The restoration of the currency, my Lords, has, in truth, but little to

do with the distress of the country. Since the restoration of the

currency, the revenue has risen to the amount which has been stated to

your Lordships, notwithstanding the repeal of taxes to the amount of

27,000,000 l., since 1814. The fact is, that at the present moment, the

revenue produces, in real currency, much more than it produced when the

war was terminated. Is not that circumstance alone, I ask your

Lordships, a proof of the increasing prosperity of the country? But, my

Lords, I did not rest my argument on that fact only. Notwithstanding,

there is, at present, much distress, still, in the last year, there was

an increase of produce in every branch of manufacture, in every branch

of industry, beyond what was apparent in the three preceding years.

Under these circumstances, your Lordships must ascribe the distress of

the country to something else, rather than to the alteration of the

currency. My opinion is, that the people, during the lengthened war

which existed previously to the peace of 1815--during that period, when

there was an enormous expenditure--acquired habits which they cannot

readily throw aside. During that time, any man, of whatever description

of credit, could obtain money, or the semblance of money, to carry on

any speculation. The people then employed a fictitious wealth; they

proceeded on a system, which could not be continued, without mining and

destroying the country; and that system having been destroyed, that

fictitious wealth having been removed, they cannot immediately come down

to those quiet habits, which are required from them under that state of

things now prevailing in the empire. That, my Lords, is the real cause

of the distress under which they are at present suffering. Besides, your

Lordships will recollect, that the population of the country has

enormously increased; and it should also be taken into the calculation,

that the power of production by machinery has increased in an

incalculable degree. As much can now be produced in one year, as

formerly could be produced in five years; and the produce of one year

now amounts to more than can be taken off our hands in a year and a

half, or even two years. Distress, therefore, has occurred,

notwithstanding that the utmost exertions have been made to repel it;

and notwithstanding the great and general prosperity of trade throughout

the world. My Lords, the plain fact is, that owing to the alterations of

trade--a great demand at one time, and a want of demand at another--the

manufacturers, and those engaged in commercial pursuits, must sustain

considerable distress at different periods. It has been recommended as a

remedy, that Government should go back to the system of the circulation

of the notes. Now, my Lords, with respect to the one-pound bank

notes--it will be well to recollect what has been the proceeding of

Parliament on that subject. In 1826, Parliament having seen the facility

with which speculations could be undertaken by persons possessing no

capital, in consequence of the circulation of those one-pound

bank-notes--looking to the evils that resulted from those speculations,

and finding that a great number of banks in the country had failed in

consequence of such speculations--thought proper to pass a law to

prevent the circulation of this species of paper, after the lapse of

three years. A noble Lord has said, that this measure of Parliament

occasioned the failure of a great number of country bankers. But, I beg

the noble Lord's pardon, he has not stated the fact correctly. Most of

the banks which about that period failed, it ought to be recollected,

broke previously to the meeting of Parliament. The fact is, that it was

the breaking of the banks which occasioned the measure, and not the

measure the breaking of the banks. But we have now accomplished the

measure adopted in 1826; that measure is now carried into execution; the

currency of the country is now sufficient; bank notes, 5l., and above

5l., in value, are in circulation; and I will assert this fact, that

there is at present more of what I may call State currency in

circulation--more notes of the Bank of England and sovereigns--a greater

quantity of circulating medium of those two denominations, than there

has been at any former period before the late war, or before the Bank

Restriction Act was passed. I beg leave, my Lords, to ask, what want is

there of any additional circulation, when the circulation is at present

greater than it ever was? Is it necessary to have a more extended

circulation, to afford the means of procuring loans of money to those

who have no capital and no credit? I contend that this is a state of

things that ought not to exist in any country. Persons who really

possess credit, can raise money at the present moment with every

facility that is reasonable or proper. But, undoubtedly, those who have

no credit, are deprived of the facilities of borrowing money, which they

formerly enjoyed, because there is no longer a large class of persons

dealing in one-pound notes, to assist them in carrying on their

speculations. This is the real state of the case. It was this situation

of affairs that gave rise, and justly gave rise, to the measure of

1826--a measure which, I trust, that Parliament will persevere in, for

the purpose of placing the country in a proper state. It has been said

truly, that nothing is so desirable as to see the country carrying on

its mercantile transactions with a paper currency founded on, and

supported by, a metallic basis. Now, your Lordships must be aware, that

is exactly the sort of currency which the country has got at present;

