Sitting of 5 June 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir O. MOSLEY, from persons employed on the canals and in the potteries of Staffordshire, for a better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Sir C. B. VERE, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. WODEHOUSE, and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates.— By Mr. WILKS, Mr. TOOKE, Sir R. FERGUSON, and other hon. MEMBERS, from various places, in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Sir GEORGE CLERK, from parish clerks in Scotland, against the registration of Births and Marriages (Scotland) Bill.

COMMERCIAL DISTRESS. — THE CURRENCY.
Lord J. Russellrose to move the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee upon the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. T. Attwoodrose to move an amendment. The House of Commons appeared to him to be like Nero fiddling whilst Rome was burning. They had been dabbling with small game for some months past, whilst a general conflagration had risen among the commercial and manufacturing classes, and was now extending its ravages rapidly among the agricultural and labouring classes. This was a state of things which appeared to him to demand an inquiry. In his mind, the welfare of Ireland was more implicated in the amendment which he was about to propose than it was in any measure which could be proposed for the relief of the poor in Ireland, much more than it was in the measure now before Parliament for their relief. The House had been told by the noble Lord, on a former evening, that it was wrong to consider the present distress of the country as anything comparable to the distress of 1825. Now, with all deference to the noble Lord, he must say, that the noble Lord had no experience of the distress of 1825, either commercially or politically. If the right hon. Member for Tarn worth were present, he would assure the noble Lord from the highest authority, that the sufferings of the mass of the people of England at that time were not half as great as at present. He
1190
admitted that the pressure at that time was greater upon the bankers. The pressure, however, upon the merchants was much greater now than it was then, and the manufacturers and labourers of the country were not suffering then one-millionth part of what they now suffered. His hon. Friend, the Member for Caithness, had been taunted by the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department with anticipating events. The noble Lord said, that his hon. Friend was anticipating calamity. He did not know what the noble Lord considered a calamity. Perhaps the noble Lord, if London and Westminster were both swallowed up by an earthquake, and he himself were to escape, would not consider the loss of those two cities as a calamity. He, however, deemed it to be a great calamity, when 2,000,000 of honourable and upright men — men as honourable and upright as the noble Lord himself, though not so high in rank and station—were plunged in privation and poverty. Plague, pestilence, and famine, were each a great calamity, but were not, when combined, such a calamity as that of depriving one-third of the population of this empire of the means of daily subsistence. He would undertake to say, that from the year 1810 up to the present day there was no man living who had applied so much time as he had applied to the subject of the currency, or who had possessed such opportunities as he had for investigating all its ramifications. Seeing, then, that ruin was attacking the vitals of English commerce, he took the liberty of calling back the attention of the House; but why should he say calling back the attention of the House, when its attention had never yet been directed to the subject? He took the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the real interests of the nation, which had been little consulted by Parliament since it had become a reformed Parliament, and had not been consulted by it, he did not know how long before it became a reformed Parliament, Without further circumlocution, he would call the attention of the House of Commons—the reformed House of Commons—to the very serious condition in which the large masses of the people of England were now placed. Every Member who then heard him knew that ruin had fallen on the commercial and the manufacturing classes. They heard men say, "How can Government be justly made responsible for the imprudence and want of caution on the part of those

1191
classes?" He insisted that the commercial and manufacturing classes had not been guilty either of imprudence or want of caution. The plain matter of fact was, that they had dared to carry on their business under one state of the currency, when they were liable to be called upon to redeem all their obligations under another. The Government and its laws had created a state of fictitious prosperity, which they had afterwards changed into a state of real adversity. The unhappy merchants were not at all to blame. They supposed that they were acting under the protection of British laws, and they were ignorant that the noble Lord and his colleagues in the Ministry had changed them fraudulently and secretly. They had contracted debts under one set of prices, and they were now suddenly called upon to pay them under another. They had contracted debts when cotton was selling at 8d. a-pound; they were now called upon to redeem them when cotton was only 4d. a-pound. The same was the case with tobacco and tea. Hence it happened that every man was compelled to pay 200 l. for every 100 l. of debt which he had contracted. The merchants, he repeated, were not to blame for the ruin in which they were at present involved, for they had been swindled out of their property by the fraudulent operation of the laws. They would be wealthy even now if justice were done them; but they found their wealth passing rapidly away from them because justice was denied them. The House had been told, on a former evening, that the Bank of England ought to give assistance to such of the merchants as were at present in difficulties. Now unless the Government was prepared to repeal the law which coerced the Bank of England to pay in gold, all that the Bank of England could do by assisting the merchants would be to involve itself in the same common ruin with them. The law at present compelled the Bank of England to pay its notes in standard gold. Four years ago the measures of Government had compelled the Bank of England to relax the screw. They had compelled the Bank to issue new supplies of paper. The discontents which prevailed in consequence of the prevalent distress of 1832 required that issue of bank paper. The Government had done more than this; it prevailed upon the Legislature to pass acts making bank-notes a legal tender for all sums above 5l., and abolishing altogether the usury laws. They thus gave the fishes
1192
plenty of water to swim in—they first fastened down the plug of the pond in which the fishes were indulging themselves, and then, when their delight was at the highest, they pulled out the plug and let the water off, and then the unhappy fishes found themselves all of a sudden floundering in the mud. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but this was literally the fact. Ministers first raised prices above the level of fixed charges, and the consequence was, that the industrious and labouring classes in the manufacturing districts flourished in an eminent degree. After two or three years, however, they reduced prices below the level of fixed charges, and thus brought the country into the same state of calamity which it had experienced at former periods. Recently the measures of Government had all been taken for the purpose of forcing up the price of gold. For the last year all the Ministerial newspapers—more especially the Courier, the Globe, and the Chronicle—had been daily urging the Bank of England to contract the circulation, and to take measures to break down the price not only of foreign manufactures, but also of British manufactures, in order to compel foreigners, in two different ways, both as purchasers and sellers, to bring gold into this country. The conduct of Government and of the journals under its control was objectionable on two distinct grounds—first they stimulated the Bank of England to increase its circulation, and then, to bring back gold to the country, they stimulated it to contract the circulation, which they had before stimulated it to increase. The noble Lord at the head of the Home Department smiled at this, and shaking his head with a show of gravity said, "Look at the speculators, and see how indiscreet they are." Yes, indiscreet they undoubtedly were in trusting to the professions and promises of a Whig Ministry, and they now find that in leaving the Tories to trust in the Whigs, they had dropped to use a vulgar phrase, from the frying-pan into the fire. He hoped, that hon. Members would attend to the question which he was now submitting to the House—it was quite as interesting as their bets at Ascot—indeed, a subject more vitally important could not be submitted to the consideration of a British House of Commons. He knew that the hon. Members who were now laying their bets and making up their books did not consider him as worthy of their attention as the representatives of Oxford and Cambridge.

1193
He admitted, that he was nothing more than the representative of honest buttons and buckles; but it should be remembered that those honest buckles and buttons were the sinews of England. The Church, he knew, was well represented in that House; so, too, was the army; so, too, was the law,—indeed the law was excellently well represented; but as to the bees of the social hive, they had but a few representatives in that House, and he had the honour of being one of them. He was at that time coming forward to fight the battle for the bees, and in spite of all the humming and buzzing of the drones, he would never hesitate to come forward to perform his duty towards them. The analogy between the bees of the social and those of the political hive was becoming stronger and stronger every day. The drones might depend on it that, if they ventured to appropriate to themselves too large a share of the honey, they would be expelled from the hive by the bees. He did not blame the drones for seeking to get as much of the sweets as they could; but he should blame the bees if they allowed their hives to be laid desolate for the mere purpose of preserving the drones. He endeavoured to be the friend of all classes, and he knew, that by protecting the lower classes from oppression, he was acting as the truest friend to the aristocracy of the country. The injustice of Government in asserting that the indiscretion of the mercantile and commercial classes had been the cause of their present ruin, was extreme. The indiscretion of those classes was not the cause of their ruin. The cause of their ruin was the unjust, imprudent, and impolitic conduct of the Government under which they had the misfortune to live. The House had been told, that what they then saw of this ruin would be the end of it. He denied it. They had been told, also, that if left to itself it would rectify itself to-morrow. He denied that too. The distress which had been occurring at stated intervals during the last twenty years never had rectified itself, never could rectify itself, and never would rectify itself without the interference of that House and of the Government. He took a gloomy, he was sorry to say, a very gloomy view of the future. If he could believe that the distress would end in the failure of 100 merchants in London, and of 500 merchants throughout all England, and in the privation of 1,000,000 of labouring families throughout the country, he should, not
1194
despair; but his belief was, that the distress would go on ad libitum and ad infinitum, until it involved both throne and altar in one common ruin. He did not like to spread anything like alarm. [Roars of laughter on both sides of the House.] Hon. Oxford-bred Gentlemen might smile and laugh at him; they might know more of classics and literature than he did, but as to the knowledge of commerce and manufactures, they were, when compared to himself, like so many butterflies. He insisted that there was a great calamity now resting upon the country, and that there was a still greater calamity than any now felt impending over it. Unless the House and the Government interfered to stay the march of ruin, it would be universal. In 1833, the Ministry of the day had made him a member of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into the condition of the manufacturing interests of the country. From what Ministers had seen of him on that occasion, they had taken special good care not to put him on any other Committee since. He believed in his conscience that they would as soon see Beelzebub himself on any Committee as himself. Ministers at that time told him a fine story about the prosperity of the country, but somehow or other he did not believe a word of it. He asked them, in consequence, this question—"Do you mean to say, that the East India trade is in a state of prosperity?" To this question they replied, "Yes." "How, then," said he to them, "do you explain the failure of the three great East India houses which have just taken place?" "Oh!" said they, "those parties were ignorant, incompetent, insufficient, incautious.' He had then asked them this question—"Do you not believe that all the merchant princes of India are tarred with the same brush as the partners in those three great houses?" As soon as he had put that question, he was met with loud cries of "Oh, oh!" His question was ordered to be erased from the minutes of evidence, whilst the answer to it was allowed to remain thereon, because it stated that the prosperity of our trade with India rested on a basis strong as a rock of adamant. Well, what was the result? In six months from the day on which he asked that question, seven others of the "merchant princes" failed; and of the various merchant bankers who then carried on business in India, only one now remained solvent: Some houses, he knew, could bear, enormous losses, and he believed that

