"That to render such a mass of taxation, so disproportionate to the whole wealth of the kingdom, in any degree supportable, recourse has been had, either from ignorance or design, to the most monstrous schemes in tampering with the currency, or circulating money of the country, at one time by greatly diminishing the value of the same, and at another time by greatly augmenting such value; and at each and every of such changes, which have been but too often repeated, one class of the community after another has been plunged into poverty, misery, and ruin; while the sufferers, without any fault or folly of their own, have been hardly able to perceive from what hand these calamities have come upon them.

"That under such circumstances, and with this knowledge before its eyes, this house would consider itself lost to every sense of duty towards your majesty, and guilty of treason towards the people, if it did not seize this opportunity of declaring to your majesty its solemn conviction that the state is at this moment in the most imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation will, or can, be adopted until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the legislation of the country; that is, to their undoubted right, according to the true meaning of the constitution, of choosing members of this house." This amendment, was seconded by Mr. O'Connell, and Messrs. Western, Protheroe. Messrs. Smith and Davenport, declared themselves favourable to its spirit, although they thought it was injudicious to bring forward a topic of such importance as a mere amendment on an address. Sir Francis Burdett took the same course; and in his speech on this occasion he gave the ministry fair warning that they must either enter into a closer connexion with the Whigs, or no longer count on their support. Sir Francis said, that when he found the prime minister of England insensible to sufferings and distress, painfully apparent throughout the land; when, instead of meeting the calamity with measures of relief, he sought to stifle every important inquiry; when he called that a partial and temporary evil which was both long-lived and universal, he could not look on such a mournful crisis, in which public misfortune was insulted by ministerial apathy, without hailing any prospect of change in the system that produced such a state of feeling. What, he asked, could be said of the ignorance which could attribute the distress to the introduction of machinery, and the application of steam, that noble improvement in the inventions of man, to which men of science and intelligence mainly ascribe our prosperity? He felt a high respect for the abilities of the Duke of Wellington in the field; but he thought that the noble duke did himself equal justice when he said, previous to his taking office, that he should be a fit inmate for a lunatic asylum if he were ever induced to take such a burden on his shoulders. In fact, both he and many honourable members about him had long treated the illustrious individual with such tenderness, because they felt that he had conferred the greatest benefit on his country. He was the only man in England who could have accomplished what he had done; and his praise should be in proportion. It should, however, be at the same time remembered, that if his service was great, his recompense had been commensurate: they had repaid him in returns of confidence and approbation; but the time was come when it would be necessary to do much more. On a division the Marquis of Blandford's motion was lost by a majority of ninety-six against eleven.



MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

In the debate on the address Lord Stanhope gave notice that he should on an early day bring the state of the country under their lordships' notice, by a special motion. He did so on the 25th of February, by moving that their lordships should resolve themselves into a committee of the whole house on the state of the nation. The proposition on which his lordship founded his motion was, that all the great productive interests of the country were suffering under the pressure of a distress the tendency of which was to go on increasing. Complaints and applications for relief by the agriculturists, he said, had come up from every county, and they had been disregarded, probably because they were couched in respectful language. He said this, because recent experience had shown that if they had formed illegal associations, collected funds, and spoken to government in the language of intimidation, they would have received attention. Of the reasonableness of their complaints no man could doubt who knew their situation. Rents were paid from the capital of the farmer; and numbers of tenants had already been driven from their farms in bankruptcy and beggary. The capital of others, also, was daily extorted from them to meet their current expenses; and when that capital was exhausted they, too, must go forth ruined men. It had been said, "Reduce your rents, and you will remove the mischief," But this expedient had been tried, and had failed: rents had been reduced fifty per cent.; but there were cases in which no rent could be paid. He knew of one parish, for instance, in Sussex, where all the proceeds of the land were not sufficient to maintain the poor; and neighbouring parishes had been applied to to give them relief. If the existing state of things was not speedily remedied, they must end in ruin and anarchy. Nor, he continued, was the state of the manufacturing population better than that of the agriculturists. Artisans were at work for threepence or fourpence per day; and of those who received employment, a great proportion worked for wages which, when compared with the value of the article on which they were employed, were altogether deceptive. Then, he asked, what was the state of the shipping interest? To realize profit was out of the question; and many of the ship-owners had preferred parting with their ships at a certain loss of forty per cent., to continuing to hold them at the risk of a loss still greater. All these interests were, therefore, at present in a state of apparently hopless distress. As for the symptoms to which ministers pointed as those of returning health, they were utterly fallacious. It had been said that the traffic on railways and canals had been increased; the same effect would be produced if the goods had been transported on speculation, and hawked about from one part of the country to another for sale, either in vain or at ruinous prices. With an increasing population consumption must increase to some extent, because the addition to the population would not absolutely famish; but the evil was, that it was consumption which still furnished to those employed in creating the articles consumed the means, not of living with any reasonable comfort, but of mere squalid starvation. Ministers had told them, likewise, to look at the number of new houses which were springing up, and had asked if this was an indication of distress. No one had ever said that every man in the country was distressed. Who had ever said, for instance, that the fund-holders and annuitants felt the general pressure? They might continue to flourish like rank and noxious weeds among surrounding ruins; they still drew their fixed incomes, but their security was diminishing; for that security depended on the productiveness of the revenue; and the revenue, as the natural result of the misery of all the productive classes of society, was fall ing off. Lord Goderich, in reply, said that he had expected the motion would have been supported by something better than the two undeniable propositions that there was great distress in the country, and that it was the duty of ministers to relieve it to the utmost of their power. He should have thought that the noble mover would have stated the causes which had produced the distress of the country, and have given some notion of the remedies which he deemed applicable to the disease. In regard to the one and the other, the house had been left in the dark. While, however, he resisted a mode of inquiry which promised nothing, he did not say that it was impossible for parliament to do anything. In relation to the currency and the state of our taxation, parliament might afford material relief to the country. He thought parliament might also do something by a reduction of taxation; for during the two years that he himself had been chancellor of the exchequer, nine millions of taxes had been removed, and yet that amount had not been eventually lost to the revenue: in some heads of receipt there had been a diminution, but in others there had been an increase. The Earl of Roseberry, also, spoke against the motion: he could not support it, because he thought that in its present form it was neither practicable nor expedient. The motion was supported by the Duke of Richmond and Lord Eldon. The former insisted principally on various facts proving the extent and pressure of the prevalent distress; and maintained that in common sense the causes of the misfortune should be investigated, before means for removing them were tendered. Lord Eldon, in supporting the motion, accused his ancient colleagues of coming down to parliament with a declaration that there were "other causes" for the distress of the country, which they did not deem it expedient to specify, and which they left to each one's sagacity to guess at as he might. He contended that the smallest consideration of the causes and remedies of the present all-pervading distress would have been received by the country with gratitude. He was the more confident of this, he said, when he bore in mind the pacific and loyal demeanour of the numerous thousands who were suffering under the most pinching distress, and who, he hoped, would be prevented from being drawn away from the line of good conduct by the expressed determination of parliament to inquire into the causes of their sufferings, with a view to remedy them so far as circumstances might permit. The Duke of Wellington still denied that the existence of distress was so extensive as had been represented, and supported his opinion by the augmented consumption of various articles, by the increase of buildings, by the state of the savings' banks, and by the advanced traffic on railways and canals. He still maintained, also, that the power of redress was beyond the reach of parliament; and he defied noble lords opposite to do anything on the subject which should be at once politic and satisfactory; expedient and efficacious. Was it right, he asked, for parliament to interfere where it was utterly impossible to do good? The noble mover might recommend a committee; but to what end could they follow his counsel if he could lead them no further? And not one step further had he gone. The Marquis of Lansdowne said that he had no hesitation in stating what he conceived to be the causes of the distress. Much of it, he thought, had been produced by a transition from a state of war to peace. He could not help recollecting, however, that a great part of the difficulties, out of which we had now to extricate ourselves, was to be ascribed to that fatal perseverance, with which we had persisted for many years, in contracting permanent money engagements in a depreciated currency. That was the root of the evil; but in saying so, he did not forget, that, unfortunate as these engagements were, they nevertheless were engagements which the honour of parliament was bound to respect, and which we must find means to discharge. It was one thing, however, to see the cause, and another to point out the remedy: for the present he confessed that he saw but one means of uniting all opinions on the subject, and that was retrenchment, retrenchment qualified by diminution of taxation. The Marquis of Salisbury expressed an opinion that a general inquiry would do more harm than good: he would prefer a select committee, and if that should fail in coming at the cause of the distress, then would be the time for an inquiry of the whole house. Lord King, in conclusion, moved as an amendment, "that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the depressed state of the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the kingdom for the purpose of ascertaining whether any, and what relief could be afforded." This amendment, however, was received with as little favour as the original motion, which was lost on a division by one hundred and eighteen against twenty-five.

