which had been acted upon by every nation in the world without any exception, and particularly in Portugal, where foreign officers had frequently been employed for the temporary purpose of organizing the military force of that country. And herein, let him observe, lay the fallacy of the noble Duke's reasoning; for the noble Duke had made no distinction between permanent employment, and the organizing and disciplining a force, which was a temporary affair. Well, then, if the general principle—the universal right, was as he had stated it to be,—and he believed that no one would venture to deny the position—the only remaining question was, whether there was in this case any peculiar circumstances, which took Belgium out of the general principle. If there were any such peculiar circumstances, had their Lordships any reason to believe that the Government had lost sight of them? No one had assigned any reason for such belief—no one had even expressed such belief. If there did exist such peculiar circumstances, and if there were no reason to believe that if they did exist, the Government, would lose sight of them, must it not be clear that the Government were engaged in a negotiation of considerable importance and delicacy, which, by agreeing to this Motion, their Lordships would take out of the hands of Government into their own management? This, he apprehended, was the real state of the question before their Lordships. The speech of the noble Duke might be, and, in his opinion, would have been, an exceedingly good speech for the Parliament of Belgium, but not for a British Parliament. He would not go into the facts connected with the subject, for that would be in effect to agree to the Motion, the object of which was, of course, to get at those facts. The noble Duke had justly stated, that the object of the settlement of the affairs of Belgium was, to make it a neutral State, and the noble Duke had admitted that he liked

813
the arrangement. But the noble Duke had forgotten that Belgium was not yet placed in that condition. King Leopold, at present, was only under an armistice with a neighbouring and hostile Power, and he was therefore taking, not from France only, but from any other quarter from which he could procure them, the means of organizing his army, which, surely, was not an improper but rather a necessary precaution, while in the neighbouring country preparations were making for warfare. The steps, therefore, which King Leopold was taking, might, in this view of the question, be very fairly considered as steps essential for his own defence. Let their Lordships see also to what inquiries discussions like these might lead. Might they not excite other Powers to call for an inquiry into the military force of each other? Might not Belgium call for an investigation into what was going on in the Dutch army, and might not France demand to know how many Prussians or Austrians happened to be in the Russian army which occupied Poland? He put forward these considerations for no other purpose than to show the tendency of discussions like the present; because he had already slated that he resisted the Motion for the reasons, that no parliamentary grounds had been made out for it, and that, if agreed to, it could not by possibility lead to any good.
The Earl of Orforddid not mean to deny the right of any independent Sovereign to engage in his service the officers of a foreign State, since he could not be expected to know, or, perhaps, to be able to ascertain to what country they belonged. At the same time, there were peculiar circumstances in the relations of this kingdom, France, Belgium, and Holland, that rendered the employment of French officers in the service of Belgium a matter of considerable delicacy. The French force having withdrawn, the enlistments from foreign States might amount to a new force as a substitute, and this Government ought to look with peculiar jealousy to the establishment of an army nominally Belgian, but virtually French.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the ground upon which he rested his opposition to the production of documents, if any such existed, was similar to that which had already been stated by his noble friend (Viscount Goderich). That ground was independent of any matter of
814
merits, and merely related to the expediency of the course recommended by the noble Mover. The question of interposition with the affairs of an independent State was at all times one of extreme delicacy, and at the present moment the difficulty was much increased. The embarrassment would be still further augmented by a compliance with the proposition of the noble Marquis. He would not be led away on this occasion to enter into the various more extensive topics upon which other noble Lords had incidentally touched, and which, in his opinion, had been somewhat injudiciously introduced into the discussion. The objection he had taken had been also relied upon by the noble Lord who spoke last but one (Lord Holland), and it did not seem, therefore, at all necessary that he should further enforce it. He could not help thinking that the debate upon these topics, however interesting and important, was premature, and that it would tend rather to retard than promote the object which the noble Marquis (Londonderry) himself no doubt had in view—the general pacification of Europe, and the removal of all the difficulties that at this moment presented themselves.