1195
there was scarcely one house in the country which had not suffered enormous losses of late years. In the last spring, he had spoken about the state of the trade of London to a merchant of great intelligence, whom he believed to be as well acquainted with the state of trade in London as any man could be. He mentioned to him the opinion which Mr. Baring had given in that House upon the subject, only a very short time before he was elevated to the peerage. Mr. Baring had said, that there was not, at that time, one-twentieth part of the wealth in London that there had been twenty years before. He asked his friend whether that opinion was correct? His friend replied in these terms—"I assert, that of every twenty rich merchants who stood on the Exchange of London twenty years ago, nineteen are gone, and only one is solvent, and that one is either a gambler or a speculator." From the wide extent of the distress now prevailing, he saw no chance of its speedy termination. They must have seen from the public journals that the destruction of the prosperity of England had affected the remotest corners of America. Not only was it felt in New York and in New Orleans, it was also felt in the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Yellow Sea of China. At New Orleans, the merchants had been more broken down by the action of the Bank of England than they had been by the combined action of Jackson and Van Buren. At New York, the merchants found the value of their cotton reduced fifty per cent. by the operation of the laws which the noble Lord had passed in this country. The noble Lord had taken it into his head that by bringing down the price of commodities in foreign countries, and by reducing the price of British manufactures at home, he should compel the foreigner, by the sale of his own commodities and by the purchase of British manufactures, to remit back the gold which he had taken from this country. It had been said elsewhere that the attack which had been recently made on the joint-stock banks and on the American merchants had been made for the express purpose of pulling down the prosperity, the fictitious prosperity, of the country. It had likewise been said, that that fictitious prosperity had been nothing but over-trading. Now, he was prepared to contend that there had been no over-trading in this country. All the goods that had been manufactured in this country last year, and all the goods that had been imported into it during that
1196
time, had been taken into the consumption of the people as fast as they made their appearance. There was then no overtrading, the people were then living and letting others live; they were producing one set of commodities and were purchasing another. Now, alas! they had only work-two days in the week, and that was called over-trading. The fact was, that the Government had made a false step some years ago, and every measure which they had since taken to get rid of the consequences of it, being taken in a wrong direction, only increased the difficulties, and aggravated the horrors of their situation. They had first increased the circulation amazingly, and then suddenly during the last twelve months they began to contract it as rapidly. They said, that the Bank of England should pay gold for what it owed; but they well knew the Bank of England could not pay in gold one-hundredth part of what it owed. "Then," said the noble Lord to the Bank, "let us take care in our tampering with the circulation that we leave all the big fishes water enough in which to swim, as we need not care whether we save or destroy the lesser fry." That advice, unfortunately, had been acted on. The Government had attempted to keep the Church, the aristocracy, and the Crown safe, but in their attempt had shown their ignorance of the science of government. They were egregiously mistaken in the policy which they had adopted, for when they made the masses discontented, they undermined not only the foundations of the Church and of the aristocracy, but also the foundations of the Throne itself. He was the surest friend to the Church, to the aristocracy, and to the Throne, who was prepared to do justice to the masses, and, if he might borrow a phrase from his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, he was prepared to call for "justice for the people of England." For his own part, he would lift up the men who were compelled to pay in high prices the debts which they had contracted in low prices. He would have all men redeem their debts, obligations, and taxes in a medium of equal value to that in which they had engaged to pay them. In making that proposition, he was the best and truest friend of the aristocracy, for in taking away from the lower classes the pabulum of discontent, he strengthened the bulwarks by which the aristocracy strengthened both itself and the Throne. The tender mercies

1197
of the Whigs were like those which the right hon. Member for Tamworth had inflicted on the country, and under which it had long been suffering and would long continue to suffer. Those tender mercies were the very refinement of cruelty, for he meant to assert, that under their operation all classes of merchants had been involved in one common ruin. It might be said, that this was the language of alarm. He cared not for that—truth should be spoken at all times. He defied all alarm. He said, that the merchants of London, of Manchester, of Liverpool, of Glasgow, and of Birmingham, were tarred, one and all, with the same brush. The House and the Government should therefore put out a strong arm in time. He would tell the noble Lord a secret. He had no doubt that the noble Lord thought that a button-maker could not tell his Lordship a secret. He had recently told a noble Lord, a friend of the noble Secretary for the Home Department, that if he fancied that he could learn the real state of trade by inquiring of any merchant in the city, he was woefully mistaken; for if he got an answer at all, he would be certain to get a false one. He had given the same piece of information in 1832 to the noble Secretary for the Home Department, and he would repeat it again now for the noble Lord's information. The noble Lord would perhaps recollect, that in 1832 he had told him that he took a gloomy view of the state of our commercial and manufacturing interests. The noble Lord in reply said to him—"How is it, Mr. Attwood, that you take this gloomy view of affairs; for when I go into the city of London I do not get any such view communicated to me?" "No," replied he, "I know you do not—the answer which you get from the merchants you consult is nothing better than a mighty big lie." He would not accuse any of those gentlemen of the crime of wilful falsehood, but he would say, that their answers would be as wide of the truth as a lie. He would name J. Maberly and W. Manning, and they, if asked six months before their failure, to tell the real state of the commercial world as far as they knew it, would either have preserved a dead silence, or if they were appealed to on their honour they would have told truths which would have appalled the public. He could name other distinguished members of great commercial firms, who once possessed immense wealth, but who were now poor, and dying of broken hearts. They were men who were
1198
murdered by an unseen hand. But the Government while all this ruin was going on said coolly, "How can we prevent improvidence and overtrading?" There could be no such thing as overtrading as long as all hands in the country were kept at work. It might happen that one particular trade might for a time absorb more capital and more industry than was necessary for the country. That he did not mean to deny, but as a general principle, and as applying to the whole country, there could not be overtrading. But then they had been told by Lord Liverpool that the distress of the country was occasioned by a superabundance of the gifts of providence. They were like the flies in the honey-bottle, perishing in the midst of their own sweets. If the sound principles on which a currency should be conducted had been observed in 1815, the Speaker would not be sitting in that chair; a reformed Parliament would not be sitting in this House, the Test and Corporation Act Repeal Bill, would not have passed, the Catholic Emancipation Bill would not have been carried; but when the public mind became excited and exasperated at the course pursued with respect to the currency, first came the Dissenter, and then the Roman Catholic, and each grafted his own specific on the general mass of discontent. It was said that men who had property to lose would preserve social order, but who were the men who had property? He knew that many merchants, who twelve months ago were possessed of more than 100,000 l. were now not worth 10,000 l., and this was brought about by secret and unseen laws, which mole-like worked under ground, and of the working of which not one merchant in a thousand knew any more than the mole. In the last twenty years the commercial, mercantile, and manufacturing interests, had had five convulsive fits, and they were now undergoing a sixth. The noble Lord and his Friends would not administer any remedy, except now and then a little alcohol. The first convulsive fit was in 1816. Gold was then 5l. 11 s the ounce but it soon fell to 4l. 2s. At that period of the high price foreigners sent us in large masses of wheat, on which they realized a profit of from 40 to 50 per cent., but this increase on our imports placed a tax to the same amount on our exports, for the foreigner had to give an ounce and a-half of gold instead of an ounce. In June 1816, Lord Liverpool, alarmed at the state of the country, brought forward in the House of Lords a measure for renewing for two years