and, in proportion as the country goes on conquering its

difficulties--the existence of that currency still being continued--we

shall see prosperity daily revive, and we shall see mercantile

transactions carried on as they ought to be, without any mixture of

those ruinous speculations, to which so much of the prevailing distress

must be attributed. But, my Lords, the noble Lord in tracing out the

sources of this distress, has omitted one of the great causes of it. He

has not adverted to the immense loss of capital which has been sustained

by the country during the last six or eight years, in consequence of

loans to foreign powers--of which neither principal or interest has been

paid, nor ever will, in my opinion, be paid. The noble Lord has not

adverted to the effect which that loss of capital must have produced,

with respect to the employment of industry in all parts of the country.

In the next place, the noble Lord has not adverted to the effect which

those loans must have had on the trade and manufactures of the country,

in consequence of the glut in foreign markets, occasioned by the forced

exportation of goods on account of such transactions. In most instances,

my Lords, no returns were made on account of those goods, and even when

returns were made, they were of the most unsatisfactory description. The

noble Lord has not adverted to the fact, that these returns, when any

were received, came home in the shape of interest, and did not, of

course, require any demand or export from this country. Surely all these

things should be considered, when the noble Lord speaks of the distress

the country is labouring under. That distress has fallen not only on the

manufacturing and commercial interests, but also on those who have

encouraged and embarked in the various schemes and speculations which

have done the country so much mischief.

_May 26, 1829._

* * * * *

_Extended Currency means unlimited creation of Paper Money by

Individuals._

I will now say a few words upon the remedy proposed by the noble Lord

(the Earl of Carnarvon), who has totally misunderstood the argument of

the noble Viscount (Goderich). My noble Friend stated that the revenue,

in 1815, was 80,000,000 l. sterling, in paper currency; that taxes were

first of all repealed to the amount of 18,000,000 l., and afterwards to

the amount of 9,000,000 l., making in all 27,000.000 l.; and he says that

the revenue now produces, in a sound currency, as great an amount as it

produced in a depreciated currency; that is to say, that it produces now

a sum, in sound currency, which, in paper currency, would amount to

80,000,000 l. sterling. Those persons who consume the articles which

produce the revenue, must be able to purchase them, or the revenue could

not exist. The increase of the revenue is a proof, then, that

consumption has increased full one-third since the time when the taxes

were reduced. It is utterly impossible that a country in which, within a

period of fifteen years, the revenue has risen one-third, can be

suffering universal and unexampled distress. The noble Lord has thought

proper to refer the distress to a deficient circulation, and he

recommends a system which he thinks would remedy the evil. Now, I will

tell the noble Earl that the largest amount of currency in circulation,

at any time during the Bank Restriction Act, was 65,000,000 l. sterling.

The Bank of England notes were 20,000,000 l.; country bank paper,

23,000,000 l.; gold, 4,000,000 l.; and, silver, 7,000,000 l. But, in 1830,

the amount of Bank of England paper in circulation is 19,900,000 l.; and,

of country bank paper, 9,200,000 l.; of gold, 28,000,000 l.; and, of

silver. 8,000,000 l.; making a total of 65,000,000 l. It is certain,

therefore, that there is more money in circulation now, than there was

at any period of the Bank restriction. There can be no want, therefore,

of more currency. The noble Earl says he wants an extended currency; but

what he, in fact, wants, is not an extended currency, but an unlimited

currency. He would give an unlimited power to certain individuals, not

to the Crown, to coin as much money as they please. The noble Lord wants

to give them the power of lending capital to whomsoever they might think

proper thus to indulge. That is what the noble Lord recommends, but that

is what, I say, cannot be allowed, without bringing the country again to

the brink of ruin, from which it was extricated in the year 1826.