Lord Holland, in explanation, very briefly re-stated the point he had advanced in opposition to the Motion, adding, that he fully concurred with his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that after what had already been advanced upon this subject—after, in his opinion, the unanswerable arguments of the noble Duke (Wellington), and after the reply that had been attempted by noble Lords in various departments of the Government, he was content to leave the matter as it stood, without giving the House the trouble of coming to a division. He would say no more on that subject, but advert to a different topic. He entreated their Lordships to bear with him for a few moments only, while he endeavoured to clear himself, and to set himself right with reference to what had passed in the earlier part of the evening. He begged to state most distinctly, that he invariably paid the greatest respect to all that fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and as it was his anxious wish, so it was his constant endeavour, to avoid every thing that might be considered personally acrimonious. If he were at all times desirous of avoiding offence, he was

815
more peculiarly so at this moment, when the House was on the eve of discussing a most important question, in the result of which the nation was so deeply interested. Hostility of the kind to which he had referred, at such a time was peculiarly objectionable. He was not aware, and did not believe, that he had ever given the noble and learned Lord just ground of exception, yet he could not help feeling, and therefore expressing, that no noble Lord who had ever addressed the House, had met with the same harshness of treatment as himself, and that not on this occasion only, but constantly and continually. This harshness applied equally to the arguments he had taken the liberty from time to time of using, and to the manner and form in which he had judged it right to clothe those arguments. It was not in human nature not to bear this circumstance in mind, and it was not extraordinary, therefore, if he were now and then betrayed into expressions which he had, no hesitation in admitting had been better avoided. The House would be aware, that on this very night the noble and learned Lord had again applied to him language, to say the least of it, of a very harsh description, solely, as the noble and learned Lord had admitted in the candour which really belonged to his nature, and which at times he so well knew how to display, because what he had then said was not absolutely and strictly in order. He had then thought it right to reply to the expressions of the noble and learned Lord in a manner which, in his cooler moments, he was satisfied he should not have exhibited. If in the course he had taken, or in what had fallen from him under circumstances of some irritation, he had employed expressions painful to the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, he desired that noble and learned Lord and the House to be assured that he had not intended them to be so. He wished to be permitted to add, what, indeed, he had already said, that it was far from his wish to come in collision with the noble and learned Lord at any time; all he asked was the display of a little more charity of manner, if not of feeling, on the part of the noble and learned Lord, and to avoid the infliction of that harshness of which he had so much reason to complain, if at any time hereafter he should have occasion to comment temperately upon the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Re-
816
verting again to the immediate topic before the House, he had only further to say, that after the speech of the noble Duke, which could not fail to produce its impression, even upon his Majesty's Ministers, he should be content to withdraw his Motion, satisfied with the good it had already accomplished.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that after the courteous expressions used towards him by the noble Marquis, which he heartily accepted, and after the explanation, so fit and proper, and at the same time made in so manly a spirit, a spirit of which he, as well as all their Lordships, must be sensible—he was anxious to say, that he had not heard without considerable pain the statement of the noble Marquis, that he was prone even to go out of his way to speak harshly of the manner in which the noble Marquis thought proper to discharge his duty in Parliament. He regretted that such was the impression upon the mind of the noble Marquis; but he should regret it still more if he felt that the remark was really justified by any part of his conduct. From the moment the noble Marquis commenced his observations of the kind, until now, he had been taxing his memory, in vain, to call to mind any occasion on which he had not been the party in the first instance attacked. While he said this, he was perfectly ready to admit that, it would be far better in future to put an end to any such disagreeable altercations on both sides. He was ready and willing to come to terms, to agree upon an armistice, or to sign a treaty of peace with the noble Marquis, which he was satisfied they could accomplish satisfactorily without the intervention of Prince Talleyrand, or any other great diplomatist. He would be his own ambassador, his own negotiator, on the subject; and, if he were let alone, he would engage never to break the engagement by becoming the attacking party. It was his earnest wish that the treaty should be permanent; but, at all events, a truce until the end of the Session, he was in hopes he could ensure, with the condition, that hostilities should not be renewed on either side without forty-eight hour's notice.
The Marquis of Londonderryrose merely to say, that he should be most willing to accept the terms proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
Motion withdrawn,