1199
the Bank Restriction Act, which was then about to expire. He then borrowed 6,000,000 l. for the purpose of increasing the circulating medium. This was putting in the plug at the bottom of the pond and giving the fishes more room to swim about. Then came the convulsion of 1818. On that occasion he (Mr. Attwood) went to Lord Liverpool, and apprised him of the state of the country, but Lord Liverpool said there was no danger of greater distress. He then said that the manufacturers were going to be butchered, and he would go home and set his house in order. He told Lord Liverpool what would happen. In the autumn of 1818, the second convulsion was brought on by Lord Liverpool reducing the Bank circulation one-eighth. Then, in March, 1819, came Mr. Peel's bill, but a Committee was first appointed to inquire into the effect of the reduction of the circulation In the preceding autumn. Some of the most experienced merchants and bankers of the day were examined and asked what would be the effect of the reduction of the circulation by another eighth. They said that it could not be borne by the country, and the result, the reduction of paper circulation, was scattered over a period of four years; but in the mean time the screw was put on to reduce the circulation. Well, what did Lord Castlereagh do in 1822, after his return from his diplomatic mission? He first declared that four and sixpenny wheat, or threepenny beef could not be borne by the country, and he brought in five bills in one day. The first was to legalise the payment of 1l. notes for eleven years, and to continue the Bank charter for that time. The second was to transfer the dead weight to the Bank, as a means of puffing up and extending the circulation. The third was to enable the Government to borrow 3,000,000 l. from the Bank to pay off the dissentients to the reduction of the five per cents. The fourth was to enable the Bank to lend money to the East India Company, and the fifth was to enable the Bank to lend money on land. These were all good and sound measures, and the result was that for three years the country enjoyed undeviating prosperity. Then came the panic of 1825. On that occasion the Bank were under the impression that their stock of small notes were exhausted to about half a million, but he (Mr. Attwood) told them that they were in error, and he set the directors and their clerks to work, and on examining, instead of only half a million, they found that they had three millions and
1200
a half. This discovery was made just nine days before the payment of the dividends, and set all matters to right for that time. After this, Lord Liverpool brought in and passed an act to abolish 1l. notes, but in a fortnight after, he came down to the Lords and said, "I have a secret to tell you. Those rascally bankers are making a run on the Stamp-office for fresh supplies of stamps to enable them to issue more 1l. notes during the passing of the act. They are going to inundate us with 1l. notes, and we shall be drowned in the deluge." The remedy he proposed was, to prevent the Stamp-office from issuing stamps, and to trust to an act of indemnity for taking that step. Well, in a month after that, he came again to the Lords, and said, "My Lords, I have another secret to tell you. Those rascally hankers are going to starve the country out of 1l. notes, and not to issue any more of them." He quoted the substance of the noble Lord's remarks but he did so in his (Mr. Attwood's) own rough phraseology. Well, Lord Liverpool's plan was to pass an act to extend the issue of 1l. notes six months beyond the time previously proposed. These tamperings with the currency were the causes of the distress which now affected the country. This distress was not brought on by the faults of merchants or manufacturers; it was the fault of the law, and he called on the House to revise and reconsider that law. The Legislature could not succeed in going against a nation. If a nation had grown old in the use of one state of the currency, it would be impossible with safety to change it to another. Violent changes of the currency had been the commercial ruin of many countries. They had been the ruin of Spain and Portugal, and Italy and Egypt. He would next call the attention of the House to what had been done twelve months ago. The Bank at that time set its face against joint-stock banks, and also against some of the leading American merchants. These had been in the habit of dealing in one currency, and they continued to do so, Well, the gold was found to be going out of the country, and the Bank and the noble Lord (John Russell), and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, set their heads together, and the result was, that the Bank gave notice that it would not discount the bills of any joint-stock bank issuing notes, and that it would not discount a bill with the name of any American merchant to it. One consequence of this was, an immense and immediate stagnation of trade

1201
of all kinds. He knew himself of one merchant, who was in the habit of dealing with Birmingham manufacturers to the amount of 250,000 l. a-year, who did not now expend 2,000 l. a-year with them. The dealings of others had been greatly reduced, and that of some had ceased altogether. What had been the practice? Why, when Peel's bill had destroyed the old set of merchants, a new set started up, who shaped their dealings according to the provisions of that bill. They purchased large supplies of goods from the manufacturers, for which they allowed them at once to draw bills for two-thirds of the value. Those bills were immediately discounted, and in twenty-four hours after, the money was circulated to produce food and clothing for the workmen and families employed by the manufacturers. When the cotton and tobacco, which were brought home as returns for those shipments, arrived, the manufacturers drew on the merchants for the remaining third of the value of the goods bought of them, and in that way they got on. What was there of overtrading in this? The manufacturer got a vent for his goods. The produce of this country was exchanged for that of others. If it had not been for the measures restrictive of the currency adopted in this country, the Americans, who felt most severely their effect, would have been able to pay the 7,000,000 l. of balances they owed us. All the embarrassments arose from intrusting people with the management of business who were totally unacquainted with it. Who would ever have dreamed of committing the destinies of America to a backwoodsman, and those of England to an Oxford scholar? And what were the public prints now doing? The Times or the Chronicle was calling on the Bank of England to contract the circulation by 2,000,000 l. The idiots! What was wanted was 2,000,000 l. more of circulation instead of 2,000,000 l. less. The Legislature might just as well compel the people to work with golden spades and golden axes as to pay their debts with a golden circulating medium; indeed, the last would be the less infliction of the two on the country. In our divided and subdivided industry money was not at present what it used to be 300 years ago. It had now become the circulating medium of the country, and it was absolutely vital to the body politic. It was not so vital 300 years ago; and money might then have been entirely annihilated without much harm done. In the present day the extent to which the system of the
1202
divison of labour was carried was wonderful; the money transactions were comparatively trifling, an exchange of mutual industry being made through the agency of credit-money. Let hon. Members turn their attention to the clearing-house in London. Twelve hundred millions, the result of bill transactions, were there annually wiped off the books by the medium of a single piece of gold, and it might be computed that each of the bills had, on an average, passed through three hands. The country would have been much happier if that House had never been induced to tamper with the currency. The quality of the circulating medium had been likened by Mr. Rothschild to electricity; and he said that if it were touched the effect would be felt to the remotest corners of the earth. In 1819 he had claimed an inquiry; but inquiry was refused, both by Lord Liverpool and by that House. In 1821 the agricultural committee sat, and he was examined as a witness. He then pointed out the state of things which must happen—that every farmer, every manufacturer, and every merchant must he ruined; that it would be impossible for the landlords to get any rent if the metallic standard was acted on to its full extent. He was, however, stopped by Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Ricardo, who told him that they had come to a resolution not to inquire into the currency. As he attributed the distress of that period to the state of the currency, he certainly thought it surprising that a committee of inquiry should have resolved not to inquire respecting what he conceived to be the cause of the distress. As he had before stated, the panic of 1825 was blown over by a large and sudden issue of 1l. notes: next came the embarrassments of 1830, and from the nettle misery we plucked the flower liberty. The Reform Bill was passed; and he was inclined at first to regard that measure as a most beautiful creation; but he was sorry to say that it had turned out little better than a witch's phantom. When in 1836, the Bank of England attacked the joint-stock banks, and compelled them to contract their issues, the greatest misery ensued to large classes of the community, and especially to the working classes, who up to that period, had enjoyed much prosperity. The same misery prevailed to a still greater extent in 1837, and was attributable to the same cause; and for his part he conceived that the Government had been guilty of wilful neglect, in not having altered, before this, the existing law. Notwithstanding the

1203
16,000,000 l. to which the circulation of the Bank of England amounted—making, in addition to its deposits, a sum of 22,000,000 l., he would assert with confidence the disgraceful fact that the Bank-was not possessed of more than 2,000,000 in sovereigns at Threadneedle-street. Their bullion was said to amount to 4,400,000 l. Of this there was of course a large portion in silver. And he asserted, and he spoke upon good authority, that in Threadneedle-street there was not at this moment more than 2,000,000 l., or at the utmost, 2,500,000 l. in sovereigns. He would suppose a certain amount of bonds were sent over from America to this country. Nicholas Biddle might send over bonds which he sold at five per cent., the interest in New York being six per cent. He would suppose that bonds to the amount of three millions were sent over, and that these were discounted at 10 per cent. What would be the consequence? The holders of these bonds, after getting them discounted, would go with paper to the Bank of England in twenty-four hours. He could produce a demand on the Savings' Banks alone of 9,000,000 l., payable in ten days. Why, he could make a demand of 80,000,000 l., and stop the Bank of England to-morrow; and were they to sit still under such alarming circumstances without applying a remedy whilst the present system was throwing thousands of families into the utmost distress. Were but a hundredth part of the national debt demanded, a sum not exceeding 8,000,000 l. sterling, the Bank of England would be obliged to stop payment to-morrow morning. Why, the country banks could make demands on the Bank of England to the amount of 10,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l of sovereigns. They were living now in the midst of calamities; thousands of families were thrown out of bread; and, amid the various sources of danger by which they were surrounded, was it right that Government should permit the continued existence of this state of things, without making the slightest movement towards the investigation of their causes, or the application of a remedy? The business transacted now in bills of exchange was not of one-half the magnitude that it was a year ago. Public credit had, in fact, not only been injured but it had received a serious shock. The mercantile, trading, and labouring classes were, of course, the first sufferers; but even the fundholders would not escape. Whatever hon. Gentlemen might think, he contended that the fundholders would not
1204
only be eventually injured, but, of all the victims, would be most mercilessly treated. How differently (compared with that of England upon the subject) had been the conduct of Austria, of Prussia, of Russia—of those countries which they called "barbarians!" Compared (in certain respects) with England, they might justly be termed so. But if England were not herself barbarian, she, undoubtedly, had a barbarian Government; a Government, which for many years past had adopted barbarian measures, and acted on barbarian principles in the paper system which prevailed in this country. The silver ruble and the paper ruble had each, respectively, in Russia, their fair value attached to them. There was consequently no fictitious currency created; and public credit had been maintained upon a solid basis in that country for years. Russia flourished in peace; and she was able to go to war when she pleased. She had recently humbled the British Lion to the very dust. Though the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, might forget the affair of the Vixen, the people of England never would. And the "barbarian" nation, as it was called, which had achieved this triumph, had been enabled to do so because its monetary system had been based upon principles of justice and of sound policy. The people of England had the experience of twenty-seven years, commencing with 1810, to prove that whenever the Government was slow to enforce the standard of value, the industry of the country was rapidly the gainer, and that, on the contrary, when they enforced the standard of value, the strangulation of the industry of the country was the consequence. Let not ministers "lay the flattering unction to their souls" that the people would bear with this continued depression of their industrial energies. They looked upon the Whigs as, in this respect, no better than the Tories. The Tories held a pistol to the people's head, and boldly cried "stand and deliver!" while the Whigs held out the hand of good fellowship on one side, and presented a dagger on the other. Had the industrious classes been properly represented in that House, these measures never would have passed. The idea by which the majority of hon. Members seemed to have been all along actuated was, that, no matter what number of the people might starve, the standard of value should still be preserved inviolate. They first made food scarce, and then they made money scarce—money, without which