The noble Lord tells you that, heretofore, a farmer, with a good stock,

was able to borrow capital to carry on his business; but that now, let

his corn-yard be ever so full, he cannot borrow a shilling, because the

banker has not the power of giving him one-pound notes. The noble Lord

says--the banker gets no interest upon his own capital, and therefore

will not lend it. My Lords, the banker who lends his capital to a

farmer, or trader, does obtain interest for the use of it, in the shape

of discount upon the bill, or other security, which the borrower gives

him. The question with him, at present, is one of security, and not of

profit. If the banker should lend, under existing circumstances, he must

lend his own real capital, and not a fictitious capital in the shape of

one pound notes, created for the purpose. He must be certain that the

security given to him is good and available, as it ought to be; and if

he is not satisfied with the profits arising from the use of his

capital, it is because he thinks the risk is so great as not to be

covered by the profits. The noble Lord would wish to pledge your

Lordships, by your votes this night, to give the country bankers

additional profits, by enabling them to coin money, or to create

fictitious paper to any extent, and thus to create a fictitious capital.

_February 4, 1830._

* * * * *

_Taxes reduced under a Metallic Currency._

In answer to all the declamations we have heard this night respecting

the evils resulting from a metallic currency, I beg leave to remind the

House of some facts; since the year 1815, and principally since the Bank

restriction was taken off, measures have been adopted to relieve the

country of taxes to the amount of 27,000,000 l. sterling; and measures

have been also adopted which have reduced the charges of the national

debt between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l. a year, that being the interest

on nearly 100,000,000 l. sterling. I beg your Lordships will bear this

circumstance in mind; and let me tell you, that all the advantages of a

so-called equitable adjustment will never equal the advantage already

obtained from an adherence to the principles of justice and good faith.

_February 4, 1830._

_Causes of Manufacturing Distress._

I wish to know whether the competition of machinery and the universal

application of steam which has been generally introduced since the

peace, have not occasioned a decrease in the demand for labour, and have

not lowered the wages of labour in manufactures? Must we not take into

consideration the general spirit of manufacture abroad, the competition

of foreign nations in foreign markets, and the universal use of

machinery worked by steam? How can we control the subjects of foreign

powers? We must seek foreign markets for our surplus produce. How can we

prevent steam from creating competition abroad in the sale of that

produce, as well as a fall in the wages of manufactures, and thus

occasioning a part of the distress complained of?

_Feb. 4, 1830._

* * * * *

_Distress exaggerated._

If the exports of Great Britain have gone on increasing for some

years--if they were greater last year than in any former year--if the

amount of our exports is now greater than ever it was,--I say, not only

that these are the strongest symptoms of the prosperity of the country

increasing, but that the distress cannot be so great and unexampled as

the noble Earl (Carnarvon) would make it. There is not a rail-road, or a

common road, or a canal in the country, on which the traffic has not

increased every year during the last few years, and particularly in the

last year. It may be true that there is a diminution of profit in

commercial transactions in general; but profit there must be, or men

would not devote themselves for years to these pursuits. Money would not

be laid out in the conveyance from place to place of the produce and

manufactures of the country. The traffic being greater than ever it was

before, it is impossible but what it must be to the advantage of

somebody. The distress then cannot be so universal as represented. The

profit and advantage may not be so great as they were some years back;

but still advantage there is.

There are other circumstances well worthy the attention of the House in

the consideration of this subject. The retail dealers are a very

numerous body in this country. Consider of their profits. Look at nearly

every market town in the kingdom, and many villages in progress towards

being rebuilt. Who pays the money for re-building these houses? Who pays

the increased rents for them? Are the people ruined who require and can

pay for these new houses? My Lords, these are facts which do shew that,

notwithstanding the existing distress which every man must deplore, the

country, in spite of the pressure upon it, is upon the whole, rising.

_Feb. 4, 1830._

* * * * *

_Proofs of National Improvement in 1830._

Among other topics of accusation, I have been arraigned for my

assertion on the first day of the session, that the distress of the

country was not of that magnitude which some persons have affirmed. The

noble Lord (Stanhope) is quite at liberty to indulge in such invectives

if it pleases him to do so, but if he supposes I do not feel for the

distresses of the people, he is utterly mistaken, as I can sincerely

aver that I have as strong sympathies on the subject as any noble member

of this house. But I am resolved to tell plainly and honestly what I

think, quite regardless of the odium I may incur from those whose

prejudices my candour and sincerity may offend. I am here to speak the

truth and not to flatter the prejudices and prepossessions of any man.