A similar motion was made, at a more advanced period of the session in the house of commons by Mr. Davenport. The discussion in that house lasted four nights, and in the course of it, the leading members of all parties delivered their opinions, which were in many respects contradictory on the extent as well as on the causes of the evil. The arguments and the views of the speakers, however, were generally the same that had been used in the house of lords, though being used by a greater number of persons, they were presented under a greater number of modifications. The motion was supported by the admitted fact of the prevailing distress; the duty of the house to give relief, if possible; and the necessity for that purpose of ascertaining the causes of the evil. On the other hand it was denied that the distress was general, and that if it was, it would be useless to enter into an inquiry without some specific remedy being pointed out, which had not yet been done. Great objections were also taken to the form of the proposed inquiry. There was no subject of any difficulty with which parliament had ever had to deal, but would necessarily come before this committee, and how could the whole house deal with such an investigation. Sir C. Burrell moved as an amendment that the petitions should be referred to a select committee, but this was still more vehemently resisted: Mr. Peel declaring that a committee of the whole house was the better of the two. Lord Althorp, with the leading members of the Whig party generally, as well as Mr. Huskisson and his followers, took part with the ministry; and the motion was eventually lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-five against eighty-seven.



REDUCTION OF SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, ETC.

Throughout the discussions on the state of the nation, the necessity of reducing taxation, and curtailing the public expenditure, had been insisted on with great force. On the 12th of February, Sir James Graham moved for a reduction of all the salaries paid to official, persons. The foundation of his motion was this:—that, subsequently to the Bank Restriction Act, all salaries had been increased, because the expense of living had increased; and he argued, therefore, that, as the restriction had been removed, and we had returned to cash payments, the salaries ought to be diminished. Justice, he said, demanded such a change High prices, produced by a depreciated currency, had brought them high salaries; low prices, produced by curing that depreciation, must bring them low salaries He did not, however, mean to include in his resolutions the privy-purse and the royal establishment, as these stood upon arrangements entered into at the beginning of the reign, and were hence inviolate. Neither would he interfere with the regular pay of the navy, which had been fixed in 1798, when prices were about the same as at the present time; or of the army, into which our soldiers had entered for a term of years, at a stipulated rate. He meant, however, to include military officers holding civil situations, such as colonial governments, because in many cases their salaries had been augmented without sufficient reason, and because some of these officers being removable at pleasure, their allowances might be altered without difficulty. Sir James Graham enumerated examples in which the salaries of governors had been raised; and stated that there had been an addition of one-third to the number of employes, and an increase of fifty per cent, on their salaries in 1827 as compared with 1797. He concluded by moving this resolution:—"That, whereas, subsequently to the act of the 37th George III., by which a suspension of cash-payments was effected, large augmentations had taken place in the salaries and pay of persons in civil and military employments, on account of the diminished value of money; and whereas the alleged reason for such augmentations had ceased to operate, in consequence of the passing of the 59th George III., which restored a metallic standard of value, resolved that in order to relieve the country from its extensive load of taxation, it was expedient to revise our present system of expenditure in respect of all such augmentations, for the purpose of making every possible reduction that could be effected without violation of good faith, or detriment to public justice." The motion was opposed by Mr. Dawson, the secretary of the treasury, chiefly on the ground that government had done all that as yet had been possible in the way of reduction, and felt a sincere desire to carry the spirit of economy to every practicable extent. Almost every recommendation of reduction, he said, suggested in the reports of committees, or by commissions of inquiry, had been carried into effect; and the recommendation of a committee which sat in 1797 to abolish sinecures and reversions had been acted upon as far as it was found possible. Government had, indeed, already acted upon the course which Sir James Graham recommended; it had been desirous to adopt the scale of 1797, and though that object had not been fully accomplished, yet, looking at the extent of public business now, and in 1797, he thought the house would see that salaries had been brought as near as possible to the rate of the latter year. After demonstrating the truth of his assertions by appealing to facts and figures, he said, that he trusted the house would negative the motion, in which case, in order to show that he was not desirous to get rid of the question, he would himself move the following resolution:—"That whereas his majesty was graciously pleased, in answer to an address of the house, to assure the house on the 27th of June, 1821, that his majesty would cause an inquiry to be made into all the departments of the civil government, with a view of reducing the number of persons employed in the various offices, and the amount of salaries paid: Resolved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty might be graciously pleased to lay before the house an account of the progress which had been made in such inquiry, and of the measures that had been taken in consequence. Also, that it was the opinion of that house, that in every establishment of the state, every saving ought to be made, consistently with the due performance of the public service, and without the violation of existing engagements." Sir James Graham thought this proposition of the secretary of the treasury better than his own, and he therefore withdrew his motion, and the house agreed to that of the minister.

This motion regarded the civil establishments only. On the 15th of February, Mr. Hume proposed a similar resolution in regard to the military and naval establishments, by moving an address to the crown, recommending a repeal or modification of all taxes required for the support of all the naval and military, as well as civil establishments, in order to afford immediate and effective relief to the country. Mr. Hume maintained that the scale at which the army and navy were kept up was much greater than necessity required, or the country could bear; and that they ought to be brought back as nearly as possible to what they had been in 1792, when the whole cost of the civil and military government was little more than one-fifth of the present cost. In his speech, he treated of every possible topic connected with taxation and expenditure. The taxes he proposed to reduce were numerous; and he insisted that all the reductions he proposed were practicable, if government would only apply the priming-knife to our overgrown establishments. The chancellor of the exchequer declined following Mr. Hume over the field in which he had expatiated, but he objected to the motion as irregular and inexpedient. It was a motion, he said, recommending a reduction of our civil, naval, and military establishments, without waiting for the estimates of those establishments which was to be laid before the house—without waiting to see whether any and what reductions might be proposed in them by ministers. How, he asked, would parliament determine the amount or practicability of any reduction, till it had inquired into the necessity and general bearing of the several branches of the expenditure? And how could that inquiry be instituted before ministers had laid before the house the responsible official statement of the amount of the several estimates for the year, so as to enable the house to decide upon the economy or extravagance observed in the management of the public money? He objected to the motion, therefore, as a departure from the usual practice of parliament. It was opposed by Messrs. Western and Grant, on the ground that it would be better for ministers first to produce their plan, and then to deal with it as the house might think fit. The house was already pledged to the full extent of this motion, which was, generally to reduce expenditure, and the next step ought to be to point out in what particular manner the reduction ought to be made. Lord Althorp said, that he felt every confidence in the economical disposition of ministers; but still it was desirable that the house should express its opinion that the taxes ought to be reduced in proportion to the reductions in the expenditure, although he did not conceive it possible that the taxes ought to be reduced to the extent proposed by Mr. Hume: his duty was to vote, therefore, for the motion. On a division, however, the motion was lost by one hundred and eighty-nine to sixty-nine.



