{GEORGE IV. 1826—1827}
Meeting of Parliament..... Measures proposed for relieving
commercial Distress..... Bill to enable private Banks to
have an unlimited Number of Partners, &c. Appointment of
a Committee on Emigration..... Modification of the Corn-
Laws..... Debates on Free trade..... Financial
Statements..... Bill to prevent Bribery at Elections.....
Parliamentary Reform..... Alteration of the criminal
Code..... Case of Mr. Kenriek..... State of the Colonies.....
Motion for amending the Representation of Edinburgh,
&c. Resolution for the Regulation of private
Committees..... Motion to disjoin the Presidency of the
Board of Trade from the Treasurership of the Navy......
Motion to hold Parliament occasionally in Dublin and
Edinburgh..... Restoration of forfeited Scotch Peerages.....
Catholic Emancipation, &c. India Jury Bill, &e......
Naturalization Act, &c. Prorogation and Dissolution of
Parliament..... General Election..... The Burmese War.....
Meeting of the New Parliament..... Motion for a select
Committee on Joint Stock Companies, &c. King’s Message
respecting the Conduct of Spain, &e...... Resolutions
against Bribery at Elections.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
{A.D. 1826}
Parliament reassembled on the 2nd of February, when the speech was
again delivered by commission. Its principal topic was the depression
of manufactures and commerce which still existed. The commissioners
remarked:—“We are commanded by his majesty to inform you that his
majesty has seen with regret the embarrassment which has occurred in
the pecuniary transactions of the country since the close of the
last session of parliament. This embarrassment did not arise from any
political events, either at home or abroad. It was not produced by any
unexpected demand upon the public resources, nor by the apprehension
of any interruption to the general tranquillity. Some of the causes
to which this evil must be attributed lie without the reach of direct
parliamentary interposition; nor can security against the recurrence
of them be found, unless in the experience of the sufferings which they
have occasioned. But to a certain portion of this evil, correctives, at
least, if not actual remedies, may be applied; and his majesty relies
upon your wisdom to devise such measures as may tend to protect both
private and public interests against the like sudden and violent
fluctuations, by placing on a more firm foundation the currency and
circulating credit of the country.” The commissioners further stated
that they had his majesty’s commands to lay before parliament copies of
conventions, founded on the acts relative to trade and commerce passed
last session, which had been concluded with France, and the Hanseatic
towns of Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg. They concluded by stating that his
majesty’s attention had been directed to certain measures recommended in
the last session of parliament for the improvement of Ireland, and that
his majesty had the satisfaction of acquainting the peers and members
assembled, that the industry of that part of the United Kingdom was in
the course of a gradual and general advancement; an advancement mainly
attributable to the tranquillity which now prevailed in that country.
The addresses in both houses passed without any serious opposition,
although much discussion took place on every topic on which the speech
touched, and on some to which it made no allusion. In the upper house
Lord King, after ascribing the pecuniary embarrassments to over-issues
of paper money by the Bank of England, attacked the corn-laws, and urged
the necessity of a complete alteration in them. He moved an amendment to
the address, pledging the house to revise the corn-laws in this session;
but this proposal was resisted as too precipitate, and the amendment
was negatived without a division. The principal object of Lord King,
however, and of other peers who spoke on the occasion, was to elicit
from the minister some general description of the measures alluded to
in the speech, as likely to be proposed for the purpose of preventing
future pecuniary embarrassments. Lord Liverpool, in gratifying them,
attributed the embarrassments to the mad spirit of speculation which had
existed for the last two years; a spirit doubly mischievous, because it
had affected the issues of the country banks to such a degree that
they had increased in a far higher proportion than those of the Bank of
England. He showed that in the course of the last two years the issues
of the country banks had increased from four to eight millions.
The correctives government intended to apply were to prohibit the
circulation, after a certain period, of notes under £2, whether issued
by the Bank of England, or by any private banker; to increase the
stability of private banks by enabling them to augment their capital;
and to repeal that clause in the charter of the Bank of England which
rendered it unlawful for any private banking establishment to consist of
more than six partners. In the commons, on the occasion of the debate on
the address, Mr. Brougham stated that he believed that the distress now
existing proceeded from causes much more complicated than those to which
the speech ascribed to it. He believed it to be universal; and he took
occasion to combat the opinion of those who derived it from the late
introduction of more liberal principles into a commercial policy. He
remarked.—“If the embarrassment were confined to any one branch of
our commerce, for instance, to the silk trade, then an argument might be
raised, and, without any great violence to facts, the distress might be
attributed to our new commercial policy. But when it is observed that
not only silk, but wool, cotton, and linen are equally affected, it is
in vain to deny that the nature of the facts rebut the assertion of
any connexion between the present distress and the principles of free
trade.” The chancellor of the exchequer maintained that many of the
difficulties arose beyond the control of government, although he allowed
that some were within its reach, and that their influence might at least
be modified. The principal of these, he said, were the great increase of
the issues of the country banks, and the weak foundation on which many
of these establishments stood in point of capital. Mr. Hume denied this
hypothesis, and maintained that the true causes of the distress were
to be found in the pressure of taxation, and the lavish expenditure
of government. The whole empire, he said, presented one scene of
extravagant misrule, from the gold lace and absurd paraphernalia of
military decoration of the guards up to the mismanagement of the Burmese
war: it was a farce, he added, to attribute the distress to the banking
system. Other members defended the country banks from the imputations
cast upon them; and Mr. Baring passed a high eulogy on the conduct of
the directors of the Bank of England in this crisis. He remarked that
it was impossible for any public body, for any set of men, to have acted
with more honour, promptitude, or good sense, than the Bank evinced upon
that emergency. Although it was not till the 10th that the propositions
for proscribing the small notes and enlarging bank partnerships were
formally brought forward, yet they were incidentally up to that period
the subject of discussion. The views of different members on the
subject, however, will be better seen in the debates which ensued when
the measure was proposed.