In speaking the truth, I shall utter it in the language that truth

itself most naturally suggests.

* * * * *

I request your Lordships to look at the state of the savings banks. A

measure was sometime back adopted to prevent the investment of money in

these banks beyond a certain amount for each person, in order that the

parties not entitled to it should not derive the advantage which is

intended for the poorer classes. Large sums were drawn out of those

banks soon after; but they have since revived in some degree. Whence has

the money come? From the lower classes. This cannot be considered as a

proof of general distress. Your Lordships ought likewise not to omit

from your consideration the increased traffic carried on the railroads

and canals in the country. The noble Earl (Roseberry) has told your

Lordships, that I have availed myself of the increased traffic upon the

roads and canals by merchants and manufacturers--in despair seeking a

market--in order to represent the country in a state of prosperity;

whereas it is an additional symptom of distress. My Lords, I said that

this traffic had been increasing for years; and that it had, in some

cases, doubled in ten years. In one of the recent discussions in this

House, upon the currency, the noble Marquis opposite (the Marquis of

Lansdowne) very truly remarked,--that a large quantity of currency might

be found in a country in which there should be little riches and

prosperity; and that the facility and rapidity of the circulation of the

currency were signs of the prosperity of a country, rather than the

quantity of that currency. I entirely concur in the truth and justice of

this observation. But I would beg to ask the noble Marquis whether it is

possible that transactions can increase and multiply as they have done

in this country, in the last few years, without giving fresh scope for

the circulation of the currency of the country, fresh employment for

labour, and occasioning, in some degree, the augmentation of general

prosperity.

_Feb. 25, 1850._

* * * * *

_Causes of Manufacturing Distress, over which Parliament can have no

Control._

There can be no doubt that there has been, of late years, a great

increase of manufactures and manufactured produce in this country. It is

true, that this produce has given to the manufacturer but little

profit, and that the wages of the manufacturing labourer are low; but,

as I will show presently, the circumstance, equally with the cause of

the agricultural distress, is beyond legislative control.

My Lords, it is impossible to consider this branch of the subject

without adverting likewise to the state of the commerce of the country.

The produce of the manufactures of the country is greater than the

country can consume; and, consequently, the price and the reward of the

labourer must depend upon the foreign demand, as well as upon the demand

at home.

In respect to the distress felt by manufacturing labourers, there can be

no doubt that the wages of manual labour have been lowered by the

successful application of steam to the movement of machinery for the

purpose of manufacture. Here, my Lords, is a cause of distress over

which the Legislature has no practical control. As I go further in my

observations upon the speech of the Noble Earl (Stanhope) who made the

motion,[12] I will point out other causes of distress equally beyond the

control of the Legislature.

[Footnote 12: For an inquiry into the state of the nation.]

My Lords, let me beg to call to the recollection of the House the state

in which the world was at the end of the war in the years 1814 and 1815.

Europe was absolutely overrun with armies, and had been so for about

twenty years. There was absolutely nothing but armies in the world, and

nothing was thought of but the means of sustaining them. Except in

France and this country, there were but few manufacturers in Europe; but

when the peace took place, all the world became manufacturers. I have

already stated, that the country manufacturing more than it consumes, is

under the necessity of resorting to foreign countries, and foreign

markets with its produce, where this produce necessarily comes in

competition with the manufactured produce of foreign countries, brought

there by cheaper labour, and by machinery worked by steam. The prices in

those foreign countries, of necessity, govern the prices in this

country. Here again is a cause of the existing distress, over which it

will be admitted, that the Legislature can have no control. Nothing that

it is in our power to do, will raise prices abroad; and till these

prices shall be raised, the prices of our produce must continue low, and

profits and wages must be low likewise.