1205
food could not be procured. This was their baneful policy. He trusted that by adoping his resolution, they would evince their determination to confer upon the country a real solid, and lasting prosperity. They should repeal their Poor Law, their Corn Law, and their Money Law Bills. If they were not relieved by law, the people would relieve themselves. Millions of the people were now in a state of destitution, or bordering upon it; and if relief were farther withheld, a civil war, like that which now prevailed in Spain, with all its incalculable calamities, might be the consequence. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to exercise the necessary control over the Bank of England, every broken merchant in England would become rich in a month. He repeated his conviction that such would be the result, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to stop the Bank of England with regard to its issues to-morrow. He would not only retrieve those who had already been made sufferers, but he would save hundreds of others from sharing the same fate, prevent millions from being thrown out of employment, and convert a miserable into a happy people. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment to the order of the day, the following resolution; "that in the opinion of this House the present system of currency is not efficient to meet the wants and protect the interests of the community."
Lord J. Russellshould not be doing his duty if he were to enter into this discussion. The hon. Gentleman had come down to that House and made a speech of nearly three hours duration without having given any notice whatever of his intention to bring the subject before the House, and had proposed a resolution which was inconsistent with acts of Parliament and with solemn resolutions of that House which had been affirmed after various debates. He must therefore protest against such a course as entirely incompatible with public convenience and the state of public business; and if such a resolution were to be carried by surprise on any occasion, he was convinced it would only tend to the embarrassment of that House, give rise to further debate, and be reversive of decisions already come to by the House on the subject. For these reasons he should altogether decline to enter upon the question proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He had proceeded in the regular course by asking the House to go into Committee on the
1206
Irish Poor Law Bill, which had been already several times before the House; but the hon. Gentleman had thought fit to interrupt that course, without notice, by entering into all the various questions connected with trade and currency, which the House had so frequently before entertained, thereby pursuing a course which was quite irregular, and which he would conceive he was only favouring and participating in if he attempted to reply to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Sir G. Sinclairsaid, that had not the hon. Member for Birmingham brought this question forward, he (Sir G. Sinclair) would have considered it his duty to have done so, for the country never was in such a state, or so imperatively demanded the immediate interference of the Legislature. If there were hon. Members, therefore, in that House who believed that they would not be doing their duty to their constituents or the country, unless they called upon that House to interfere and endeavour to avert the additional evils to the manufacturing and labouring classes which were likely to flow from the present disastrous state of things, he did not see why they should be obstructed in that course, or told it was inconsistent. He thought, that the House should enter upon the consideration of the hon. Member's amendment.
Mr. Youngentreated the hon. Member for Birmingham not to press his motion.
Mr. D. Barclaysaid, he was unwilling to let the hon. Member's statement go forth without stating that in his opinion, it was very much exaggerated. The present state of embarrassment was, in a great degree, if not entirely, owing to extraordinary speculations—an evil which he thought would rectify itself.
Sir J. R. Reidquite agreed in the observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Sunderland. The present embarrassed state of affairs he believed to be nothing more than a passing cloud, and he had every hope that the country would shortly be relieved from the difficulties by which it was at present surrounded.
Mr. Harveyfully participated in the inconvenience which hon. Members felt would arise from the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he certainly did not think that the Government could be expected, on a subject of such grave importance, and without notice, to stand forward and combat the arguments and statements, some of which, perhaps, they did not understand, of so renowned a

1207
political economist as the hon. Member for Birmingham; the more particularly as that hon. Gentleman, conversant as he was with this subject, had deemed it necessary to take three hours for the delivery of his opinions on it. The Government, however, were not free from blame on this subject, for at the beginning of the Session, when a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the condition of joint-stock banks, they had refused to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex, to the effect that the inquiry should embrace the conduct of the Bank of England. The Government were, he conceived, blameable on that head; and he would suggest that even now a Committee ought to be appointed to inquire how far the conduct of the Bank of England had tended to bring about the state of things which the hon. Baronet who had last spoken had assured them would turn out to be nothing else than a passing cloud. How far it proved a passing cloud to those upon whom it had broken, to those who were shadowed by its darkness, to the tens of thousands who were now striving to rise from circumstances over which they had no control, and were little acquainted with, events alone would show. Although the inconveniences which hung so heavily on the industry of the country, were doubtless pregnant with mischief, yet he did hope and believe that there would spring from them an advantage commensurate with the evil, inasmuch as it might lead the poorer classes to direct their minds to the cause of the delusion. They had an institution called the Bank of England, which possessed the mighty power of controlling the fortunes and despoiling the prospects of every man in the country. The mightiest masses of wealth were not beyond its blow, any more than the gatherings of the labouring man. He thought that the Government would not be doing its duty, and that the House would be departing from theirs, if they did not institute an inquiry into the cause whence sprung the present calamitous state of things, which was bearing down the prosperity and industry of the country. He agreed with very little of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham. Instead of a paper, he was an advocate for a metallic currency, at the same time that he was aware a metallic currency could not co-exist with a debt contracted in paper. We should have more money and less debt.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 85; Noes 24: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lister, E. C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Longfield, R.

Baines, E.

Martin, J.

Barclay, D.

Maule, hon. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bernal, R.

Musgrave, Sir R., Bt.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, D.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Ferral, R. M.

Brodie, W. B.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Parnell, Sir H.

Browne, R. D.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Buller, E.

Pease, J.

Burdon, W.

Pendarves, E. W.

Collier, John

Potter, R.

Collins, W.

Pryme, G.

Coote, Sir C.

Pusey, P.

Crompton, Samuel

Reid, Sir J. R.

Divett, E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Farrand, R.

Richards, Richard

Fector, J. M.

Roche, W.

Fergus, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Fitzsimon, C.

Rundle, J.

Forster, C. S.

Russell, Lord J.

Fox, C.

Scrope, G. P.

French, F.

Seymour, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Sharpe, General

Gladstone, W. E.

Smith, R. V.

Goulburn, H.

Smyth, Sir H., Bart.

Grattan, J.

Steuart, V.

Grey, Sir G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hastie, A.

Thompson, Colonel

Hawes, B.

Thornley, T.

Hay, Sir A. L., Bart.

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Hinde, J. H.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Hindley, C.

Vivian, John Ennis

Hodges, T. T.

Warburton, H.

Howard, R.

Wemyss, Captain

Hume, J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Williams, W. A.

Jackson, Sergeant

Wood, C.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Johnstone, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Jones, T.

Baring, F. T.

Lefevre, C. S.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, M.

Maxwell, John

Borthwick, P.

Palmer, George

Bridgman, H.

Richards, John

Brownrigg, S.

Ruthven, E.

Chichester, A.

Scholefield, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

Denistoun, A.

Sinclair, Sit G.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Wakley, T.

Elley, Sir J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Forbes, W.

Wodehouse, E.

Halse, James

Harland, Wm. Chas.

TELLERS.

Houldsworth, T.

Attwood, T.

Jones, Wilson

Harvey, D. W.

POOR-LAWS IRELAND.
The House in Committee on the Poor-laws (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Stanleyobjected to the 43rd Clause on the ground that it sanctioned the endowment by the State of 100 Roman Catholic clergymen in the various workhouses in Ireland. He therefore hoped it would be postponed with the view of devising some means of modifying its operation.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had heard nothing to convince him of the inexpediency of this clause. With respect to the observation of the noble Lord, that it would, pro tanto, be endowing the Roman Catholic religion, he begged to remind the Committee that clergymen of that church were now paid by the State, in point of fact, they attended at the barracks in Dublin; and it would be unworthy a liberal Government not to provide the poor inmates of workhouses with religious instruction according to the creed they professed.
Sir George Sinclairthought the noble Lord's argument struck at the root of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. If the State paid the Roman Catholic clergy employed in workhouses, they might as well endow Roman Catholicism at once.
Mr. O'Connellhoped the Government would persevere with the clause. The question was, whether the Roman Catholics confined in workhouses should be excluded altogether from the means of religious instruction and consolation in connexion with their own form of worship.
Lord Stanleymaintained that the real question was, not whether the clergymen of any persuasion should be prohibited from visiting their flock in the workhouse, but whether, for the purpose of forcing the introduction of the Roman Catholic clergy into every workhouse in Ireland, they should establish a deviation from the English Bill, and compel the Commissioners to give them salaries unlimited in extent, and over which the rate-payers should have no control. In the English Bill, the appointment was vested in the Board of Guardians; but here a distinction was made in favour of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, which Parliament had not thought it necessary to make in favour of the Protestant clergy of England.
Viscount Howickcontended, that the circumstances of the two countries were altogether different. The question was, whether religious instruction should not be
1210
provided for the inmates of the workhouses in Ireland, because the great majority might be Roman Catholics.
The Committee divided on the clause:— Ayes 122; Noes 36: Majority 86.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lynch, A. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mactaggart, J.

Angerstein, J.

Martin, J.

Bannerman, A.

Martin, T.

Baring, F. T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, H. B.

Mullins, F. W.

Baring, W. B.

Murray, J. A.

Baring, T.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Berkeley, hon. G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Connell, D.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, J.

Biddulph, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blake, M. J.

Ord, W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Palmer, General

Bowes, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Bridgman, H.

Parker, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Parnell, Sir H.

Brotherton, J.

Parrott, J.

Browne, R. D.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Callaghan, D.

Pechell, Captain

Chalmers, P.

Ponsonby, J.

Chapman, L.