MEASURES PROPOSED FOR RELIEVING COMMERCIAL DISTRESS.
On the 10th of February the whole house having resolved itself into
a committee on the Bank charter bill, the chancellor of the exchequer
brought forward the proposition for prohibiting the circulation of small
notes. In doing so he said that though fluctuations were inseparable
from trade, in defiance of any precautions which ingenuity could invent,
yet their effects were often aggravated by a state of currency, and a
facility of speculation like those produced by the existing issues of
paper. The small notes especially carried the consequences of these
changes among those on whom they pressed most severely. These notes
were chiefly in the hands of the labouring classes, and a few of them
constituted a poor man’s fortune; consequently when a panic took place
he hastened to save his little store by withdrawing it from the banker.
As the alarm spread, the more wealthy imitated this example, and a
sudden run brought with it the downfall of the bank. From this he argued
that if these notes were replaced by a metallic currency, the security
of the banks would be ensured, and the misfortunes which their failures
would otherwise produce limited. This measure, he said, was not a
novelty, but had been the regular policy of the country; for an act had
been passed in 1775 prohibiting the tissue of bank-notes, and in 1777
another act had prohibited their issue under the sum of five pounds. The
chancellor of the exchequer argued that any apprehensions of injury to
commerce from the proposed measure must be founded upon this—that the
prohibition of small notes would diminish the circulation by the amount
of these notes; that their absence could not be supplied by gold; and,
that, therefore, manufactures and trade would, to this extent, be left
without their necessary and legitimate purposes. He went on to show that
these apprehensions were visionary; that the withdrawal of the small
notes, while it gave security to the bank which issued, and to the party
who held them, would not operate injuriously on the currency, or on the
trade and manufactures of the country. There were two ways, he said, of
effecting this withdrawal: one by enacting that no small notes should be
stamped after a certain period; the other by allowing those already in
circulation to run a certain course till a fixed period, and prohibiting
any new ones to be created. In three years the first of these modes
might lead to unsatisfactory results; for if the power of stamping were
to remain unlimited during that period, so considerable a number might
be stamped as to subject the country, in its ultimate endeavours to
get rid of them, to all its present evils. It was intended therefore
to propose, that no new notes should be stamped, and that those in
circulation should cease to circulate at the end of three years.
In conclusion, the chancellor of the exchequer moved the following
resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this committee, that all
promissory notes payable to the bearer on demand, issued by licence,
and under the value of five pounds, and stamped previous to the 5th of
February, 1826, be allowed to circulate until February 5th, 1829, and
no longer.” Mr. Baring took the lead in opposition to the measure,
objecting to it as being inadequate to meet the evils complained of, and
ill-suited to the present state of the country. He could not agree, he
said, in attributing the existing embarrassments either to speculation
or over-trading: much of it had been owing to the conduct previously
pursued by the Bank. The resolution was likewise opposed by Sir John
Wrottesly, Alderman Thompson, Alderman Heygate, and Mr. Wilson, who were
adverse to it on various grounds: that it would be wholly inoperative to
give any effectual relief; that it would be positively mischievous; and
that the present state of the country required the postponement of such
a measure. The scheme of increasing the number of partners in a bank by
way of security was treated by opposition as visionary, since it was not
on numbers, but on prudence, and their mode of conducting business,
that their credit depended. Sir J. Wrottesly maintained that the country
bankers, instead of exciting the mad spirit of speculation, were the
only persons who had not speculated; and, in reality, were obliged, from
a regard to their own safety, to discourage such a practice on the
part of their customers. He asked, where did this spirit of speculation
commence? It first showed itself in Manchester and Liverpool, where no
local notes circulated. The cotton speculations, in these two places
were the first heard of, and yet in neither of them was a single note
circulated. The next point at which this spirit was manifested, and
at which it had led to its un-happiest results, was not in the country
where the notes in question circulated, but on the stock-exchange of
London. It was further urged by the opponents of the measure that the
very essence of the present pecuniary embarrassments consisted in the
curtailed state of the currency; and that the direct tendency of the
proposed measure was to increase them by limiting it still more. Taking
the currency at twenty millions, it was argued, and the deduction to be
made on account, of the recent failures at three millions and a half,
the effect of the scheme in contemplation would be to cause a still
further deficiency, and reduce it to about ten millions, with which
it was impossible to carry on the trade of the country. It was further
argued that although a respite of three years was ostensibly granted to
the small notes, yet the adoption of the resolution would be tantamount
to driving them out of circulation at once, inasmuch as every banker
who entertained a due regard for his credit would be compelled to take
measures for withdrawing his notes as quickly as possible. They had been
issued, it was said, in reliance on the stability of the system, and on
the faith of acts of parliament, which ought to be as inviolate as the
charter of the Bank; and if these sources were now called in, the course
of industry in various channels must be stopped. How, it was asked, was
the gap made in the circulation of the country to be filled up? At the
termination of the war there existed a strong desire to return to a
metallic currency; and during the first years of peace there was a great
facility of obtaining specie; but it was not so at the present time. No
country could obtain it without giving its value in commodities. At the
end of the war, our manufactures, still in their prime, commanded
every market, and enabled us to obtain our gold: but at present the
manufactures of the continent and America were springing up all around
us, and every year we were more and more excluded from foreign markets.