But, my Lords, low as the prices of our produce are, compared with those

of former years, those of other countries have fallen in a still greater

proportion. My Lords, I will read, from a paper I hold in my hand, a few

extracts of prices in different parts of the country, since the peace of

1814. Raw cotton in England, in 1814 and 1815, sold at 2s. 2d. the

pound, or with duty included at 2s. 4d. In 1816 and 1817 it sold at 1s.

8d1/2., and in 1829, at 6d. This was a fall in price greater than had

taken place in any other article. Silk, in 1814, sold for 1l. 4s., or

with duty included, 1l. 9s.; whilst in 1829 it sold for 8s. 10d., or

with the duty, 8s. 11d. the pound. Spanish wool, in 1814, sold for 8s.

2d., or with the duty, at 8s. 3d.; whilst in 1829 it sold for only 2s.

3d., or with the duty at 2s. 4d. Another article, that of fir-timber,

fell in proportion. It was then 3l. 14s. 11d. the load, and with the

duty, 10l. 5s.; it is now 2l. 5s., and with the duty, 4l. 19s. This fall

in the price of foreign produce, and in our domestic manufactures, added

to the advantage which the master manufacturers derived from the use of

machinery moved by steam, and from the lowness of wages, have given them

a greater advantage; and have enabled them to make a profit,

notwithstanding the fall of prices of the produce of their manufactures

since the war.

On articles of manufacture the prices are still lower than those of corn

and other agricultural produce. Cotton yarn, which sold for 4s. 4-1/2d.

the pound in 1814, in 1830 sells for 1s. 5-1/2d.; and cotton

manufactured goods have altered in price within the same period from 1s.

5d. to 1s. 8d. and 2s. 0-1/2d., to 6-1/4d., 8-3/4d., and 8-1/2d., or

nearly a third. Irish linens have fallen from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 0-3/4d.;

woollen cloths in the same proportion. Other articles have been reduced

enormously in price by the competition with foreigners. In those

articles in which there is no competition with foreigners, prices have

been reduced, but not in the same proportion; such, for instance, as in

the iron, the pottery, and other trades. Here, then, are causes

evidently beyond the control of Parliament. Parliament cannot raise the

price of manufactured goods--the thing is impossible.

_February 25, 1830._

_Principle of Reduction in the Public Service._

When offices become vacant, the Government always consider whether the

public service could not go on without their being filled up; the next

point is, to consider whether the place could not be filled up by some

persons who already receive half-pay or pensions, so that the half-pay

or pension might be saved to the public. We have tried to reduce the

list of pensions of the army and navy, by keeping men in the service the

full time they ought to serve, according to the original institutions of

the army. I should deceive the House by saying that savings could be

beneficial if made at the expense of individuals who must be thrown on

the public as soon as they were made.

_February 23, 1830._

* * * * *

_The Corn Law of 1828 worked well._

The measure of 1828 has worked well to promote the objects which the

Legislature had in view in passing it, by preventing the price of corn

from rising so high in a season of scarcity as to be injurious to the

country at large, and particularly to that part of the population

engaged in manufacture; whilst, both in that season and the season which

followed, the price has been sufficient to give the agriculturist a

fair value for his commodity. In the second year of the existence of

that law, a greater import of corn took place than ever, to the extent

of 5,000,000 of quarters, of which 2,500,000 were from Ireland, and the

prices have not been lowered in this country, beyond what is deemed a

remunerating price to the agriculturists. With reference to another

branch of Agriculture, I have means of proving that the prices received

for other articles of agricultural produce, such as meat, timber, &c.

are equal to what they were in times when the country paid a very large

amount of taxes, and the Bank Restriction Act was in force.

_Feb. 26, 1830._

* * * * *

I am convinced the corn laws cannot be repealed without injury to the

country.