MOTION FOR REVISING THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF TAXATION.

On the 25th of March Mr. Poulett Thompson moved the appointment of a committee to revise the whole system of our taxation. His object, he said, was to examine the incidents of our great taxation; for all authorities of any weight were agreed that revenue did not depend merely on the amount of what actually passed into the exchequer, but on the manner in which it was derived from the people. Mr. Poulett Thompson wished the house in the first place to consider the taxes which affected raw materials; and whether a reduction was not practicable without any diminution of revenue. He then passed in review certain very productive taxes, as those on tea, tobacco, foreign spirits, French wines, &c, the rate of which, he thought, might safely be lowered without any permanent detriment to the revenue. In conclusion, he said, that his wish was to give ministers a power which they could not exercise effectually without a committee. The alterations which he had in view, might produce a deficiency of revenue in the first stages of their operations, but ministers, supported by a committee fairly and impartially selected, might ask of parliament a vote of credit for all that would be necessary to fill up that deficiency with a much greater certainty of obtaining it, than they would have by acting upon their Own responsibility. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that there could be only one opinion as to the principle on which the motion was founded; namely, the expediency of raising the money required for the public service, in the way least injurious to the sources of public wealth; but he could not accede to the motion founded on this truism, consistently with the interests of the country, or the character of his majesty's government. The wish to relieve the public burthens was not the only guide to be followed in a question like this; regard was likewise due to the faith and honour of the country. Some of the taxes might be open to the objections urged against them; but such as they were we had mortgaged them to the public creditor; and it I was an imperative duty, not so to modify them as to shake the basis of his security, and weaken the strength of public credit. Great inconvenience would arise from consigning to the consideration of a committee all the various topics to which the honourable member had referred; and from calling upon the members of it to pronounce on the amount of our taxation; to decide how far it admitted of repeal or modification; and to declare how far, in their opinion, ultimate compensation might be made for any loss which might accrue from such loss or modification. The motion was supported by Lord Althorp, Sir Henry Parnell, and Messrs. Bankes and Warburton, who argued that it was difficult to conceive why the committee should be refused after the appointment of the late finance committee. If that committee had proceeded with its labours another year, it would have been occupied with the very matters which it was now proposed to submit to consideration. Lord Althorp said that, in his opinion, it would be a good plan to grant relief to the productive classes by a reduction of taxation, and the imposition of a property-tax. Mr. Peel protested against the appointment of a committee which, he contended, was to be neither less nor more than a delegation of the powers of the whole house, and of the government likewise, to twenty-one members. The house, he said, had been found sufficient in former times for the management of the taxes, and he saw no reason why it should now resign its power. On the other hand, Mr. Huskisson maintained that there was nothing unusual in referring questions of taxation to a committee. The salt-duty and the tax on leather had been referred to committees; and in these cases there had neither been alarms in the public mind, nor change of government, nor loss of confidence in his majesty's ministers. If the house could not refer such subjects to a committee without endangering the safety of the country, he thought that it had better give up inquisition altogether. He did not, indeed, expect any further reduction of taxation during the present session from the labours of this committee; but still the inquiry would do good. On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and sixty-seven against seventy-eight.



COMMITTEE ON THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.

{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}

At this period it was the public opinion that the monopoly of the East India Company imposed a mischievous restraint on the trade of the country, without any reasonable cause or counterbalancing advantage. One large portion of the community, indeed, wished to have the renewal of their charter refused in toto to any extent, or under any modification; while another professed themselves willing to be satisfied with reducing the company to the level of ordinary merchants in matters of trade, leaving them in the possession of their widely-extended territories. In this conflicting state of opinion government had determined not to take the responsibility of proposing any measure of its own; but had promised that in the present session a committee should be appointed to make the inquiries which ought to precede any arrangement affecting interests so varied and important. The appointment of this committee was moved in both houses on the 9th of February; in the upper house by Lord Ellenborough, and in the commons by Mr. Peel. In making this proposition, the latter said, that he had no plan to submit for the future government of India; no opinion of ministers to state as to the renewal or modification of the charter. He proposed the committee that the question in all its bearings might be examined; but the details should be left for future consideration, when that committee should have formed its opinion. He proposed it, he continued, with the plain and honest view of having a full, perfect, and unreserved investigation into the affairs of the East India Company. The house, he said, would feel the importance of such an inquiry. It would bear in mind that higher objects were involved than the mere extension of trade. They would have to consider the whole character of the government, ruling over an immense extent of territory, wielding a powerful force, and administering an ample revenue. They were bound to consider the various modes in which that government affected the people over whom it ruled, and how far any alteration might affect the influence of the crown. The present form of government extended over many millions of people, and it had existed for a great number of years. Whether another form of government might be devised from which equal benefits would flow, he was not prepared to say; but sufficient was known of the present system to induce them to pause before they rashly interfered with it. As regards the company's commercial concerns, the documents which would be presented to the committee would contain full information on that subject; and at present he would only say that a reference to these returns would convince any unprejudiced mind that the sanguine expectations of great benefits, which some supposed would arise from throwing the trade entirely open, ought not to be entertained. The most interesting objects involved in the inquiry were the welfare and happiness of the Indian population placed under a government. He had seen a census, which made our native subjects in India amount to ninety millions. Looking at the extent of territory which in that country belonged to Great Britain, the vast population there subject to our sway, the great revolution by which they had come under our dominion, the immense distance at which they were removed from our shores, and the difference existing between the languages and usages of the natives and ours, the mind was almost lost in amazement. Whatever might be the wish of a British parliament to enlarge the rights and foster the interests of British citizens, there could be but one feeling as to the moral obligation which we had incurred to promote the improvement of these distant subjects, so far as the feelings, the institutions, and the prejudices of that country would allow. In the list of the committee proposed by Mr. Peel there were the names of three or four East India directors. Messrs. Hume and Baring objected to their being put on the committee, although they expressed an opinion that they would not act unfairly, and that there was a necessity of obtaining the information which they possessed. Mr. Astell, one of the directors named, declared that the company desired nothing more earnestly than the fullest inquiry. What the directors complained of most, was the ignorance which prevailed on this subject, and which, by deluding the country, was the greatest enemy they had to contend with. He courted inquiry; for the more the subject was investigated, the more likely would it be that the directors would have justice done them. Let the committee obtain the fullest evidence; let them examine all the documents that would be brought before them; and then they would be able to decide whether India could be better governed; whether justice could be more fairly administered; and whether the happiness of the natives could be more humanely consulted. He contended that the directors had done all they could, and that they had never lost sight of the interests of their country in the pursuit of their own. The committee was appointed as proposed, retaining the members of the East India Company.



DEBATE ON A PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE CURRENCY.