The inability to dispose of our commodities was, in fact, it was stated,
one of the most aggravated features of the existing distress. In such
circumstances, therefore, it was urged, that it would be most unwise to
adopt a measure, which besides injuring an individual class, would tend
to increase public calamity. The resolution was supported by Messrs.
Huskisson, Peel, and Canning, who denied that to ascribe much of the
distress which had prevailed to the issues of the country banks, was
to attack the character of the country bankers, or that anything had
occurred to justify the extreme sensibility which had been manifested on
their behalf. With regard to the measure itself, they stated it was not
intended so much a remedy for existing evils, as a preventative against
their future recurrence, by bringing the currency, to a certain extent,
to be a metallic one, and especially that portion of it which alone
supplied the wants of the lower classes. All experience, it was urged,
proved that this restoration of a metallic currency could not be
effected so long as small notes were allowed to be circulated; a
permanent state of cash-payments could never exist by their side. It was
argued, that if crown notes and half-crown notes were issued, crowns and
half-crowns would disappear; and that if the one pound notes continued
to circulate, sovereigns would become rarities. There never was a gold
circulation in the country except in Lancashire, where no country notes
existed; and when, in the year 1822 and 1823, the Bank of England was
anxious to supply the country with gold, the sovereigns sent down by
one mail-coach returned with the next. Great sacrifices had been made
to effect the introduction of even the partial metallic currency now in
existence; and these sacrifices had been made in vain: the currency
of the country could never be placed, on a solid basis unless country
bankers were prohibited from issuing notes, excepting such as were of a
considerably higher denomination than the current coin, so as to save it
from the paper currency. The principle of the measure therefore could
be resisted only by those who held that the pecuniary relations of the
country were best secured by proscribing a metallic currency. But its
necessary effect would be to give solidity to the banks themselves,
by compelling them to maintain a portion of their circulation in gold,
instead of worthless paper; and thus, even where a failure took place,
extensive misery, which such an occurrence produced among the lower
classes, would no longer return. The security of the poorer classes in
such cases lay in the absence of small paper. Let the Bank of England
retain in its hands as much gold as might be necessary for the ordinary
operations of commerce, for such demands as the exigencies of government
might require, or to adjust an unfavourable state of foreign exchanges;
let every country bank be governed by the same rules, and compelled
to keep an amount of gold proportioned to its operations; and a
sensitiveness to occurrences likely to cause a pressure on the country
banks would be created, which would tend to the security of the whole
kingdom; the issues would be kept within bounds, and gold would be kept
in the kingdom. The expulsion of small notes, it was stated, could not
operate injuriously to the country bankers. The number of country banks
was about eight hundred, and the circulation of each of these would
average about £8,000; could it be supposed that a stability which
had stood the late shock would be shaken or destroyed by a gradual
curtailment of paper, to the extent annually of two or three thousand
pounds for three successive years? When the difficulty was thus reduced;
when the means were so limited and humble by which a mighty principle
was to be established; when, by an operation so minute, and a process
almost insensible, the prodigious advantage could be obtained of placing
the pecuniary concerns of the country on the broad and imperishable
basis of a metallic currency; it would be as imprudent to let slip
the opportunity as it would be unreasonable to deny the principle. The
intended change was neither to affect the paper circulation at large,
nor to trench upon the great mass of paper currency, which was confined
to notes of the higher denominations: these might be piled mountains
high, provided the base be refreshed by streams of the metallic
currency. To those members who, without objecting to the principle of
the measure, wished it to be postponed, it was answered, that instead of
coming too soon it had come too late. Mr. Brougham, who also supported
the resolution, strongly urged the inexpediency of delay when the work
was already half done, in consequence of the general want of confidence
having of itself greatly limited the issues of the country banks. Mr.
Baring moved as an amendment, “That it is the opinion of this house
that, in the present disturbed state of public and private credit, it
is not expedient to enter into a consideration of the banking system
of the country.” This was negatived by an overwhelming majority; as was
also an amendment moved by Mr. Gurney, to exclude the Bank of England
from the operation of the resolution. A bill for carrying this
resolution was immediately brought in by the chancellor of the
exchequer; and, though much resistance was offered to some of its
details, both in the commons and in the lords, the bill passed into
a law. The Earl of Carnarvon, who moved, on the second reading in the
lords, that the bill should be read that day six months, stated a new
reason why an actual gold circulation ought to be kept as far from
our doors as possible. A return of it, he said, would bring back the
highwaymen of Bagshot and Hounslow heath.