_Feb. 25, 1830._

* * * * *

_Establishments necessary to maintain the National Honour._

It is perfectly true, that this island is but a small portion of the

globe, yet its interests are extended over all the world, and must be

maintained, though at a great expense. Now the expense necessary for the

maintenance of the honour and interests of this country (and over that

alone have we any control), is at present only 12,000,000 l. of money;

for there has been a decrease, in the present and last sessions of

Parliament of not less than 2,000,000 l. on this part of the

expenditure; and your Lordships must know that there are other portions

of the national expenditure, which cannot be touched at all. With

respect to that part which cannot be touched, his Majesty's Government

have effected all that they possibly could. Having said this, I must

claim for myself and my colleagues in office, credit for an anxious

desire to do everything in our power to diminish the expenditure. With

respect to the amount of expenses incurred on account of our Colonies, I

believe that the number of troops in the old colonies and places

occupied by a military force previously to 1792, is now reduced lower

than it was in that year. This country, however, in the course of the

last war, made very considerable conquests; those conquests require for

their maintenance large bodies of men, and, consequently, create a great

additional expense. They require for their protection very nearly as

many troops as the old colonies. Before the war we were not masters of

the Cape of Good Hope, of the Mauritius, or of Ceylon. In the

Mediterranean, we had no station, unless Gibraltar can be deemed one,

which is not the case now. My Lords, it is obvious, that all the new

stations which we have acquired, demand a larger force for their

protection. These things considered, it appears to me, that the military

establishment has been reduced as far as it can be reduced, a proper

regard being had to the interests of the empire.

_March 4, 1830._

_Difficulty of Legislating on the Poor Laws._

It should be recollected that some of the greatest men that ever lived

in England--including Mr. Pitt and Mr. Whitbread--attempted to deal with

the difficult subject of the poor laws, and failed. It is a subject

equally important, difficult, and complicated. The system, as far as

local practice and arrangements go, varies in almost every parish of

England more or less; and, I repeat, it is almost impossible to deal

with it successfully. We ought not to enter into the subject of the poor

laws hastily, or at an inopportune period like the present. It will be

better to wait till the country is restored to a state of complete

prosperity, and then investigate the subject with a proper degree of

attention.

_March 18, 1830._

* * * * *

_The Home Market is the best._

The greatest difficulty is experienced by our manufacturers in exporting

their manufactures. In some countries there is a total prohibition of

them; in others there is an extremely high duty; and in all there is

much competition and jealousy. The Government, in every one of those

foreign countries, seems to do everything in its power to prevent the

sale of British manufactures. I am convinced, if we went to the

Continent, and purchased all the corn in Poland, not an additional

article should we be able to force into France, Germany, Prussia, or

Russia, If the merchants of this country were allowed freely to purchase

grain, foreign subjects would get as much for their corn as they

possibly could; but their rulers would not allow a single article of our

manufactures to be imported in consequence of our being obliged to buy,

or in return for our buying the grain of those countries. There is,

undoubtedly, a certain quantity of manufactures in this country more

than the population itself can consume, which it would be very desirable

to get rid of. But, my Lords, is it exactly true, that taking foreign

corn would have the effect of enabling other countries to purchase them?

And even if such were the case, what are we to do with our own corn?

Now, my Lords, if the buying corn of the Pole, the Russian, or the

Prussian, enable them to give high prices for our manufactures, why do

not you give the same advantages to those nearer home? For my own part,

I believe, after all, that the home market is our best resource, and

that there we dispose of the greatest proportion of our manufactured

articles. It has, and I think with truth, been stated, that two-thirds

of the whole quantity of our manufactures are disposed of in this

country. The whole of our woollen and the whole of our silk manufactures

are consumed here; and of iron and other manufactures, a very

considerable portion. I ask, then, if such profits are to be derived

from an exchange with a foreign market, why do you not cultivate the

home, which is admitted to be decidedly the best market of all. I think

the more this matter is discussed, the more will the country see that

the interests of one class of the community involve the interests of

all. We are not to look merely to the interests of the cotton

manufacturers, or of the iron manufacturers. That which we are bound to

consider is the benefit of all; and, in my opinion, the common good will

be most effectually secured, by getting the greatest quantity of

provisions for the whole community,--by giving a proper remuneration to

those who produce such provisions,--and thus encouraging them to do that

which is most beneficial to the community at large.