During this session Mr. Attwood brought the subject of the currency before the house, by proposing two resolutions; namely, to make silver a legal tender as, he contended, it had been before the Bank Restriction Act of 1797, and to restore small notes. This question underwent a full discussion but the motion of a double standard seemed so objectionable, and any scheme for depreciating the currency appeared pregnant with such dangerous consequences, that the motion was withdrawn without dividing the house. Several members, indeed, expressed an opinion that it was far from being certain that the standard adopted was the best; but the relief to be obtained by the double standard proposed was thought by them to be neither so great, nor so certain, as to justify the making of such an experiment. The motion was ably opposed by Mr. Herries, who said, that the proposal to introduce the silver standard was almost impracticable and unjust. The proposal was, in point of fact, to have the two precious metals in circulation at certain fixed proportions; a condition which rendered the execution of the scheme impossible. It was well known that the proportion in which these two metals interchanged now was different from the proportion which they held in 1798. The mover himself had admitted, indeed, that the difference was five per cent. It might not be quite so much, but assuming it to be so, to what did it lead? It made the proposed resolution a recommendation to the legislature to declare gold and silver equally a legal tender, although there was a difference of five per cent, in their relative values. What would this be, he asked, in practice? Every debtor, it was said, who had money to pay would be enabled to discharge his debt with five per cent, less than he was bound to pay at present; and no doubt, he would, if the opportunity was given to him. Suppose then that the resolutions should be agreed to; what would be the result? It would be proclaimed from one end of the country to the other that this house had come to a resolution the effect of which might be shortly stated thus:—namely, that every man who had claims payable on demand, every man who held notes of small or great value, every man who had outstanding debts, would, if he secured the amount of what was due to him before this resolution passed into a law, get the whole of his money; whereas, if he delayed beyond that period, he would only get ninety-five for every hundred pounds. What, he asked, would become of the Bank of England, or of every banking house in the kingdom, or of all debtors who were liable to pay upon demand all that they owed? Would not all transactions of commerce be suspended, and the whole country present one scene of confusion, and consternation, and ruin, when the house of commons proclaimed to all who had debts due to them, that if they did not collect them on the instant, they would assuredly be losers to the amount of five per cent.? Mr. Herries also contended that the alleged justice of the proposition was fallacious. Its justice was made to rest on this—that it was only fair to give the debtor the power of paying as he might have done in 1798; and it had been assumed, that up to that time men could discharge their debts in gold or silver, as they pleased. It was a great mistake, he argued, to suppose that silver had been the standard of this country throughout the last century. It had only been a legal tender by weight, but then it had become so depreciated, that, practically, there was no such thing as tender by weight, while by law the tender in coin was limited to twenty-five pounds; so that it was clear that in 1798 silver could not be the standard. He concluded by saying, that if a regulation could be made that a creditor should be obliged to take half his debt in one standard, at the will of the debtor, and that the debtor should not be obliged to pay more than half in one, and half in the other, it might, perhaps, be practicable to have the two; but he did not see how, otherwise, the two could exist together.



FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—BILL FOR REPEALING THE DUTY ON BEER, ETC.

On the 15th of March the chancellor of the exchequer produced his annual exposition of the finances, and of the financial measures to be adopted in raising the expenditure of the present year. His statements presented no remarkable features except the repeal of the beer, cider, and leather duties. By this measure ministers desired to show their wish of alleviating the pressure of taxation on the lower classes. With reference to the extent of the repeal, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that "the amount of the three duties which I thus propose to repeal will be, on freer, L3,000,000, on leather from L340,000 to L350,000, and on cider, L25,000. These reductions will give direct relief to the people, amounting, at least, to L3,400,000., and will give them relief indirectly to a further amount; so that in fact the whole relief cannot be estimated at less than L5,000,000 a year." The remission of duty on beer was proposed to take place on the 10th of October following, and the reason given for such delay was, that the repeal should take place conjointly with an opening of the trade, when the time arrived for renewing the licences of public-houses. There can be no doubt that the measure proceeded from excellent motives; but it is certain that by encouraging the increase of public-houses to an indefinite extent, immorality and crime had been introduced into every nook and corner of the land. The picture which the poet Cowper drew of the evils of public-houses in his day have been increased a hundredfold by such a measure so that it is literally true, that,

"Pass where'er we may, through city or through town, Village or hamlet of this merry land, Though lean and beggar'd, every twentieth face, Conducts th' unguarded nose to such a whiff Of state debauch, forth issuing from the sties That law has licensed, as makes temperance rec."

It is probable that this measure has occasioned more evil than any act passed during the whole period to which this portion of the history of England refers. Yet there can be no question that ministers conceived that they were legislating for the poor man's comfort; experience, however, has proved that it was for the poor man's bane. After stating the intention of ministers on this subject, the chancellor of the exchequer next gave his estimate of the revenue of the present year. The demands of the public service, including the charge of the national debt, were L47,812,000, and the available income was estimated at L50,470,000, leaving a probable balance of about L2,500,000 only for the sinking-fund. In the revenue of last year a deficiency of more than L500,000 below the estimate was acknowledged; but at the same time a clear surplus of L4,000,000 had been applied to the redemption of the national debt. To compensate for the loss of revenue from the repeal of the above duties, it was proposed to consolidate all the laws relative to the stamp-duties, for placing the management of the whole of that branch of the revenue under the stamp-office in England, and make similar articles everywhere subject to the same duties. It was also proposed to levy an additional duty on spirits; and also to effect a yearly saving of about L800,000 by the conversion of four per cent, stock into three and a half. These measures were subsequently carried into effect. The chancellor of the exchequer finally held out hopes of a reduction in the amount of expenditure, by the consolidation of various departments of the public service: this he said was likely hereafter to place at the disposal of the government a great surplus revenue which would enable ministers to make a further repeal of taxes. The principal reduction promised by government this year, that of the beer-duty, was not carried without great opposition. Brewers and publicans alike were arrayed against it, as it would break up their monopoly. The latter complained loudly of the deterioration to which the capital invested by them in the trade would be exposed, since every man who could pay two guineas might take out a licence. The landed interest, likewise, was against this measure: agriculturists wishing rather to see the duty on malt than beer repealed. They spoke much of its deficiencies in not providing any system of control, to secure the proper conduct of publicans, such as existed under the present licensing system. It would convert England they said, and with much truth, into one huge tippling-house, spreading throughout the country universal demoralization. An attempt was made on the second reading to throw out the bill, by a motion that it should be read a second time that day six months. This failed; but in the committee a stronger effort was made in favour of a clause proposed by Mr. Monck, to the effect of permitting the brewer to sell his beer on premises different from those on which it had been brewed. It was contended that this was only an enlargement of the former permission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been brewed; and that it would not injure the object sought by the bill in so far as protection against monopoly was concerned, while it would be beneficial to the interests of the existing dealers, whose interests ought not to be neglected. On the other hand, the clause was opposed as inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The effect of it would be, it was said, to prevent competition, and the public, instead of receiving an improved commodity, would remain as they were. When the committee divided, the proposed clause was rejected by a majority of only twenty-five. Opposition renewed their efforts against the bill on its third reading, when Mr. Batley moved a clause, to the effect of enforcing the statute of James I., against the odious crime of drunkenness. Mr. Brougham in opposing this motion said, that he was one of those who thought the general interests of morality were better consulted by permitting such clauses to slumber in the cells of the statute-book than by having them enforced. He asked, What was the real meaning of the statute of James I. It was that a penalty should be inflicted on any person who committed the odious and ungodly crime of drunkenness, from any liquor, except claret or champagne. If morality was to be enforced by act of parliament, let the law be impartial, and not punish the poor and illiterate for a crime in which the rich might indulge with impunity. He would like to see the justice of the peace, or magistrate, who would fine a knight of the shire, or independent member of an independent borough, who in the morning might possibly be brought before him in a state presenting a good imitation of the odious and ungodly crime of drunkenness, which called down the wrath of the moral legislators of the age of King James. Sir Robert Inglis having reminded Mr. Brougham that a higher authority than that of James I. had denounced drunkenness, and that if he himself were found in the street in a state of inebriety, no magistrate performing his duty would fail to punish him, Mr. Brougham replied, that he had not the good fortune to be educated at the university represented by the baronet. It was, indeed, well replied by Dr. Johnson to a lady who inquired of him to which university she should send her son: "Why madam, I can only say, that there is an equal quantity of port drunk at each." He was perfectly aware that a higher authority than King James had denounced drunkenness, but the difference was, that that high authority made no distinction of persons, whereas the act of James did. Could the right honourable baronet point out one instance of a member of parliament having been punished for drunkenness? Sir Robert repeated, that if Mr. Brougham would go into the street drunk, he would soon meet with due punishment; he replied, that it would be grossly unfair, inasmuch as there were thousands of gentlemen in the same situation never noticed. This was an unanswerable argument, and the subject was dropped.



THE QUESTION OF REFORM.