There was a greater temptation to commit robbery in the case of gold
than in the case of paper, because there were greater facilities for
escaping detection. It was easy to understand that there could not be
so strong an inducement to crime when the currency consisted in notes,
numbered, and signed with a known name, as when it consisted of gold
coin, which it was impossible to identify. Lord Liverpool, however, had
no such fears of highwaymen as the noble earl. He once, when he was a
boy, he said, lost all the money he had in his pockets by a highwayman;
and it was natural that he should be as much alive to this danger as
the noble earl. But still, with all his early associations, he could
not help thinking that if danger must revive with a return to a metallic
currency, it would have been felt during the last four or five years;
for during all that time their lordships had been travelling about,
not with notes, but with sovereigns in their pockets. The almost total
extinction of highway robberies was to be attributed to the only thing
that could check or extinguish them—the establishment of a powerful and
effective police.
While this measure for annihilating the issue of small notes in England
was making its way through parliament, the fitness of its application
to Ireland and Scotland was discussed. In Scotland there was a great
opposition even to the very idea of it. In every city and county public
meetings were held to deprecate the destruction of the one pound and
guinea notes, and men of all ranks and parties joined in one unanimous
outcry against the threatened introduction of gold. During the
discussion on the bill regarding England, indeed, the tables of both
houses were loaded with petitions from Scotland, setting forth the
benefits which that country so long had enjoyed from its banking system,
and the evils which would arise from every attempt to give it a new
and an untried form. Parliament rightly paid respect to the anxiety and
unanimity with which these opinions were expressed, especially as they
came from parties who were acquainted with the nature and practical
effects of the system. Moreover, the difference between the two systems
of the two countries, and the difference between the effects of the
two systems, formed good reasons why parliament should pause before
extending the plan to Scotland. Accordingly select committees were
appointed by both houses to inquire into the state of the circulation of
small notes in Scotland and Ireland, and to report upon the
expediency of altering the laws regarding it. Many Scottish merchants,
manufacturers, and bankers were examined by these committees; and
the reports presented to both houses towards the end of the session
justified the resistance made. The stability of the banking system in
Scotland, the committee stated, did not justify any alteration; and
they were apprehensive that a prohibition of small notes would injure
one branch of the Scottish system which it was essential to preserve,
namely, the giving of cash credits. Under these circumstances they
recommended that the paper money of Scotland should not be meddled with.
Sir M. W. Ridley, however, who, with others, was apprehensive that
a metallic currency in England could not exist with a small paper
circulation in Scotland, moved a resolution that the house would, in the
course of next session, institute an inquiry as to how far the interests
of England and Scotland were likely to be affected by the existence of
different systems of currency in the two countries; and to ascertain
whether any, or what means ought to be adopted to assimilate the
currency in both. But this motion was negatived without a division; and
thus Scotland was left for the present in possession of that system of
currency under which her commerce, manufactures, and agriculture had so
long flourished.
BILL TO ENABLE PRIVATE BANKS TO HAVE AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PARTNERS,
ETC.
The bill extinguishing small notes in England was followed by two other
bills affecting the currency. The first of these bills was to permit the
number of partners in each country bank to be unlimited; and the second,
as a compensation to the Bank for conceding to this measure, extended
its exclusive privileges to a circle round the metropolis, with a radius
of sixty-five miles, and authorised the directors to establish branch
banks in different parts of the country. While these measures were
before parliament, in which they received general support, distress
widely prevailed throughout the country. An idea was entertained that
ministers would relieve this by the issue of exchequer-bills; but
they had the prudence to abstain from any short-sighted and injurious
palliatives. They expressed themselves willing, indeed, to keep the Bank
harmless to the extent of two millions, if it should think proper to go
into the market and purchase exchequer-bills; but they would not involve
themselves in a system of artificial relief for a disease which they
thought would cure itself better without their interference. Petitions
were presented, praying the house to take commercial distress into its
consideration; and government was charged by several members with
being insensible to the misery which prevailed, and the danger which
threatened; but nothing could move them to implicate themselves in
transactions which might have involved them in pecuniary embarrassments.
But relief was afforded in some degree by the Bank itself. Although
the directors had refused to go into the market for the purchase of
exchequer-bills, they came to a resolution of lending three millions on
direct or collateral security. This measure was immediately carried into
execution; and commissioners were appointed by the Bank in the principal
provincial towns, in order to distribute the money. The whole of this
sum, however, was not applied for; the very knowledge that such loans
were attainable having a considerable effect in restoring confidence
among the commercial classes. In some of the provincial towns the
offices of the Bank commissioners, who were almost uniformly mercantile
persons connected with the district where they were stationed, were
almost unfrequented. The applications for advances, indeed, were made
with great moderation; none were required beyond what the need of the
applicant demanded. The adoption of this measure rendered it necessary
for the security of the Bank to introduce a bill regarding the law of
principal and agent. The Bank, indeed, in consenting to advance three
millions, made it a condition of their compliance, that the protection
of the statute should be extended to them immediately. Accordingly a
bill was brought in and passed to enable persons in the possession of
goods, and of the documents conferring the property of them, although
such persons should be merely factors or agents, to pledge them with the
Bank as effectually as if such persons were the owners. Such were
the measures recommended by ministers, and adopted by parliament, to
palliate the existing distress, and to provide security against some of
the causes which had produced it. And they tended greatly to those
ends. Commerce, feeling itself unshackled, soon repaired its losses
and extended its operations; it found its way not only through European
nations, where barriers had hitherto been raised against it, but
penetrated the most barbarous regions of the earth.
APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE ON EMIGRATION.
During the last four years government had lent its aid to those who
desired to emigrate to Canada. In the present year the general misery
which prevailed increased the claims of emigration, as a means of
relief, tenfold. In Scotland, even the landholders of a county applied
to ministers to afford encouragement to intended emigrants; and among
the artisans societies were formed for the purpose of projecting plans
of emigration, and obtaining assistance both from the crown and from
other sources. The subject was brought before parliament on the 14th
of March, when Mr. Wilmot Horton moved for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the expediency of encouraging emigration.
Government did not deny the importance of the question, or shut the door
against its consideration: no opposition was made to the appointment of
the committee; but nothing further occurred on this subject during the
present session.
MODIFICATION OF THE CORN-LAWS.
On the first day of this session Lord King had moved an address,
pledging the upper house to take the corn-laws into immediate
consideration; and the tables of both houses were covered, almost
nightly, with petitions, partly from the agriculturists, praying that
the law might be allowed to remain as it was; but chiefly from artisans
and manufacturers, praying for its instant repeal. Ministers did not
deem it prudent to introduce the subject during this session, although
they acknowledged its importance. The advocates of a repeal, however,
embraced many opportunities in charging government with keeping back
the settlement of this great question; and were at length determined
to bring it again before parliament. On the 18th of April Mr. Whitmore
moved, “That the house do now resolve itself into a committee, to
consider the propriety of a revision of the corn-laws.” He allowed
that the time at which he submitted his motion was not unattended with
inconvenience and the possibility of loss; but not only the expediency,
but the absolute necessity of an immediate alteration appeared to him
to be imperative. It was mischievous, he said, to delay the decision of
the question a single moment after government had applied the principles
of free trade to other branches of industry; inasmuch as these
principles could never be applied with due effect, nor have practical
justice done them so long as the present corn-laws formed part of our
commercial policy. Sir Francis Burdett supported the motion, not from
any expectation that it would produce the anticipated effects
expressed by the mover, but because the discussion would show, that the
landowners, in supporting their own class and station, were advocating
that which was essential to the general interests of the country, Mr.
Huskisson, in reply, without entering into the merits of the question,
deprecated its discussion at the present time. Ministers had announced
that the subject would not be brought forward this session, and nothing
had happened since to warrant this ill-timed motion. He had every
reason to suppose that the subject would be brought forward in the next
session, in which case he was most anxious to give it a serious and
dispassionate consideration. The motion was lost by a large majority;
but though the arrangement of the corn-laws still remained unsettled,
it was found necessary, before the end of the session, to introduce two
bills for modifying their strict operation. At the present time there
was but little diminution of distress; and its continued pressure led to
a series of disgraceful riots in Lancashire, where the vengeance of the
mob was furiously directed against machinery, especially power-looms,
under a notion that these were the great cause of the want of
employment. The impression arose from ignorance; but that ignorance had
been stimulated by a state of suffering which could not be overlooked.
At this time, in the immediate neighbourhood of the scene of distress,
in Hull, Liverpool, and other ports, there were between two and three
thousand quarters of wheat in bond; and it was supposed that the
admission of this into the market would diminish the extent of
suffering, while it would have no material effect on the agricultural
interests. Mr. Canning brought forward a proposition to allow bonded
corn to come into the market, on payment of a duty of ten shillings
per quarter, which was passed almost unanimously. Another measure of
modification proposed by government, however, met with stern opposition.
As it was impossible to foretell the result of the ensuing harvest, it
was proposed, as a measure of precaution, to vest in government during
the recess a power of permitting foreign grain to be imported on payment
of a fixed duty. This was resisted as irregular and unconstitutional,
both in the commons and in the upper house; but it was finally
carried. Before it passed, however, the opposition was gratified by the
limitation of the quantity of corn admissible to 500,000 quarters and
the period to two months from the opening of the ports.
DEBATES ON FREE TRADE.