Ponsonby, W.

Clive, E. B.

Power, J.

Codrington, Admiral

Pryme, G.

Collier, J.

Pusey, P.

Coote, Sir C.

Roche, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rundle, J.

Denistoun, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Ruthven, E.

Donkin, Sir R.

Scourfield, W. H.

Elphinstone, H.

Scrope, G. P.

Evans, G.

Seymour, Lord

Fazakerley, J. N.

Steuart, R.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Finn, W. F.

Stuart, V.

Fitzsimon, C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

French, F.

Talbot, J. H.

Gordon, R.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Goring, H. D.

Tancred, H. W.

Grattan, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Grey, Sir G.

Thornley, T.

Hastie, A.

Tooke, W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Heneage, E.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Tulk, C. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Turner, W.

Howick, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Hutt, W.

Wakley, T.

James, W.

Walker, R.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Whalley,Sir S.

King, E. B.

Wigney, I. N.

Knight, H. G.

Wilbraham, G.

Labouchere, H.

Williams, W.

Lennard, T. B.

Williams, W. A.

Lennox, Lord G.

Williamson, H.

Lennox, Lord A.

Wilson, H.

Longfield, R.

Wood, C.

Lucas, E.

Wood, Alderman

1211

Worsley, Lord

TELLERS.

Woulfe, Sergeant

O'Ferrall, M.

Wyse, T.

Smith, R. V.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Agnew, Sir A.

Irton, S.

Archdall, M.

Johnston, A.

Baines, E.

Jones, T.

Bateson, Sir R.

Kearsley, J. H.

Bolling, W.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lygon, hon. General

Chichester, A.

Mackenzie, T.

Dick, Q.

Marsland, H.

Dunbar, G.

Patten, J. W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Elley, Sir. J.

Richards, J.

Forbes, W.

Sheppard, T.

Fox, C.

Stanley, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

West, J. B.

Goulburn, H.

Wilbraham, B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Ross, G.

Jackson, Sergeant

Sinclair, Sir G.

The clause added to the Bill.
On Clause 47 being put, "That Commissioners may visit and regulate hospitals and other charitable institutions not wholly supported by voluntary contributions,"
Mr. Sergeant Jackson Mr. Sergeant Jackson moved, that the words "or by private endowments," be added. He thought that institutions thus supported should not be subject to the control of the Commissioners.
Viscount Morpethsaid, he considered the amendment judicious, and he would not object the insertion of the words.
Mr. O'Connellthought it would be advisable to postpone the clause.
Mr. Wakleythought the principle of this clause unconnected with any other involved in the Bill, and that it would have a most injurious bearing on the interesls of the medical profession. He moved that it be postponed.
On this amendment the Committee then divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 109: Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Bridgman, H.

O'Connell, M.

Crawford, W. S.

Ruthven, E.

Ferguson, R. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Fitzsimon, C.

Warburton, H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Wyse, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, J.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

O'Connell, D.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Angerstein, J.

Adam, Sir C.

Archdall, M.

Aglionby, H. A.

Baines, E.

1212

Bannerman, A.

Ingham, R.

Baring, F. T.

Inglis, Sir R.

Bateson, Sir R.

Irton, S.

Bell, M.

Jones, T.

Bewes, T.

Labouchtre, H.

Blackburne, I.

Lefroy, A.

Blake, M. J.

Lefroy, hon. T.

Borthwick, P.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bowes, J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bowring, Dr.

Longfield, R.

Broadwood, H.

Lucas, E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Brodie, W. B.

Martin, T.

Brotherton, J.

Maxwell, J.

Browne, R. D.

Morpeth, Viscount

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Callaghan, D.

Mullins, F. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Murray, J. A.

Chalmers, P.

Nicholl, J.

Chapman, L.

O'Ferral, R. M.

Collier, J.

Parker, J.

Corry, right hon. H.

Parrott, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Parry Sir L. P.

Damer, G. L. D.

Patten, J. W.

Dick, Q.

Perceval, Colonel

Dowdeswell, W.

Ponsonby, J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Pryme, G.

Ellice, E.

Roche, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Etwall, R.

Russell, Lord John

Evans, G.

Scrope, G. P.

Forbes, W.

Smith, R. V.

Forster, C. S.

Stanley, Lord

Fox, C.

Stuart, V.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Talbot, J. H.

French, F.

Thomas, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Thornley, T.

Goulburn, H.

Tooke, W.

Grattan, J.

Trevor, G. R.

Grattan, H.

Troubridge, E. T.

Griesley, Sir R.

Wallace, R.

Grey, Sir G.

West, J. B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Wilbraham, G.

Hastie, A.

Wilbraham, B.

Hector, C. J.

Williams, W.

Herries, J. C.

Williams, W. A.

Hinde, J. H.

Williamson, H.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Wood, Alderman

Hodges, T. L.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Howard, P. H.

Young, G. F.

Howick, Viscount

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. H.

Steuart, R.

Jackson, Sergeant

Hay, Sir A. L.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Postage Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Earls of VERULAM and WARWICK, from various places, against the abolition, and by Lord BROUGHAM, from Reading, for the abolition, of Church-rates; and from Dumbarton, for Scotch Municipal Corporations Bill.—By the Bishop of CHESTER, from parishes in Westmoreland, against the abolition of Church-rates; and from Worcester, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.— By Lord PORTMAN, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord Broughamrose to call the attention of their Lordships to what, in his mind, and no doubt in theirs also, however they might differ upon other matters, was to be regarded as of paramount importance— he meant the state of business in that House; and, as connected with the business in that House, also to the state of business in the other House of Parliament, to which they were chiefly, if not entirely, to ascribe it—but if not entirely, then there could be traced in what he read of the records of the other House, the mischiefs that they complained of in their Lordships' House. The first mischief was that which might be stated in a single sentence—they had been sitting there between four and five months, and had been doing little or nothing. They had passed
1170
one Bill, which had given rise to considerable discussion on one or two particular points, but which, now that it was passed, was identically the same Bill that had been adopted by a Committee of their Lordships House, and which had been fully discussed two years ago. That Bill had been introduced by the Master of the Rolls. They had four or five alterations made in the measure. He had taken occasion at the time, to express his doubts as to these alterations at the time of their discussion. The Bill, however, left the House in all its substantial particulars identically the same with the measures that had left the Committee two years ago. He could not then, congratulate their Lordships on the subject of that Bill either in this or the last Session. Then there was another Bill—the Municipal Corporation Bill—a measure of very great importance, one that had undergone, he would not say two Sessions ago, but last Session, very severe scrutiny in a Committee of their Lordships. But, with the exception of these two Bills, had any one thing been done this Session? There was, in fact, absolutely nothing, with the exception of their agreement to the resolutions respecting the province of Canada. Upon those resolutions, their Lordships were unanimous in agreeing with the other House; their agreement being, as Bayes says, "when they do agree, it is wonderful." The measures came from the other House of Parliament at, as in 1835, so late a period, that it was almost impossible to pay attention to them. In three or four weeks, when the month of July had come, the whole of the business would be thrown upon them, and which, to be fairly done and deliberately considered, and efficiently accomplished, ought to be spread over the whole of the seven months. At that time he felt it his duty to complain of and lament the course that had been adopted by the majority of their Lordships; but he should be wanting in common candour, if he was, during the present Session, to state that the blame rested with the majority of their Lordships. He must confess, however, at the same time, that he looked with fear and trembling to the course which their Lordships might be induced to pursue with respect to some of those measures which would be brought before their Lordships; but he should be guilty of a gross breach of candour if he was not at once to admit that if their Lordships were to take the course which it

1171
was generally understood they intended to take—if they postponed their decision upon the measures which might come from the House of Commons in the course of the next six weeks or two months—he should be doing injustice to their Lordships if he did not at once admit that the fault was not at the door of their Lordships, but at other doors. He could understand the doctrine of those who said it would be better if our constitution were differently moulded, and that there should be but one legislative assembly—although they might be wrong, yet they held that opinion consistently. They said, let us have no more House of Lords —that he could understand. He could understand, though not so clearly, because it had never been stated so distinctly, the proposition of those who said, the present House of Lords, as now constituted, was ill adapted to exercise its legislative functions, and therefore that its constitution should be reformed and altered. They might hold that doctrine erroneously, but they also held it consistently compared with those who said there ought to be a House of Lords, who said they were satisfied with the present constitution of the House of Lords, who said a second House of Parliament, to revise the proceedings of the other House, and to originate proceedings of itself, was a necessary part of the constitution, and if not absolutely necessary, was highly expedient; and who, nevertheless, admitting that and resting their faith on that doctrine, took such precautions as made it absolutely—he was going to say physically—impossible that that other House of Parliament should exercise any one of those functions which they say are, as the law now stands, its just and lawful attributes; because, to crowd into three or four weeks, the measures which ought to take three or four months, at least, for the purpose of having them so understood that they might be fairly discussed and to be so discussed that they might safely be passed into laws by the machinery of that constitution of which those persons admitted the just force, and admitted the expediency, and at all events admitted the present lawful existence of whatever, in point of consistency, might be the conduct of the proceedings of the other class of reasoners to whom he had referred, theirs was utterly and hopelessly inconsistent. Having said so much of the evils, he would now entreat them to look at what might be considered as the
1172
source from which those evils arose; and neither in what he had said, nor in what he was about to state, did he take upon himself to throw blame upon any quarter whatever. He had no right, far be it from him to wish he had a right, to attribute this delay to the proceedings of the other co-ordinate branch of the legislature, for which, as representing the people of this country, he had, now did, and ever should entertain the most profound respect, a respect which he trusted he should share with the majority of those whom he had the honour to address. He wished to throw no blame whatever on the conduct of any individual Members, and the only means he had of knowing the proceedings of the other House were those which they had themselves enabled him to possess— namely, the printed votes which they had published. He ascribed no blame whatever to his noble Friend near him, at the head of his Majesty's Government. He might regret, perhaps, that Ministers had not originated some Bills in their Lordships' House. No doubt they had sufficient reasons for not doing so; and, therefore, although he expressed his regret that those Bills which might have been brought in there had been allowed to proceed first elsewhere, he threw no blame on them. Without attempting to assign reasons or motives to any person he thought he had a right to state to their Lordships what appeared to him to be one or two of the prevailing causes of that obstruction to the business of Parliament. First, one cause might be said to be certain privileges of the other House of Parliament, in respect of money bills and money clauses, which prevented the introduction into their Lordships' House of many measures, which were either money bills, or were so mixed up with bills of that description, that it had been found inconsistent with the exclusive privileges of the other House to which allusion was made on the Dublin Police Bill—some nights ago, to originate those measures in their Lordships' House, the consequence of which was, that a vast proportion of those bills were admitted not to be within the originating jurisdiction of their Lordships House, but only receivable there after passing the other House of Parliament. At one time, it was supposed that these privileges extended much further, and that a Bill, in which penalties were introduced, could not originate in that House. The inconvenience had been long submitted to; but so much of