It has been seen that the Marquis of Blandford moved resolutions pledging the house forthwith to employ themselves in the work of reform, as an amendment to the address. On the 18th of February he brought forward a more specific plan. The house of commons, he argued, had ceased to be framed as the essential principles and earlier practice of the constitution required; a circumstance which had arisen from represented places falling into decay, on the one hand, while, on the other, wealthy and populous towns, which had sprung up in the meantime, were unrepresented. His object was, he said, to restore the principles of representation as they had been established in the days of Henry III. and the three Edwards. For this purpose he proposed that a committee should be chosen by ballot, to take a review of all boroughs and cities in the kingdom, and report to the secretary of the home department those among them which had fallen into decay, or had in any manner forfeited their right to representation on the principles of the English constitution, as anciently recognized by national and parliamentary usage. The home-secretary was bound to act immediately on this report, and to relieve all such places from the burthen of sending members to parliament in future, while he filled up the vacancies by towns which had been hitherto unrepresented. Another part of his plan was to revive the custom of paying wages to members for their attendance in parliament; a provision which he thought would prevent abuses. He also proposed to extend the right of voting to all copyholders and leaseholders, and to place the representation of Scotland on the same footing with that of England. He concluded, by moving, to bring in a bill to restore the constitutional influence of the house of commons. This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett, and by Messrs. Pendarvis, Benett, and Hobhouse, with others of the school of reformers. Sir Francis Burdett said, that he could not comprehend all the details of the propositions; but he understood it to be a question of reform, and, therefore, he would support it. He admitted that the house was composed of men of as enlightened understandings, and as addicted to the English principles of freedom, as could be found collected in any nation of the world; but he asserted that they were returned to the house under an influence which rendered them incapable of exerting the faculties of their minds, and injurious to the country. He remarked:—"Look at myself, I have gone through the whole process under the present system of representation, and a most ruinous one it has been. Early in life, I came into this house in order to defend the constitution of England; I purchased my seat of a borough-monger. He was no patron of mine; he took my money, and by purchase I obtained a right to speak in the most public place in England, With my views, and with my love of the liberty of my country, I did not grudge the sacrifice I made for that commanding consideration. If I had abused the right I had thus purchased, and passed through corruption to the honours of the peerage, I should not enjoy the satisfaction I now feel." He had also tried, he said, the county system. He stood for a county, though he would not have given twopence for the representation of that county, his object having been to expose the abominable system, and the oppressive tyranny of solitary confinement in England. He had also gone through the remedial operation as it was called, of the Grenville act, so that, as he had sounded all the shoals and shallows of the system, it was not wonderful he should be a great advocate for an alteration. The question was this: ought the house to be an assembly of retainers of the crown, or of representatives of the people of England. The bill was opposed by Messrs. Feel, Twiss, Maberly, and Stanley. Mr. Twiss said, that a scheme had never been produced so happily calculated to ridicule parliamentary reform, although it was of course far from the intention of the noble lord by whom it had been introduced. Mr. Peel also amused the house with remarks on the title of the bill, and said that he would never be a party to a wholesale depreciation of the elective franchise, or assent even to the first stage of the bill, which devolved on a bal-lotted committee the power of destroying all boroughs which they might think ought not to send members. Lord Althorp moved as an amendment, "That it is the opinion of this house, that a reform in the representation of the people is necessary," should be substituted for the motion, for leave to bring in a bill; but both the amendment and the original motion were negatived without a division.



THE CASE OF EAST RETFORD.

During this session the proposal for transferring the franchise of East Retford to Birmingham was ultimately rejected, and the privilege extended to the adjoining hundred. During the debate Mr. Peel expressly disclaimed the imputation which had been thrown out, that this selection had been made with a view to increase the influence of the Duke of Newcastle, whom the Catholic relief bill had now thrown into the ranks of opposition. There were circumstances in the case of East Retford which should induce parliament to extend the franchise to the adjoining hundred. One element in the case which weighed with him, was the consideration that the county of Nottingham sent only eight members to parliament; and he saw no good reason why that number should be reduced. Lord Howick declared, that though he would vote for the transfer of the franchise to Birmingham, he thought it useless to inflict punishment in individual instances, when it was notorious that a large majority of members obtained their seats by venal means. The proper remedy would be to adopt a general measure; and he, therefore, moved the following resolutions:—"That bribery has been repeatedly and habitually employed to influence the election of members of parliament. That this fact has been often established, never denied, and was especially proved at the bar of this house in the first session of the present parliament, in the cases of Penryn and East Retford. That it is notorious that a similar practice is openly resorted to in many of the cities and boroughs of the United Kingdom. That the recent disfranchisement of Grampound does not appear to have in any degree diminished the prevalence of this evil. That this house, therefore, finding that the passing of specific bills directed against particular cases, has neither had the effect of removing the existence, or arresting the progress of corruption, is of opinion that its character may best be vindicated by abandoning these useless and expensive proceedings, in order to adopt some general and comprehensive measure, the only means of effectually checking so scandalous an abuse." These resolutions were negatived by a large majority.



MR. O'CONNELL'S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC.