_March 29, 1830._

* * * * *

_How far the principle of Equitable Adjustment should be carried._

The noble Lord (Viscount Goderich), speaking with his usual candour on

the subject of the equitable adjustment, admitted the existence of an

increase of price during some years of the war generally, and

consequently of public expense and of debt, to the amount of 20 per

cent, in consequence of the depreciation of the currency; and he has

made a calculation of a supposed equitable adjustment, founded upon his

estimate of the expense of the war for some years, and of the debt

created by the excess of price. It is true that there was a very large

increase of prices in England during the war; that this increase of

prices increased the expense of the war; and the amount of debt

successively raised. But it is not true that the excess of prices was

occasioned solely by the paper currency. Many other circumstances

occasioned it; and in my opinion, my noble friend has admitted too much

in admitting that the annual payment on account of the debt has been

increased to the amount of 3,500,000 l. in consequence of the paper money

circulated during the war.

Having frequently heard of an equitable adjustment, which, however, is

absolutely impracticable as a measure to be applied solely to the

national creditor, it has always appeared to me, that such an

arrangement could be calculated only on the foundation of the difference

between the currency, or the market price of gold, and the mint price of

gold, at the period at which the Bank restriction was repealed, or in

the year 1812. That difference was at that period about 4 per cent; or

the difference between 3l. 17s. 10-1/2d., and 4l. 1s. The annual payment

on account of the debt at that time, amounted to about 30,000,000 l.

sterling; upon which what is called an equitable adjustment might, at

that time, have been made to the amount of 5 per cent., or 1,200,000 l.

In making this supposed equitable adjustment, we should have betrayed

the honour of the country; we should have destroyed its credit and

reputation for fair dealing, justice, and honesty; and, for this paltry

diminution of the annual expense of the debt in 1819, we should have

lost the advantages since acquired, as detailed to the House by my noble

friend, amounting to a diminution of the annual charge of the debt, not

of 1,200,000 l., but nearly of 5,500,000 l. or the interest of

150,000,000 l. of capital at 3 per cent. This is a fair calculation of

the comparative advantage of what has been done, and what might have

been done, by a supposed equitable adjustment.

_May 6th, 1830._

* * * * *

_The Shipping Interest has not been Neglected._

These reciprocity treaties were adopted with a view to decrease the

price of freight in this country to our merchants, and with a view to

their taking in abroad, and bringing home, their commodities at a

cheaper cost of transit. These treaties were, my Lords, framed with a

foresight of the state of commerce which was likely to ensue in the

world in future times which were then immediately before us. We were,

therefore, to diminish the expense of shipping to meet the new

contingencies; and to enable those engaged in commerce to carry on their

trade under all the difficulties of a new situation; and the object of

those laws was to lower the price of commodities for that purpose. What

was the result?--profits upon specific articles became reduced; but

since the year 1814 the trade in them has nearly doubled. What the

shipping interest then lost in the reduced amount of freight per

tonnage, they regained in the greater number of voyages which commerce

opened to them.

_May 13th, 1830._

* * * * *

_Eulogium on George IV._

My lords, our late Sovereign received the best education which this

country affords. He had, also, the singular advantage of having passed

all the earlier period of his life, and the greater part of his manhood,

under the superintendence of the King, his father, and subsequently in

the society of the most eminent men whom this country possessed; and he

likewise enjoyed the society of the most distinguished foreigners who

resorted to this country. His Majesty's manners accordingly received a

polish, his understanding acquired a degree of cultivation, almost

unknown in any other individual. My Lords, he carried those advantages

to the Government to which he was afterwards called, first as a Regent,

and afterwards as reigning sovereign. During the whole course of his

government no man ever approached him without having evidence of his

dignity, his condescension, his affability, and his fitness for the

exalted station which he occupied. But these advantages, which shewed so

conspicuously the polish of manner which he possessed, were not only

observed by persons immediately around him, for I appeal to many of your

Lordships who have transacted the business of the country which required

an interview with the sovereign, whether his Majesty did not upon every

occasion display a degree of knowledge and talent not to be expected of

an individual holding his high station, and a profound acquaintance with

public business even in its most minute details. But this is not all, he

was a most munificent patron of the arts in this country and the whole

world. He possessed a larger collection of the eminent productions of

his own country's artists, than any individual, and it is as an

individual, of him I here speak. The taste and judgment he displayed in

these collections have never been excelled by any sovereign.