The legislature had begun to act on the principles of free trade in
1824, by taking off those restrictions which prohibited the importation
of foreign silks. To the bill which permitted their admission with an
_ad valorem_ duty of thirty per cent., and which was now to come into
operation, a large portion of both masters and workmen referred the
depression of the trade, rather than to causes which did not come so
readily within general comprehension. Many manufacturers limited their
orders until the effect of this untried system should be somewhat known,
while others joined in the outcry against it. The general impression
among them was, that the “untried state of being” should not be tried;
and many petitions were presented from the persons and districts
interested in the silk manufacture, praying for a repeal, or at least
a modification of the provision of 1824, for a total prohibition of
foreign fabrics, or a higher duty upon their importation. On the 23rd
of February, Mr. Ellice, member for Coventry, moved that the petitions
which had been presented on this subject should be referred to a select
committee. This motion led to a debate, which, by adjournment, continued
two evenings. In this debate Mr. Huskisson was compelled to vindicate
the leading part he had taken in the measure under consideration, in
which he was ably supported by Mr. Canning. This motion was lost; but
soon afterwards Mr. Huskisson was obliged to vindicate the late policy
pursued respecting the shipping interest and navigation laws. This arose
from the complaints of the shipowners and others connected with the
shipping interests, who believed themselves to be affected by the late
navigation laws. They complained especially of the system which had
been adopted of removing discriminating duties, and allowing articles of
merchandise to be imported in foreign vessels, under the same burthens
as if they had been imported in British bottoms, on condition of
reciprocity in regard to ourselves. They contended in numerous petitions
to parliament that such a reciprocal removal of discriminating duties
was ruinous to British shipping, because the British and foreign owner
could never be put upon an equality, unless the latter were burthened
with a higher duty. The petitioners and their adherents in parliament,
repeated these complaints at every opportunity; but they did not venture
to bring the question formally under the notice of the legislature.
Mr. Huskisson, however, thought it expedient to show that their
representations were groundless; and on the 12th of May, in moving for
“returns of ships built in the British dominions, between 1824 and 1825,
both inclusive, distinguishing the number in each year, and the amount
of their tonnage,” he entered into an elaborate defence of the late
policy. Nothing could be clearer than his exposition of the principles
on which the former system was founded, of the changes which had since
occurred, and of the consequent necessity of our conformity to those
altered circumstances. Having developed the general principles on which
the navigation laws were originally founded, the different objects to
which these principles had been applied, the modifications which from
time to time had been made upon these objects, and the causes, political
and commercial, which had rendered such changes necessary he stated,
that all the allegations of mischief having ensued, and of an undue
preference having been given to foreign over British shipping, in
consequence of the late policy, were contradicted by the actual results.
The complaint was, that in consequence of this policy a decrease had
taken place in the employment of British shipping. Now in December,
1824, the number of British ships which entered our harbour was 19,104,
and the tonnage 2,364,000, and the number of foreign ships, 5,280, the
tonnage being 66,940. In 1825 the number of British ships entered was
21,980, and the tonnage, 2,768,844, and the number of foreign ships,
in the same period, 5,661, the tonnage being 68,192. It was to be
recollected, he said, that during this year there was an unusual
demand for shipping, both British and foreign, in consequence of the
unprecedented extent of speculation in almost every branch of commerce.
On looking to these returns, therefore, it was clear that the amount of
British shipping had increased in a far greater proportion than that of
all foreign nations put together. Such being the case, we were certainly
not in such a situation as was calculated to excite alarm with respect
to the comparative growth of British and foreign shipping. Even if the
latter had increased last year, it formed no ground for alarm, because
it might be fairly attributed to the unusual demand for shipping
produced by the prevailing spirit of speculation. The alarm felt upon
this subject was in part grounded upon the state of our commerce in the
Baltic, and the number of Prussian ships which entered our ports, as
compared with British. Now in 1824, the British ships which entered from
the Baltic was 440, and in 1825, 942. The number of Prussian ships which
entered in 1824 was 682, and in 1825, 827. The number of Prussian ships,
therefore, increased only by a fourth, while that of the British ships
was more than doubled. Such was the comparative state of the shipping
of both countries in the last year; and as Prussia seemed to be the
main object of jealousy when there existed so little ground for it
with respect to that nation, all apprehensions on this point might
be dismissed. Mr. Huskisson’s motion was agreed to; Sir W. Ridley
expressing a hope that the subject would receive a full investigation
in the next parliament. Later in the session, Mr. Huskisson brought in a
bill to give effect to some commercial treaties which had been concluded
between this country and Colombia, and the united provinces of the Rio
de la Plata. It had been stipulated, as these republics were not
in possession of any commercial marine of their own, that vessels,
wheresoever built, being the property of any of the citizens of either
republic, should be considered as national vessels of that republic:
the master, and three fourths of the mariners of the vessel being always
citizens of such republic. The design of Mr. Huskisson’s bill was to
give effect to these stipulations, and it was passed into a law.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
{GEORGE IV. 1826—1827}
The chancellor of the exchequer opened the budget on the 13th of March.
In doing so he took a large review of the whole financial system,
particularly of reductions which during several years had been made in
taxation, and of the effect of these reductions in the productiveness
of the revenue. His statements for the year partook of the favourable
character which they had sustained for the last three years, although he
admitted that he must make allowance for some loss in various branches
of revenue, consequent on the present state of public embarrassment.
After all the deductions, however, he reckoned the probable produce of
the year before him at not less than £57,000,000, while he calculated on
the whole expenditure at £56,328,421. This statement, holding out
much happier prospects than, from the distress which prevailed in the
country, could have been anticipated, was received by the house with
general satisfaction. Mr. Maberly and Mr. Hume, however, maintained not
only that there had been no reduction of the public debt, but that
there had been an actual increase both in the capital, and in the annual
charge, and that taxation had been raised instead of being diminished.