On the third reading of the East Retford bill, the first attempt was made in the British parliament to introduce principles new to the representation of the country: namely, that the votes of the electors should be given by ballot. This proposition came from that most reckless of all demagogues; that prototype of the Athenian Cleon, Mr. O'Connell, who argued that the ballot would protect the voter from all undue influence, whether of fear or corruption. On the other hand, it was argued that the mode of taking votes by ballot would preclude representatives confronting their constituents; but it was not till after nomination, and the demand of a poll, that the ballot would commence; so that this mode would not take away from constituents the power they now enjoyed of requiring explanations of past conduct, and pledges for the future. The motion, which was lost, had been favoured by certain occurrences at Newark, which were brought before the house of commons on the 1st of March, on a petition from some of the electors of that borough against the Duke of Newcastle. His grace was possessed of large property within the borough—some private, and some held under a crown lease—and had always been able to decide the election. Mr. Sadler had recently been returned on his interest in opposition to Sergeant Wylde; and the petition stated that "the return of Mr. Sadler was obtained by means of the prevailing belief, founded on the experience of former elections, that such of the duke's tenants as should vote against his grace's nominee would be expelled from their tenancies; that many of the tenants gave their votes to the opposing candidate; and that they had in consequence received notice to quit their holdings, whether the same was house or land, and whether it constituted part of the estate of the crown, or the private property of his grace." The petition further stated, that his grace had neither denied that such notices had been given, nor had disclaimed them; but had rather justified them, by stating that he had a right "to do what he would with his own." In moving that this petition should be referred to a select committee, Mr. Poulett Thomson informed the house, that not only the use thus made of crown property affected the constitutional character of the representation, but that its original investment was a ministerial job, which had caused a great pecuniary loss to the country. The Duke of Newcastle, he said, held about nine hundred and sixty acres of land surrounding the town, by a lease, granted in 1760, at a rent of only L36. This lease had been renewed in 1815, nine years after its expiration, at a rent of L2,060; but it was still too low, as the estimated value was L3,500. The pecuniary loss was therefore well worthy of attention: but this was a trifle compared to the political purposes to which the property had been applied. The noble lessee never gave a lease for more than one year, in order to keep the voters under his power; and the petition stated the manner in which this power had been employed. If the allegations were true, the house was bound to interfere; for though he did not mean to impugn the just and natural influence of the landlord over his tenant, he appealed to the house whether the power arrogated in the case before them did not rather resemble the tyranny of the slave-driver, than the proper influence of a British landlord. There was not even, in the present instance, the objection of interference with the rights of private property; this was a species of property against the future abuse of which the house might guard, though they could not interfere with the existing lease. They could address the crown, praying that the lease should not be renewed; and, with a view to have the allegations sifted, he moved that the petition be referred to a select committee. This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse, who set no bounds to their indignation. The latter especially exerted his eloquence on the subject. He remarked:—"Suppose the king's government should send to his grace the Duke of Newcastle, to let him know that when his lease expired he should no longer have the benefits of that lease; suppose such an intimation was given to his grace, and that it was alleged and understood that his ejectment from the possession of this property took place in consequence of his having given a vote against government upon some great and leading question. If that were done, would it not be denounced as an attack upon our dearest privileges, as an invasion of the most sacred birthright of Englishmen: the liberty to assert and maintain their opinions? Compare the conduct of the government in such a case, with the conduct of the noble peer in the present instance: there were these poor men, because they had to vote against his grace's candidate, banished from their homes, driven from their happy firesides, and deprived of all the comforts of life. Could such conduct on the part of the noble duke bear comparison with the case of the government depriving the noble duke of these crown-lands on account of his giving a vote against them?" It was stated on the other hand, that many of the allegations in the petition were gross perversions of fact. The crown-lands, for instance, were not in the immediate neighbourhood of the town, but were scattered about among the adjacent villages to a considerable extent; and the crown at the renewal of the lease had only twelve houses and twenty-six cottages. There were others in the neighbourhood who held land to a much greater extent than that belonging to the crown. Mr. Sadler himself said that the petition was a mere election paper, made up of wanton exaggerations, and unfounded misstatements, for electioneering purposes. He also vindicated his patron's character for humanity and consideration, as regarded the inhabitants of Newark. He denied that he was exposed to the operation of any sinister influence, and could conscientiously say, that the noble duke had left him on all questions to pursue his own line of conduct. Mr. Peel defended the principle of the whole transaction, as well as the mode by which the land in question had been acquired. He could see no valid distinction between this property and that which descended to a man as a freehold from his ancestors. He remarked:—"The lease which his grace possessed of this crown-land gave him a right to deal with it as any other possessions during that period; and in dealing with the property of the crown as with his own, it was obvious that he committed no breach of privilege. Now the petitioners entirely confined themselves to the crown possessions held by the noble duke, praying that a lease of them might in future be refused to him. They did not even refer to his other property, with regard to which he had dealt precisely in the same manner. It was plain therefore that if, in the management of his own private possessions, he had committed no breach of privilege, he had committed none by dealings in a similar manner with the property of the crown. He would not say that the Duke of Newcastle did not dispossess these tenants; but, without entering into the question, he would say that superior to the privileges of that house were other considerations, to which they were bound in duty and conscience to defer, namely, the rights of property. Here was no allegation that menaces had been employed; there was only the fact that seven tenants had been dispossessed. Now, if they were to control the rights of property, under the idea that those rights had been exercised in controlling an election, a precedent would be set which would be not merely inconvenient, but positively dangerous; for nothing could be more dangerous than to say, they would not suffer any tenant to be dispossessed who had voted in opposition to his landlord's wishes. It was in vain that honourable gentlemen exclaimed against the influence which any peer derived from the possession of property: there was no difference between that, and the influence which any other great landed proprietor enjoyed; nor could any species of reform exclude such influence. Property, he contended, should always have an influence in that house, no matter whether it was in the hands of peers or commoners." The motion for referring the petition to a select committee was negatived by a majority of one hundred and ninety-four against sixty-one.



MR. O'CONNELL'S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND VOTE BY BALLOT, ETC.

Of all the various plans for altering the representation, whether suggested by an honest desire to obviate the necessity of sweeping innovations, or springing from the designs of restless demagogues, there were none against which so little could be said as the proposition for conferring the elective franchise on populous commercial towns. When, therefore, Lord John Russell failed in transferring the elective franchise of East Retford to Birmingham, he did not hesitate to bring the subject before parliament again, by moving for a bill to confer that privilege, independently of all other considerations, on Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester. He founded the constitutional nature of the proposed alteration on the known practice of parliament, which extended such rights to unrepresented places, when they had acquired importance by their wealth and population. He remarked:—"It is true the proposal hitherto had been, that the franchise should not be conferred till the house had a forfeiture to dispose of; but it is now plain that if the towns in question are to wait for such a transfer, there is no probability of their obtaining it: so numerous are the difficulties stated in both houses of parliament." His lordship said that it did not seem very reasonable that the fitness of Leeds or Manchester to be represented should be said to depend on the good or bad conduct of the electors of Penryn or East Retford: their claims must rest on circumstances in their own situation; and if that situation was such as to render it just and desirable that they should be represented, where, he asked, was the sense of saying, that what was just and reasonable ought not to be done, because the electors of some other place had refused to do what was wicked? Lord John Russell then entered into various details demonstrative of the growing greatness of the towns in question. In continuation he remarked that he could not discover any sound reason why so many citizens, and so much wealth, should remain unrepresented, when the principle as well as the practice of the constitution, had pointed out the manner of admitting them into parliament. He knew it would be said that there was no limitation to the principles that if it was held good to admit three towns, it might equally be extended to twenty, thirty, forty, or even indefinitely. He confessed this; and he saw no reason why, if Sheffield, or any other town should at some future period attain the same rank, it should not obtain the same privilege. It was not probable, however, that the principle could ever be applied to more than four or five towns in the whole realm. Parliament, moreover, had not always been so fastidious in regard to the extension of a principle. It had not refused, for instance, the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. But the present bill would not even add permanently to the members of the house; he proposed that in future cases of disfranchisement, the franchise should be allowed to drop altogether, instead of being transferred. The whole measure seemed to him incapable of alarming the most timid person, and it ought to be received with willingness by the sternest opposers of innovation. When he looked at other countries, the wisdom and policy of the measure was still more imperiously forced on his conviction. We could not shut our eyes to the fact that a collision between royal authority and popular resistance was rapidly approaching in France, though all must regret that some compromise was not contemplated which might save society from its consequences. It was for us, then, to profit by the warning, and awaken in time to a perception of the nice mechanism of our own representative government. It behoved all who were lovers of liberty without disorder, and of peace without slavery, to watch anxiously at such a period; endeavouring so to accommodate our system to altered times and circumstances, as to render it worthy of the respect and affection of the people. The constitution itself supplied us with the means; we had only to use its own renovating principles. Its fabric was not, as some supposed, that of a Grecian temple, perfect and complete in all its parts, which could not suffer alteration without the destruction of its symmetry; it was rather like a Gothic building, susceptible of enlargement, consistently with the integrity of its ornaments and the security of its duration. The views on which this bill was founded were repeated and enforced by Lord Sandon, General Gascoyne, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Huskisson, Bright, and Brougham. All of these members did not go to the same lengths as Lord John Russell, but all admitted that it was desirable the towns in question should be represented. Some would give them members only as a sequel of the disfranchisement of corrupt boroughs. Mr. Huskisson, who delivered his last speech on parliamentary reform, said that he would have been better pleased to have been able directly to transfer the franchise of East Retford to Birmingham; but as the late decision of the house had rendered that impracticable, he would support the motion. He observed that the time was fast approaching when ministers would be compelled to come down to the house with some measure, or to resign their situations, and nothing was more unwise than for a government to delay important propositions, till compelled by overwhelming majorities. He did not wish it to be understood, however, that his vote implied he could ever be brought to sanction the substitution of a new system of representation for that which existed. He added:—"To a more extensive parliamentary reform, a measure founded upon the principle of a general revision, reconstruction, and remodelling of our present constitution, I have always been opposed; and while I have a seat in this house I shall give it my most decided opposition. If such an extensive reform were effected, we might go on for two or three sessions in good and easy times, and such a reformed parliament might adapt itself to one mode of government on the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an extensive change were effected in the constitution of parliament, sure I am that, whenever an occasion shall arise of great popular excitement or re-action, the consequence will be a total subversion of our constitution, followed by anarchy and confusion, and terminating either in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, or a military despotism; these two great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they have been always hitherto seen to observe. I am, therefore, opposed to such an extensive change and revision of our representative system." The motion for leave to bring in the bill was negatived by a majority of one hundred and eighty against forty.