1173
the mischief of which they were now complaining, namely, the postponement of the business of the House during the first two months of the Session had taken place, that it was found necessary to bring the subject forward in the other House, and his right hon. Friend, the Member for Montgomeryshire, had brought forward and carried a series of resolutions which enabled them to originate bills of that nature in the House of Lords. Now, that privilege might be extended a good deal without intending to interfere with what was exclusively the right of the House of Commons, namely, that of levying taxes upon the people, and bringing forward money bills. Without infringing upon that, he could not help thinking that some relaxation might be made in the rules which would be attended with the best consequences to the public, would tend to the convenience of legislation in both Houses, and would spread the business of that House more equally over the Session. There was a second cause, to which he had only adverted very generally, that was the right of parties to exercise their own choice in introducing bills into one House rather than the other. This was a point that could not be made matter of regulation; and he only threw out this observation by way of suggestion to the parties, as it would tend to expedite measures. He must say, that the general complaint now was, that the whole business was postponed to the end of the Session. There was a very great indisposition to begin, and the consequence was, that during the first part of the Session, little or nothing was done, and during the latter part there was a good deal too much done for the time left to do it in. His observation was not meant to apply to the present Government or the last—to that House of Lords or the preceding one; the system was at fault, and individuals ought not to be blamed for it. There was another thing to be considered in connexion with that subject, and one which he considered it was not impossible to provide a remedy for—he alluded to what was called the private business of Parliament, the mass of which had been increasing of late years, (although not so much as some would suppose) but which had been a very great burthen to the Houses of Parliament, and a great obstruction to legislation on public measures. Let them only see in what position the other House was placed, where Members
1174
were occupied the whole morning attending private bills—when, at one time, in their Lordships' House, ten or twelve Committees were sitting, and in the other from twenty to thirty at one and the same time—when the Members were obliged to attend these Committees, from the middle of the day to the sitting of this House-when many of them were harassed even before their attendance began by private communications with the parties interested, or with their own constituents. Even if they had no private business, or domestic concerns to attend to, their whole mornings were occupied in that way. Let their Lordships only consider what the state of Members of the other House must be, and how ill calculated they were to discharge their public duties, and nothing could be more likely than that these hon. Members should be wanting in their attendance, when it was necessary to keep the House together. It was not, then, to be wondered at—he only argued probabilities—if the result of that fatigue was, that the House did not sit, not being able to make one at four o'clock, and that Houses were not made for one or two days during each week; and if, after they had sat for an hour or two, they were counted out, it being found, in the course of the evening in consequence of the fatigue to which he had alluded, that it was more expedient to adjourn it than to go on, although there were thirty or forty orders and seventy or eighty notices which crowded the books; for that they were overwhelmed with this amount of public and private business their Lordships had only, in order to satisfy themselves, to look to the records of the House. Thus, with seventy-one notices upon subjects given on the first night of the Session, upon subjects, many of them of the highest importance to the interests of the nation, and of mankind, and others of minor import, and those had been increased to one hundred in the first week of its sitting, and, if he might venture to say, a very moderate per centage indeed of those had been disposed of, although they had been for four or five months upon the books. A very moderate per centage of them had even gone beyond the embryo state of notices in the first stage of their existence. Oppressed, then, as the other House was, with a heavy amount of business, and incapable, for the reasons he had already given, to sit for the purpose of expediting it— he would not say to get through it — but incapable of making even a serious im-

1175
pression on it, the other House was in the state to which he referred—a state in which their Lordships' House would also be from the same causes, if they were compelled to attend to private business during the morning, and if they had the same number of notices and orders to do with, which happily they had not, although it was a set off against the other evil, that of there being no business to be done in their Lordships' House for four or five months. Much of the business to which he alluded, was private business, but was, nevertheless, of great importance; not as of paramount import as public business could be, yet it was of great importance to the parties concerned; and thus the other House disposed in a Session of a greater amount of property, and of a greater amount of questions of private, interest, than all the courts of law and equity; in a year. No doubt those questions were of great importance to those concerned, and on reference to the amount of them which had been dealt with he found that in the course of the last five years, exclusive of the present, the average of local bills—for he meant to include local public bills in the list of private acts—that the average passed' was 161 each year, there having been not less than ninety-one passed during the last year. That was the amount of private legislation, which was, of course, a serious burthen upon both Houses of Parliament, from the obstruction to other business, which it caused, and, above all, from the unsatisfactory manner in which it was done and in which it must continue to be done so long as the present system was pursued, when the number of folio pages devoted to private legislation — of acts passed within the last two Sessions— was upwards of nine thousand. During the last six years and a-half, since the accession of his present Majesty, there were nearer 24,000 than 23,000 folio pages added to the statute book. There were in that time 23,700 folio pages in that species of legislation. The average number of bills passed in those years was l6l, but the number had been greater in former years. In 1825, there were 282 bills passed; in 1826, when the delusion that had existed respecting joint-stock banks was at an end, there were upwards of 200 bills. In 1813, there had been 295 bills passed. In the last twelve years no less than fourteen towns had had, in the course of every Session, two local acts passed. Southwark had had twelve, Edinburgh and
1176
Glasgow twenty-one, Liverpool no less than twenty-three, and there had been no less than 278 bills, all making local regulations for forty-live towns during the last twelve years. The expense of those measures was not less than 300,0001 l. This species of legislation, however, was not confined to towns, but extended to parishes. In the parish of Mary la bonne alone, since the year 1795, the local legislation occupied a volume of nearly five hundred pages, being much greater—he would not say than the Code Napoleon—but much greater than the Code Civile. Each of those acts, he begged their Lordships to recollect, having the effect of suspending the law of the land and interrupting private rights, sometimes of altering the law under which men had made their contracts and settled their affairs, and by which they supposed themselves safe — giving rights which the law repudiated, powers which the law did not authorise, and sanctioning wrongs which the law deprecated; that was, in short, but in truth, the effect of private legislation. It was most inconceivable that measures such as those he had stated, should have passed without more mature deliberation, and have been decided upon by those who had never heard the facts connected with them. He sought not to cast blame on any party— it was the system, and the system alone, of which he complained, and which by long usage had grown up into an inveterate practice. With regard to Members of the House of Commons the case was peculiar. Men went there under the influence, not merely of the importunity of friends, which might be resisted, but of the importunity of constituents, which could not be so safely resisted. He knew not, indeed, whether, strictly speaking, the constituents had not a claim on their representatives assistance. If he were asked to support a particular measure by any particular class of individuals, he had it in his power to reply that he was here in his individual capacity — he represented no one; but a man's constituents had a right to say, "You are the representative of our interests,". It, was true that an individual elected a Member of Parliament ought to consider himself the representative not alone of his particular constituents but of the country at large. It certainly was his duty to consult the interests of the public as a whole, but it must also be admitted, that his constituents, in so far as their local interests were concerned, had a