They alleged that the capital of the debt had been increased by the
enormous sum of £61,646,000 between 1819 and 1826, and that the annual
charge had grown in proportion. This assertion, however, rested on an
obvious fallacy, arising out of a total misapprehension of the nature of
what is called the dead-weight scheme, and of the arrangements which, in
pursuance of it, had been made with the Bank for discharging part of
the half-pay and pension list. Mr. Hume’s assertion, that taxation had
increased during the last three years was still more erroneous; for the
chancellor of the exchequer in his statements proved to demonstration,
by actual figures, that from 1816 to 1825 taxes had been reduced to the
large amount of £27,522,000, and that no new taxes had been imposed.
Subsequently the state of the public debt underwent much discussion, the
great questions being not whether it ought or might be reduced, but what
was its actual amount, and whether, in point of fact, any diminution of
it had been effected during late years. The amount of the army, navy,
and civil estimates was also censured by Messrs. Maberly and Hume with
other members, but the necessary supplies of the year were readily
voted.
BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
On the 2nd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill
for the better prevention of bribery at elections. Leave was given; and
on the second reading of it Mr. Wynn stated that he had many objections
to it, which he feared it would not be practicable to remove so as to
render it fit for the adoption of the house. As he understood it, he
said, the principle of the bill was, that upon complaint made to the
house by petition, a select committee should be appointed to try the
issue, and that their decision should be final. There was an obvious
objection to this; namely, that the decision of no committee could be
binding upon that house. The inquisitorial powers of the house might be
delegated, but not the judicial. A body might be appointed to bring in
a true verdict as to fact, but the question of corruption was a question
of influence. All that a committee could do was to report to the house,
and the house could proceed on that report or not as it pleased. Mr.
Wynn also objected to the clause which gave power to present petitions
of complaint within six years from the period of election; and that
there was no penalty or punishment assigned to an unfounded charge. The
bill was supported by Messrs. Hobhouse, Smith, and Fyshe Palmer, but
it did not proceed further; for when the report on the bill was to be
taken into consideration, Lord John Russell stated that it was not his
intention to press it during the session, but that he would probably
embody its provisions in the shape of resolutions. On the last day
of the session he moved, therefore, that “whenever a petition shall be
presented to this house after the expiration of the time allowed for
presenting petitions against the validity of the return of any member of
this house, by any person or persons, affirming that at any time within
eighteen calendar months previous to presenting the said petition,
general bribery or corruption has been practised for the purpose of
procuring the election or return of any member or members to serve in
parliament for any borough, cinque-port, or place, and it shall appear
to the house that such petition contains allegations sufficiently
specific to require further investigation, a day and hour shall
be appointed by the said house for taking the said petition into
consideration, so that the space of twenty days shall intervene between
the day on which the said petition shall have been presented, and the
day appointed by the said house for taking the same into consideration,
&c.”—“that at the hour appointed by the said house for taking such
petition into consideration, the said house shall proceed to appoint a
select committee to inquire into the truth of the matters contained in
the said petition, and report the result of their inquiry to the said
house, and such select committee shall consist of thirteen members
chosen by lot, &c.” Mr. Wynn said, that he did not intend to object to
the principles of these resolutions, but he thought they had better be
reserved till the next parliament, as they would have to be confirmed by
it. Mr. Peel thought so likewise, as the last day of the session was not
a fitting time to give them that consideration which their importance
demanded. Lord John Russell, however, pressed his motion to a division,
as he could not be certain of having a seat in the next parliament, and
the numbers on each side being equal, the speaker gave his casting vote
in favour of the resolutions.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
On the 27th of April Lord John Russell again brought forward the
question of parliamentary reform. The resolution he proposed was “that
the present state of the representation of this country in parliament
requires the most serious consideration of this house.” In his speech on
this occasion he laid down two premises: first, “that it was a matter of
paramount importance to adapt every government to the wants and wishes,
the prejudices and existing circumstances of the country for which
it was intended; and that the people of this country had arrived at a
degree of knowledge, intelligence, and wealth, which made them a people
more worthy than had ever before existed of being entrusted with
the privilege of electing their representatives, and more capable of
exercising it with advantage.” From these premises he concluded that the
house of commons as it existed at present, was badly constituted; for
instead of being chosen by the more numerous, the more intelligent,
and the mora wealthy class, it was elected by the minority, the less
intelligent, and the less wealthy. As therefore the elective franchise,
instead of remaining in the hands of the many, had become the property
of a few, and as such a discrepancy between the condition of the
people, and the constitution of the government had unhappily come into
existence, calamities would one day or other ensue, unless the state of
the representation were amended, from which neither the constitution nor
the country would ever recover. After noticing the objections commonly
urged against the necessity of reform, the noble mover continued, that,
of two modes of reform which it was customary to propose, the one a
total reconstruction, and the other a partial renovation of the house of
commons, the latter appeared to him of the soundest principle, and the
best suited to the condition of the country. The principal feature of
his plan, he explained, would be, to restrict a hundred of the smaller
boroughs to one member instead of allowing them two, and to give
the number of representatives thus subtracted from them to towns of
importance unrepresented. These details, however, he said, would be
matter of future deliberation. The object he had in view was, in the
words of Mr. Fox, “not to pull down, but to work upon our constitution;
to examine it with care and reverence; to repair it where decayed; to
amend it where defective; to prop it where it wanted support; and to
adapt it to the purposes of the present time, as our ancestors had
done from generation to generation, and always transmitted it not only
unimpaired, but improved, to posterity.” The measure was supported by
Mr. Hobhouse, and opposed by Messrs. Dennison and Lamb; but the debate
did not present much novelty, and it terminated in the rejection of the
motion by a majority of two hundred and forty-seven to one hundred and
twenty-three.
ALTERATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
At this period Mr. Peel applied the powers of his clear and
dispassionate mind to the simplification and improvement of our criminal
code. On the 9th of March he introduced a bill to consolidate the
various acts which related to offences against property. He explained
the nature of these acts at great length; but the bill was not carried
through the commons during this session, Mr. Peel stating, that from the
multiplicity of its details, it was necessary to proceed in it with the
most cautious deliberation. Another bill, which was introduced by
him, and which passed into a law, had for its object the removal of
inconveniences belonging to the administration of the criminal law
generally, and in particular the amendment of the existing regulations
relative to admitting bail in cases of felony. One clause, which Mr.
Lamb endeavoured to introduce into the bill, was contested with great
vigour on both sides of the house. This was a proposal, which had
already frequently been rejected, for allowing counsel to
prisoners. This clause was supported by Messrs. Williams, Twiss,
Scarlett, Brougham, and Denman; and opposed by the attorney
and solicitor-generals, and by Messrs. Peel and Canning. The
attorney-general allowed that in regard to its merits the opinion of
the bar was divided; but he expressed his conviction that it would be
injurious to the prisoner as well as to justice. As criminal proceedings
were now conducted, the prosecutor’s case was opened by a simple
statement of facts; and the judge always took care that his counsel
should not go further, and the evidence was heard dispassionately. After
this the prisoner’s case was gone through in the same way, except that
there was no previous statement of facts, because the general nature of
the case was already understood. There was, finally, the charge of the
judge, carefully sifting the evidence, and calmly applying the law. But
the case, he argued, would be different if counsel were heard on both
sides. There would then be all the zeal, the animation, and the
struggle for victory which were usually seen in civil cases. Besides, he
continued, the counsel for the prosecution would always have the benefit
of a reply whenever the accused called a witness, which might more than
counterbalance any favourable effect of evidence. The functions of the
judge, also, would assume a character disadvantageous to the prisoner;
for if the address of the counsel of the prisoner threatened to be
efficient, the judge in many cases would have to interfere: In doing
this, it was urged, he might unconsciously pass the exact boundary that
ought to circumscribe his remarks; the impression then would probably go
forth that the verdict of the jury had been elicited by those remarks;
and the judge, instead of being, as he was now, counsel for the
prisoner, would be almost compelled to become an advocate against him.
On the other side Mr. H. Twiss set forth in a strong light the absurdity
of permitting counsel to start and multiply the most frivolous and
visionary objections to the form and phraseology of an indictment, with
the merits and evidences of their client’s case. He also set forth the
hardships under which a prisoner lay, who, wishing to address the jury
of the facts of a case, must do it with his own lips, under all the
disadvantages of natural disability, physical impediments, or accidents
of his situation, while the very incompetency to do himself justice would
be aggravated by a knowledge of the serious consequences attendant
on his failure. As to the fiction of the judge being counsel for the
prisoner, he said, it would in most cases be much more true to say, that
he was counsel against the prisoner, and for the prosecutor. Whence,
he asked, came the only instructions which the judge received in any of
these cases? From the depositions of the witnesses for the prosecution.
Sir Robert Atkyns, in his notes upon Lord Russell’s trial, had truly
said, “I well know by experience what sort of counsel judges usually be
for the prisoner.” Mr. Peel admitted that the arguments which might be
raised on both sides of this question were very equally poised; that the
legal opinions upon it were nearly equiponderant; and that if he were
convinced of the alteration being fitting itself, he would not oppose to
it merely the antiquity of the law which it was intended to change. His
own experience, however, and the knowledge acquired from his official
situation, led him to think that justice was most satisfactorily
administered under the present system: he felt unwilling to risk any
change. The clause was lost on a division by one hundred and five
against thirty-six.
CASE OF MR. KENRICK.
In the early part of this session the house considered a charge brought
by Mr. Denman against Mr. Kenrick, a magistrate of the county of Surrey,
and one of the Welsh judges. Evidence on the charge was entered into;
and Mr. Denman moved, that as Mr. Kenrick had shown himself an unfit
person to exercise the judicial functions, an address be presented to
his majesty, praying him to remove that gentleman from the office of
judge of the great session of Wales. The motion, however, was negatived
without a division; and this fact became a powerful argument in favour
of parliamentary reform.
STATE OF THE COLONIES.