If this bill was the most harmless modification under which reform could be proposed, that which was subsequently brought before parliament by Mr. O'Connell was, on the other hand, the most wild and ruinous. That arch-demagogue moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish triennial parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot, the foundation of this system being this proposition—simple indeed in its nature, but tending to anarchy—that every man who pays a tax, or is liable to serve in the militia, is entitled to have a voice in the representation. Lord John Russell, who took occasion of the motion to introduce certain resolutions of his own, embracing a more comprehensive scheme of change than his former proposal, said, that he could not consent to any of Mr. O'Connell's scheme. Triennial parliaments might not be very objectionable; but as to the other propositions, he considered them totally incompatible with the constitution of England. Lord Althorp spoke to the same effect: as any change was an evil, he said, the least change was the limit to which he should go. Mr. Brougham adopted the same course: the duration of parliaments might be shortened, he thought, but he set his face against universal suffrage and vote by ballot. His arguments against them were very cogent and convincing. A county election, he said, could not be managed like an election at a club, where the box was handed round, and the pellet thrown in, and there was an end of it. To contest for a county or extensive city, a man must be constantly among the people. His friends and himself should be unremittingly engaged in active canvas; committees and subdivisions of committees must be occupied in parcelling out the several districts, and ascertaining how their strength stood in this part and the other; landlords were to be sought out, and they of course would exercise an influence over their tenants. He would suppose that those who advocated this system would be able to devise some plan by which the voter was to be able to vote in such a manner as that mortal could not discover, except from himself, how he voted; that he was to be placed in some kind of sentry-box, and provided with some kind of stamped pellet, the forgery of which would no doubt be made an offence: it being assumed all this while that notwithstanding promises made to his landlord, and the candidate, his friend, the elector intended to give his vote to another. The vote was given, and against a promise. Well, he went afterwards to the candidate, congratulated him upon his prospect of success, not failing to add, that his vote was one of the items which contributed to the prospect. But then see the moral; see how far the concealment of what was done could be continued; how far the knowledge of it could be kept from the landlord, to secure whose interest in retaining him in his farm he had made the promise. No one could see what passed in the sentry-box, or how the pellet was disposed of; but were there no such things as conversation amongst friends in going to or coming from church, or at the club, or at the alehouse? was nothing of the nature of the vote to be allowed to transpire? was a man to keep such a watch and guard over his words and actions for three years, until the next election come, that no mortal could discover what he did? He must not tell it to his wife or his child; he must keep it locked up from his bosom friend; he must not broach it to his pot-companion, but be as dumb as the tankard which they had emptied between them; and this state of silence must be observed for three years. Thus far for the elector: how far was the concealment to be operated upon by the candidate? He had found out that he was unsuccessful; that where he had been promised five hundred votes he had not got fifty, the seed giving back one for ten, instead of yielding ten for one, as a good husbandman had a right to expect. Inquiries will be set on foot as to where the deficiency was. It might be a mistake of the poll-clerks: the poll-books were examined and all was right still. Then the Lord Johns and Sir Roberts, who had promised their interests, were questioned; but they insisted that it could not be amongst their tenants, for they had all promised, and had all, no doubt, religiously kept their words. Each defended his own tallies; but one had not voted for every tally promised. Suspicions were excited, and some of the voters questioned. The man so questioned had only one of three answers to give: he must say that he voted against the candidate, by which he was sure to lose his farm; or he must refuse to say how he voted, by which his loss of the farm would be equally certain; or he must insist and solemnly call God to witness that he had voted as he had promised. But even this latter alternative would not completely lull suspicions: there would still be the watchings and questionings of friends, and of agents, for no act that could be framed could prevent these. In the course of these something would turn up to fix the suspicions on which bad landlords would be ready to act against their tenants; and it was on the assumption of bad landlords, who would visit the refusal to vote for them or their tenants, that the necessity of vote by ballot was at all defended. The bad landlord would act upon suspicion: the more so, as, there being only fifty votes where five hundred had been promised, the chance was ten to one that any one of the five hundred who said he kept his word, was stating a falsehood. Examples would then be made of a few: and what would be the result? Why, that at the election a vast number would not vote at all. Some even of those who had kept their word would take that as the surest way to prove that they were not in the pay of the opposite party. The landlord would compel others, whom he strongly suspected, not to vote, as the only way of preventing their accession to the other side; or he might persuade some of those who, he knew, if they voted at all, would vote against him, to pair off with those whom he suspected, and thus deprive his adversary of the whole. But was there no other way of coming at the fact of how a voter had kept his word? If, in voting against his promise, he acted for his principles, he would be likely to make it known for the sake of those principles; if from friendship, he would probably tell it to gratify his friend; or if he gave it from motives of interest, nothing was less likely than that he should conceal it, for the attainment of the object would render the disclosure useful; and in this way the secret would come out, and the offended landlord at last get at it, and the visitation upon him, which the vote by ballot was intended to avert, would follow. But was this the only evil which resulted from this system? Was there not a far worse remaining behind? Did not all this study and concealment of a solemn promise violated; this long watching and guard over a man's words and actions, so as constantly to appear that which he was not, tend to make him lead the life of a hypocrite; that character of whom it was so justly and eloquently said, that his life was one continued lie! What could be expected from a man who had deceived those who had trusted him, and from one election to the other was obliged to keep a constant watch on his words, lest, in an unguarded moment, he should betray his secret, the discovery of which would not be more injurious to his interests than fatal to his character? What must be the opinions of those who could believe that a man, who was for years, nay, even for months or weeks, habitually false on one subject which was dear to him, could be true on all others? Such an opinion was founded in utter ignorance of the human mind: false such a man was, and false he must be, until human nature became totally changed, or until men's opinions of each other were totally subverted. Thus the ballot would have but little efficiency, and that little would be purchased at a great price. Mr. O'Connell's motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and nineteen against thirteen; and the resolutions moved by Lord John Russell were afterwards negatived by two hundred and thirteen against one hundred and seventeen. These resolutions proposed to give members to large and manufacturing towns, and additional members to counties of great wealth and population. They also proposed to decrease the numbers of members for boroughs, giving to such boroughs compensation by means of a fixed sum to be paid annually for a certain number of years. Among the towns which were proposed to be comprehended were Macclesfield, Stockport, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Brighton, Whitehaven, Wolverhampton, Sunderland, Manchester, Bury, Bolton, Dudley, Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield, North and South Shields, and it was stated that the same principle would extend to the representation of such large cities as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. But the time was not yet come when such an extensive reform as this could be entertained in the British parliament.



BILL FOR REMOVING THE CIVIL DISABILITIES AFFECTING JEWS.