1177
peculiar claim on him. One of the standing orders of the House of Commons made it imperative to publish the attendance of the Members on Committees, and he found, from a record of their proceedings, which he held in his hand that the attendance on one Bill, which he would not name, but it was before the House this Session, was as follows:—On one occasion there were present forty-eight Members, then forty, then forty-four, then forty-two and then forty. He would suppose that every one person who was nominally entered as attending did attend the whole time, but it was possible that only five or six out of the forty gave a continued attendance. The average attendance for the first six days was forty-three. On the seventh day, however, there was an unusual attendance; it looked as if the Committee were disposed to work double tides. Suddenly, the number who appeared rose from forty to seventy-one. One might naturally ask himself what was the meaning of so sudden an increase—how was it, that there having been an attendance of only forty during the first six days, on the seventh day there was an influx of thirty additional Members? The riddle was soon solved by what followed. There was a vote, and on that vote he found that sixty-five divided. So that though there were never more than forty-two or forty-three present during the hearing of the business, the counsel having delivered their speeches, the witnesses having been examined, and the question coming before the Committee for decision, it was decided by the votes of sixty-five individuals. Some who thus divided had never attended till the sixth day, and there were several who attended for the first time on the day of the division. This course of proceeding was not confined to the case of which he had been speaking; it was of ordinary occurrence. He would give another instance still more remarkable. In the case to which he was about to revert the Committee sat for fourteen days. In the course of the eleventh and three subsequent days there were six divisions; out of these six, three were equal, and the matter was decided by the casting vote of the chairman. On the other three divisions there never was a greater majority than one; the numbers were seven to six or six to five; so that the going out of a Member, or the coming in of a Member who had not been in before, and who, there-fore, had not heard a syllable of the evi-
1178
dence, governed the decision. For the first ten days the Committee sat, the numbers who attended ran thus:—In the beginning there were seventeen, then thirteen, then seventeen, then eighteen; then, when they had got into about the thick of the business, the numbers dropped down to ten, the next day they were seven, then they began to rise again, and their Lordships would suspect the reason. From seven they mounted to sixteen, from sixteen to twenty-four, from twenty-four to twenty-six, from twenty-six to twenty-eight, thus rapidly reaching that number of twenty-eight on the eleventh day. This was to be accounted for by the division. Now, seven of those who divided could not be found amongst the twenty-eight who had given their attendance. They were seen on that occasion, but they never had been seen or heard of before. The subjects to which this Committee devoted its attention were of a very peculiar description, and most remarkably precise was it as to the results to which it arrived One of the questions to be answered, being the number, of passengers that would be conveyed on that line of road, he found them estimated at 513 and seven-eighths of a passenger. The parties were also fractionally accurate as to the income to be divided between the shareholders, which was stated to be 31,7511 l. 18 s. 4d. The Committee reported that, "the line and its branches, in an engineering point of view; were peculiarly fitting for their purpose; that the gradients and curves were favourable, that the steepest gradient was one in 290, and that extended over a mile and a quarter, &c" Why, to learn the language of these things, it was almost necessary to attend for two or three days on the Committee. The noble and learned Lord then referred to the case of another Committee, which sat for fifty-five days in the last Session, and the Bill having been thrown out, resumed their sittings this Session, and had sat for thirty-five days, making in the whole ninety days. The attendance in this instance had varied exceedingly. At first, the numbers were twenty-four, then fourteen, then twelve, then ten; they then got up to twenty-six; on the twenty-eighth day, instead of there being twenty-eight present, there were fifty-three, and then of course came a division, when forty-six divided. What ensued? It might be fancied that the Members of the Committee were exhausted by the labour they had undergone. In

1179
the division for the next day, the attendance was only twenty-seven. The day after it rose again and was forty-three; on that day, there were three divisions. Once more the attendance dropped and was only twenty-two. On the last day of all, there were present forty-three; and then came the divisions in which, of course, were parties who had failed in giving a hearing to the evidence. These things, he it remembered, were done without even feeling ashamed of them—they were done, not in the dark, not by connivance, but openly, notoriously, and avowedly. They were part of a system; the system had been long established; the practice was inveterate, and his complaints were directed against the system and the practice. He would be the last person in the world to say anything against the Committee, and against the individuals comprised in the Committee, who had conformed to the practice. They did the same tiling in this House, without constituents to importune them. He recollected a case which was stated by the noble Baron opposite two years ago. The noble Baron complained on that occasion that noble Lords had divided on the Bill, who had not attended before the day when they came down to vote. He was aware their Lordships might say that they had read the evidence, but he begged to inform their Lordships that there was a wide difference between reading the evidence, and seeing and hearing the witnesses, and hearing the arguments of counsel. There might be various opinions as to the nature and extent of this mischief, and as to how far those individuals were acting indiscreetly who were parties to it; there might be different opinions as to the best mode of applying a remedy, or as to whether any remedy was likely to be effectual, but there was one matter, with respect to which, he would venture to say there could not be a difference; he would venture to say that there could not be any difference of opinion, either within or without the doors of Parliament, either as regarded the public or those who took a part in these transactions; he would venture to say, that there could not be a difference of opinion even on the part of that body of men to whom alone, the system, as at present established and administered could be supposed to be profitable—he alluded to the profession to which he had the honour to belong, not excepting them, throughout the whole country, not the shadow of a
1180
shade of difference of opinion would be found to exist as to the present system; but with one voice, and that would soon be a loud voice, they all would join in complaining of, in reprobating, and in condemning the system, and loudly and strenuously would they call out for a change. Flow to shape a proposition to get rid of the evil was a far more difficult question. This was not the only mischief God knew, which it was easier by a thousand times to point out and complain of than it was to find a remedy for; if, however, that were a sufficient reason for not seeking a remedy, where would be all the improvements which in other matters they had attempted, and he would add, so successfully? It was their duty to do their best, and only to cease attempting a cure when they found the mischief was irremediable. What he wished to call their Lordships attention to, was the propriety of instituting an inquiry to see whether the evil was past remedying or not. If the result of the inquiry should show that no remedy could be found, they must be content with things as they were. For himself he must say that he did not think the case quite hopeless. He had considered various plans, but he would not go so far as to assert that any one of them ought to be adopted, or even that a combination of the whole would effect the important object they ought to have in view; but he would, nevertheless, state one or two of them for their Lordships' consideration. In his opinion, some regulation was extremely desirable in both Houses of Parliament for limiting the period of the year in which private business was to be transacted; he would specify the time, and not allow it to be so extended as at present. He knew there were certain interests which would not be much benefitted by such a plan. He knew there were certain interests for the advancement of which it was better that the private business should be spread over a period of five or six months; but his belief was, that it would be in itself a great improvement, should they go no further than to confine the private business to a specified period, and let it be understood, that after such a date, allowing, say four or six weeks, private business should cease. But then that must be coupled with a cessation of other business during that time, and that involved what he knew many of the Members of both Houses were averse to, namely, a compulsory attendance to private business

1181
as there was in the other House of Parliament to Election Committees. This proposition might be carried into effect if they met at a reasonable time of the year —if they did not persist in turning winter into summer, as well as night into day — if, instead of meeting in the beginning of February, they would assemble in the beginning of November, laying it to their account to be released in the month of May or in the beginning of June. They might find such an arrangement inconvenient at first; but his belief was, that in a few years they would marvel that they had so long deferred an arrangement so easy and so advantageous. At all events, to meet earlier, to devote the first part of the Session to the private business, and so to get the remainder of the Session, for public business, in his opinion would be a great benefit. An arrangement for getting rid of the private business in the morning was objected to by some on the ground that it was inconvenient for the Houses of Parliament to meet in the day time. It was said, that such a system would exclude professional men. His experience did not lead him to that conclusion. He found that their sitting of an evening did not preclude the attendance of those professional men who had professional business of an evening. In former times, when Parliament sat at ten o'clock, and even earlier in the morning, they had as many lawyers and judges and mercantile men giving their attendance as they had of late years. His belief was, that if the House of Commons sat in the course of the day instead of in the night—the impossibility of sitting both day and night had made it necessary for them to adjourn almost every night at twelve o'clock—if the private business were first disposed of and they then undertook the public business, he had no doubt that would be found a much more convenient arrangement. It might be said his plan was merely speculative and visionary, but he could not bring himself to believe that there would be any objection to change the mode of conducting the private business, and thus, at once, lay the axe to the root of the evil. He had said not a word which went to impute motives to those who voted on private bills; he had spoken only of those who voted on them without having heard the evidence. It might be said, that to a certain degree the standing orders would apply a remedy for the evil of which he had complained; but he thought that an inquiry would shew the ne-
1182
cessity of some legislative provision to expedite the business. This plan had been proposed before; he had heard of it ever since he had possessed a seat in Parliament. It was notorious that the great expense and delay of private bills were occasioned by the necessity for the Committee coming to certain conclusions as to matters of fact, and reporting certain opinions on those facts. It had been recommended that they should send a commission instead of bringing the parties up to town from all parts of the country. It had been asked, why not, instead of putting the parties to such an expense in bringing up witnesses, send a commission to them chosen by each House of Parliament, or by both jointly, and let that commission examine the engineers and surveyors, and hear the counsel, and report, not their opinion as to whether certain points were explained or not, but let them find the facts, in the nature of a special verdict, on which the two Houses might proceed to legislate. If they reported the evidence as well as their conclusions, then it would be competent for the Houses, if not satisfied with their conclusions, to proceed to satisfy themselves. The consequence of that arrangement might be, another examination by the Houses, and it would perhaps be said that the examination by the Commission would thus be only so much in addition. There was another proposition, which was, to hold the Houses concluded by the finding of the Commission. If the Commission were well chosen, so that it deserved the entire confidence of Parliament, he could not perceive any very great objection to such a system; but he admitted objections might be urged against it, and he would not now stop to discuss them. What objection could there be to this? That the Committees should be chosen of a certain limited number—say eleven—seven, nine or eleven; that these Committees should sit, de die in diem; that persons should not be allowed to absent themselves from the Committees any more than they were permitted to absent themselves from the election Committees; that no vote should be taken without the presence of those who had heard the evidence; or, at all events, that no person should be allowed to vote by whom the evidence had not been heard. In some of the Committees to which he had already adverted, there were Members who appeared to possess the power of ubiquity, for, according to the documents they ap-