{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}

The only other measure affecting the constitution of the legislative body during this session was proposed by Mr. Grant, who moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the civil disabilities affecting British born subjects professing the Jewish religion. In support of this motion Mr. Grant narrated to the house the treatment which the Jews had received from the conquest down to the last century, when the act for naturalizing foreign Jews was repealed within a few months after it was passed, in consequence of the commotions excited by the measure. From that time, he said, nothing had been done respecting: the Jews; they had derived no benefit from the growing liberality of legislation; and were alone still placed beyond the pale of the constitution. They were excluded from practising law and physic, from holding any corporate office; and from being members of parliament. They might even be prevented from voting for members of parliament, if the oath were tendered to them. They were, also, subject to local grievances; for in the metropolis, at least, they could not obtain the freedom of any of the companies, nor exercise any retail trade. And yet they formed a community of peaceable and industrious persons. They were less stained with political offences than any other body of men; and by their wealth they added to the opulence of the country; and all they asked in return was to be admitted to the benefits of the constitution. The house had nothing to do but follow the example presented by the Catholic bill of last year. The introduction of the bill was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis and the chancellor of the exchequer, as inconsistent with what had been the constant practice of the legislature; namely, to protect Christianity under some of its forms in all their enactments. The proposition could only stand upon the principle that no regard should be paid to a man's religion. It would therefore apply to Turks and Mohammedans as well as to Jews; and it would only teach the people that parliament held Christianity a matter of indifference, though Christianity was bound up as part and parcel of the constitution. As for the Catholic relief bill, that was no precedent; there was a broad distinction between admitting to power in a Christian state, those who were sworn enemies to Christianity, and those who were Christians of different denominations. Jews were aliens in the popular and substantial sense; they had another country and an interest not merely distinct from, but hostile to that of the country which they might happen to inhabit. The solicitor-general said, that, according to the law of England, the Jews had no rights; for when they came back to this country at the Restoration, after being driven out, no law had passed giving them the rights of citizenship. But how did they stand at present? Their religion was protected; their children legitimate; and they had power to purchase land, and to transmit it to posterity. No man could doubt that Christianity was a part of the law of England; and this was to be borne in mind in legislating for those who were not Christians. The question is, "Will you put an end to all religious distinctions?" There could never be a thorough community between Christians and Jews; there was a marked line of distinction between them; a complete individuality in the Jewish character. The bill was supported by Sir James Mackintosh, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley and Smith, on the ground that it was persecution to look at a man's religion when speaking of his fitness for civil rights; and that from the introduction of Jews, no danger was to be dreaded either to the constitution or to Christianity. To refuse the bill, it was said, after admitting Catholics, would be an absurd and inexplicable contradiction. On a division the motion for introducing the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifteen against ninety-seven. Before the second reading came on several petitions were presented in favour of the bill, from London, Leeds, Liverpool, and other places, as well as from private individuals. On the second reading the usual topics in favour of it were enforced by Sir Robert Wilson, Lord John Russell, and Messrs. O'Connell, Brougham, and Huskisson. Sir Robert Peel—for the honourable secretary had now become a baronet by the death of his father—said that he would not go so far as to say that this bill would unchristianize the legislature; but its principle was clearly this, that every form and ceremony whatever, which gave an assurance of adherence to Christianity, should be abolished; and all who supported the bill must maintain that every man, whether a sectarian or infidel, would have a right to the same concession, though he could give no affirmation which would afford a security to the state. General Gascoyne moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months, and on a division this was carried by a majority of two hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and sixty-five, and the bill was lost.



BILL FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN CASES OF FORGERY.

On the 1st of April Mr. Peel brought in a bill to alter the law in cases of forgery. The principal object of this bill was to abrogate partially the capital punishment which had so long been affixed to almost every branch of this offence. Thus he proposed to remit the capital punishment in all those cases where serious doubts attended its infliction, and where the complainants by due caution could have saved themselves—such as forging receipts for money, orders for the delivery of goods, forging stamps, uttering forged stamps, attempting to defraud by issuing forged orders for goods, the fabrication of the material of Bank of England paper, and forging deeds and bonds. Capital punishment was still retained in all forgeries of the great seal, privy seal, and sign-manual; in forgeries of wills, on the public funds, on bank or money notes, or orders for the payment of money; and, in a word, of all documents which represent money, and are negotiable and transferable for it. This bill did not meet with the views of a strong party in the house, who thought that the punishment of death should not be inflicted in any cases of forgery, nor extended to any offence short of murder. On the third reading of the bill, Sir James Mackintosh moved a clause repealing the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, except that of the forgery of wills. It also provided that any person against whom a conviction of forgery should pass should lie in prison, either with or without hard labour, at home for the space of fourteen years, or if sent abroad to a penal colony, should be transported for any term not exceeding that number of years. He further proposed to give, not only the power of inflicting either of these punishments, but also that of accumulating both whenever the circumstances of the case should be so atrocious as to deserve the greatest severity. He proposed, likewise, to vest a power in the crown, authorising it to treat all persons convicted of forgery in such a manner as would mark forgery as an offence of a blacker dye than any other which was not directed against life. Finally, to meet the objection that the importance of employing persons of education in the public service in new and remote colonies would lead, first to the pardon, and then to the employment in public situations of such persons convicted of forgery, he proposed to take away all power of remitting or relaxing the punishment of forgery, except by a representation to the king of the grounds on which it was proposed to remit it, and by a remission of it by the king at home. This clause was carried, and Mr. Peel thereupon relinquished all charge of the bill, hinting at the same time that the house would probably regret the decision to which it had come. On its introduction in the lords, therefore, the lord chancellor declared himself against so sweeping a repeal of the capital punishment, and moved that the bill should be restored to the state in which it had originally been introduced into the house of commons. His views were supported by Lords Tenterden, Wynford, and Eldon. The amendment of the lord chancellor was carried by a large majority; and although when the bill was returned to the commons those who supported Sir James Mackintosh's amendment complained that the lords had improperly treated them, the lord chancellor's amendment was finally agreed to, and the bill passed.



BILL FOR AMENDING THE LAW OF LIBEL.

In a previous article certain state prosecutions for libel have been noticed. These prosecutions, and the conduct of the attorney-general in promoting them, were brought before the house of commons by Sir Charles Wetherell, on a motion for copies of the proceedings on the three ex officio informations against the proprietor of a London newspaper. As the motion was merely for the production of papers, and the attorney-general was willing that the papers should be produced, there was no debate, but the general impression of the house seemed to be that the prosecutions were harsh and vindictive, and that Sir James Scarlett, notwithstanding his Whig education and opposition life, was inclined to be a very dictatorial attorney-general. Sir James attempted to recover the favour of the house by a bill to mitigate in some respects the laws of libel as they existed in what were called the Six Acts. By one of these acts it was provided that a second conviction for a seditious or blasphemous libel might be punished with transportation; and another set forth that every person who should publish a newspaper, or certain other publications, should first enter into a recognizance of three hundred pounds, with two sufficient securities, in the metropolis, or of two hundred pounds, if in the country. The object of this clause was to guard against the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels, and to ensure a forthcoming fund, out of which their authors should pay the awarded penalty. By the bill now introduced the punishment for the second offence was to be repealed, and the securities demanded raised from three to four hundred pounds in London, and from two to three hundred pounds in the country. To the first of these propositions there was no objection; but a strenuous opposition was made to the second, to adopt which, it was said, would be imposing new shackles on the press. When the bill was in committee the clause was rejected on a motion by Lord Morpeth; but on the third reading, the attorney-general having collected a more numerous attendance of ministerial members, moved and carried its restoration.



ALTERATIONS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Committees of the house of commons, and the law-commissioners appointed by the crown, had recently found much to blame in the arrangements for the distribution of justice in Wales. In consequence of this an act was passed during the present session abolishing the separate system of Welsh judicature, and annexing the jurisdiction of the Welsh judges to that of the judges of England. By the same bill the number of puisne judges was increased from twelve to fifteen—a new one being added to each of the courts of king's bench, common pleas, and exchequer. In Scotland, on the other hand, while courts were abolished, the number of judges in the remaining court was diminished by the subtraction of two from its fifteen lords ordinary, or working judges, on whose ability to get through the work depends whether the eight other judges, who sit four and four in two courts of review, shall have judgments brought before them.



ILLNESS OF HIS MAJESTY.

During the sitting of parliament, business was interrupted by the illness of the king. His majesty's health had, indeed, for a considerable time been in a precarious state, but the first bulletin was not issued till the 15th of April, when it was announced that he was labouring under a bilious attack, accompanied by an embarrassment of breathing. The disorder was subsequently ascertained to have been ossification of the vessels of the heart. The symptoms continued to vary, the patient enjoying temporary intervals of comparative ease; but they did not give way, and they brought with them such an accession of bodily debility as rendered painful even the slightest exertion.