1183
peared to have been attending three or four Committees that were sitting on the same day. The non-attendance of Members and their attendance when they ought not to be present, were not the only evils. It was said that these Committees came to conflicting decisions. The same point was sometimes decided in different ways by different Committees, and occasionally these conflicting decisions were come to by Committees composed of nearly the same individuals, the variance being the result of Members going out or coming in. Such events led to suspicion that the decisions of the Committees were governed by the balance, of interests. It appeared to him, that to secure an uniformity of decision on questions of law, it was expedient that a selection should be made from among the Members of the House itself, or that in some instances, individuals out of the House should be obtained. He could not help here adverting to a measure framed by their Lordships about three years back. A Bill having come from the other House, dealing with the corruption in boroughs, that Bill was found exceedingly unsatisfactory, though there was the greatest inclination to support it. A suggestion was, therefore, made by the noble Duke on the benches opposite, which was held to be of so much importance, that it was considered proper to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. In the Committee, the proposed alteration was made, and the result was, that many clauses were thrown out, and many were introduced, and the entire Bill was so essentially altered that it could hardly be considered the same measure. The Bill having returned to the House of Commons, that House came to the conclusion that it would be better to reject the amendments, because the effect of adopting them would be almost the same as if the House were to pass a Bill by a single vote, and this Bill, as altered, was too important a measure to be passed by the House of Commons, without receiving the fullest consideration. It might therefore be said— not that the principle was negatived—but rather that the consideration of it was postponed. Now, what was the measure r It proposed one of the widest departures from ordinary rules—one of the most unquestionable invasions of the pledges of Parliament he ever recollected, being carried he would not say, but propounded. It went to this: it appointed a tribunal consisting of judges, the jury being selected from Mem-
1184
bers of both Houses of Parliament. It proposed to take seven Members of the House of Commons, and five of the House of Lords, who were to sit with the assistance and under the direction of one of the judges, not being a Member of either House of Parliament; there was to be given a power of appeal to the other judges on questions of law; that jury, so composed of Members of both Houses of Parliament, was to find, as it were, a special verdict on the facts of the case; that verdict being so returned to both Houses of Parliament, it was to conclude them, not as to any Bill or measure, but as to the facts only, and they were to proceed to legislate, if they chose, on the facts, found by the said special verdict. Now, see the advantage of this—here was one proceeding instead of two. Instead of both Houses sitting day by day and from month to month, there was to be one jury composed always of the same persons who would sit de die in diem, and thus would be saved to the parties, the delay, the expense, and the vexation which in ninety cases out of every hundred accompanied private bills. Various other plans had been suggested, on which he should not dwell. Among these, was one for withdrawing altogether these cases from the jurisdiction of both Houses of Parliament; and sending them before some other tribunal. There were many objections to such a plan; and it was, indeed, only to be thought of as a last resort, and when all other expedients were found to fail. He hoped, however, that it would be found quite practicable to remedy the evil, great as it was, by other means. The departure from the former usual course in reference to granting patents had been found fully to answer the purpose. Upon the whole, it appeared to him to be not only advisable but the imperative duty of the House, to apply a remedy as speedily as possible to the existing evils, and he trusted that the subject having thus been brought forward, the House would not allow it to be put aside either from neglect, or from a hopelessness of a cure. He was persuaded that if the Committee were granted, it would be able to devise something approaching at least to a remedy. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and consider of the state of business before this House of Parliament."
Viscount Melbournesaid, that he felt, and he was sure the House and the country

1185
would feel themselves, under great obligations to his noble and learned Friend, for having brought forward a motion of such great importance, and also for the manner in which he had performed that task. He thought certainly that his noble Friend had stated sufficient to justify their Lordships in acceding to the motion which had been proposed. He had stated enough to call on that House to institute an inquiry into the matters which had been so ably, so clearly, so distinctly opened by his noble and learned Friend; but at the same time he wished to guard himself from acquiescing in all that his noble Friend had stated, and from concurring with him as to the magnitude of the evil and assenting to the proposition that that evil was of such magnitude and such importance as that it necessarily and imperatively called for revision, change, and alteration in the manner of proceeding in their Lordships' House. He agreed in the propriety of inquiry whether any defects existed, and applying any remedy that might be required; but he did not believe that the evil had proceeded to so crying an extent as to render it necessary, in justice to the subjects of this country, that some remedy should be applied. He would beg, with very great submission, to admonish their Lordships that, in entering upon subjects, connected with the privileges of Parliament, they were meddling with matters of the last importance—of no less importance than those strong, great, and sweeping measures which it was now the fashion to call organic changes of the Constitution. To change and to tamper with the privileges of Parliament was of little less importance than to interfere with the Constitution of Parliament itself; it was of little less importance than that measure which had introduced extensive alterations in the Constitution of the House of Commons, or any other measure for revising and altering other bodies of the State. He had heard many persons of very great ability and experience commend the proceedings of Parliament; but he particularly alluded to Sir Samuel Romilly, who was not certainly very much disposed to applaud the Constitution and laws of England, but who always gave his most unqualified approbation to the forms of proceeding in this and the other House of Parliament. He had heard him say that, having been a witness of the violence and excesses of the French
1186
Revolution, he was convinced that had their Upper Chamber been so well devised to check violence, so well devised for producing moderation and reflection, as was the House of Peers in England, that circumstance would have gone far to prevent the evils that arose at that period. He could not, therefore, approach the consideration of these matters without a considerable degree of apprehension, and without reflecting on the importance which was attached to them. His noble and learned Friend had not very much relied on a topic which had given rise to a good deal of observation—which related to the late period of the Session at which Bills passed the other House of Parliament, and were sent up for the consideration of their Lordships. That was a very general subject of observation, and his noble Friend opposite had made a complaint in reference to it in the Session of 1834. He, however, was more patient, and had waited till the 7th of July—but the present motion was before their Lordships on the 7th of June. With respect to this part of the subject, he must say, that, as to the measures that were sent up to their Lordships, if they had a mind to get rid of them, if it suited the majority to exercise that suspensive veto, to which some reformers of the present day were disposed to confine the powers of that House, it required little time to carry those wishes into effect: but if any considerable part of their Lordships thought that the questions were of a nature that it would be better to settle, if upon the whole the party should think that they might as well pass the measures, he had never found that the complication of those Bills, their length, or their difficulties, stood much in their Lordships' way, he had always seen that the House found time enough to pass the Bills, and he would refer the noble Duke to the end of the Session of 1833, when the Bank Charter Bill, the Emancipation Bill, and the East India Company's Charter Bill were passed—measures of such great importance that the contemplation of them makes one's head turn. He believed those measures had been very much considered; they had certainly been attended with a success which nobody expected—he was sure he did not. He did not, then, see much in that difficulty, which had been raised, because the real fact was, that much time and leisure

1187
did not lead to industry, attention, and thought, but was, on the contrary, calculated to produce neglect, inattention, and delay. He found it so with regard to himself, and saw it in the conduct of others. That which brought them really to consider measures was the existence of a necessity which called upon them to make some speedy provision; and, in fact, the more time they had the more they required. What was the reason that they had dawdled so long a time about the two Bills which had been sent up to them? Why, because they had nothing else to do. The fact was, the less they had to do the less they did. It sounded very well to talk about time for consideration and reflection, but their Lordships knew very well that it was a necessity for expedition that urged them to the real and serious consideration of a measure. His noble Friend had made some observations on the mode of transacting private business, and it was probably liable to many of his objections; but he doubted much whether to relieve the House from the private business would at all expedite the public business of Parliament. There was a sort of division of labour in that respect, for in neither House did the same Members generally attend both to public and private business, although, if they did, the private business was calculated to fit them for the discharge of the public business with which Parliament might be engaged. He was very anxious to have the subject seriously considered, but, at the same time, he must again express his doubt whether that inquiry would lead to the result expected. In very many of the suggestions of his noble and learned Friend he could not concur: with regard to limiting the attention of the House to private Bills during the early part of the Session that was a question touching the constitutional privileges of Parliament, which he thought inexpedient. The early business of Parliament was frequently of very great importance; there was already some limitation respecting the time of presenting petitions upon private bills; and if they drew the line tighter, he believed they would speedily be obliged to relax it. He was unable then to go into all the details which his noble Friend had adverted to; there was sufficient to justify the inquiry, but he wished to guard himself from admitting that the evil was so press-
1188
ing as to render any remedy necessary, or from being supposed to anticipate that much good could result from the motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the proposition could have no tendency to make matters better this year, at all events. He had seen great improvement in the conduct of private business within the last five or six years; resolutions had been formed by many noble Lords, founded upon their own feelings and opinions, not to interfere with any Bills in which they had any private interest. He would not, however, pretend to say, that much might not still be done; but he believed that that improvement must depend on the feelings of noble Lords themselves. It did not appear to him that any measure was likely to result from this Committee; but he did not desire to oppose himself to anything which the noble and learned Lord might think desirable in that respect.
The Duke of Richmondagreed with the noble Duke that the private business was better managed than it used to be. Still there was much to be remedied; and if the present motion had only been confined to that part of the subject it would have received his most cordial support. It frequently happened that many Peers went down to the Committees punctually, stayed during the whole of the proceedings, and heard the whole of the evidence, and the opening and summing up of the learned Counsel, whilst others went down on the last day, were contented with reading over the evidence, and hearing the summing-up. That was one evil; and he would say for himself that he could not conscientiously vote upon a private bill unless he had been present during the whole or a great part of the proceedings. Again, by reference to the standing orders it would be found that all Committees ought to meet at ten, and sit till four o'clock; whereas some of them did not meet till two, and then the Counsel were so clever and technical, that the whole of the time was taken up by their arguments, and frequently no evidence could be heard. With respect to public business, he would ask, might not the House of Commons concede something as regarded money clauses? There were many clauses which were not money clauses, but which, because they referred to some rate, precluded that House from interfering with the Bill. Why, he would also ask, should there be any jealousy on the part of the House of

1189
Commons as to permitting Bills sent up to that House too late on one Session to be commenced there in the next? He agreed cordially in the motion of his noble and learned Friend, and though it might not. be possible to effect all that he expected, still it was calculated to produce considerable improvements.
Motion agreed to.