I would also beg to call to your Lordships' recollection the situation

in which he found England and Europe in the year 1810, when he became

Regent, and the situation in which he has left Europe and this country.

If your Lordships look upon the great and stirring events of his reign,

under what circumstances it commenced and terminated, I think you will

agree with me in the sentiment, that we have reason to feel proud of

such a sovereign.

_June 29th, 1830_

* * * * *

_Principle of advances of Money for Public Works._

A noble Lord has cited an opinion of mine with respect to the advance of

money for public works; to the principle laid down in the letter to

which he alludes, I still adhere,--that no money should be advanced as a

grant, for works of that description, even though they may be very

useful; but, my Lords, I repeat, that there is a great distinction

between on advance of money and a loan. The application of the

proprietors of the Thames Tunnel, was for an advance of money, and not a

loan; the parties, there, were not in a condition to pay the interest

even of the money to be advanced, and therefore the application was

refused, but my Lords, in the present case the money is advanced on the

security of the tolls payable on a canal; yet even on that ground it

would not be advanced, unless it were shown that the work will be of

advantage not only to the province, but to the empire at large.

_July 2nd, 1830_

* * * * *

_Declaration against Parliamentary Reform._

I now come to another point touched upon in his Majesty's speech, from

which, as well as the allusions to it to-night, I have experienced

considerable pain; I allude to the state of the public mind in Kent.

Upon this point I cannot help agreeing in what fell from the noble

Marquis, (Camden) the Lord Lieutenant of that county, who spoke early in

the evening, namely,--that it is not to be exactly attributed to the

distress prevailing there. It certainly does appear, from all I have

heard, that the outrages are carried on by two different sets of people;

one of which attack machinery, which they think interferes with their

labour; and the other of which are engaged in burning and destroying

property. What the immediate cause of these disturbances is, the

government know no more than the magistrates and gentlemen of the

county. We shall do all in our power in concert with these magistrates,

and the Lord Lieutenant, to discover it; and, in the mean time, we shall

afford them aid to put the law in force in order to prevent them.

This brings me to the recommendation which the noble Earl (Grey) has

made, not only to put down these disturbances, but to put the country in

a state to meet and overcome the dangers which are likely to result from

the late transactions in France, namely,--the adoption of something in

the nature of parliamentary reform. The noble Earl has stated that he is

not prepared, himself, to come forward with any measure of the kind; and

I will tell him that neither is the government. Nay, I will go farther,

and say, that I have not heard of any measure, up to this moment, which

could in any degree satisfy my mind, or by which the state of the

representation could be improved or placed on a footing more

satisfactory to the people of this country than it now is.

I will not now enter upon the discussion of this subject, as I dare say

we shall have plenty of opportunities for doing so; but I will say, that

I am thoroughly convinced that England possesses, at this moment, a

legislature which answers all the good purposes of a legislature, in a

higher degree than any scheme of government that ever has been found to

answer in any country in the world;--that it possesses the confidence of

the country--that it deservedly possesses that confidence--and that its

decisions have justly the greatest weight and influence with the people.

Nay, my Lords, I will go yet farther and say, that if, at this moment, I

had to form a legislature for any country, particularly for one like

this, in possession of great property of various descriptions, although,

perhaps, I should not form one precisely such as we have, I would

endeavour to produce something which would give the same

results--namely, a representation of the people, containing a large body

of the property of the country, and in which the great landed

proprietors have a preponderating influence.

In conclusion I beg to state, that not only is the government not

prepared to bring forward any measure of this description, but that as

far as I am concerned, whilst I have the honour to hold the situation I

now do amongst his Majesty's councillors, I shall always feel it my duty

to oppose any such measures when brought forward by others.

_November 2, 1830._

* * * * *

_Irish Absenteeism deprecated._

I can assure your Lordships that there is not any man, either there or

here, who is more aware of the poverty of Ireland, and the dangers to

the empire from the state of the lower orders, than he who has now the

honour of addressing you. But I would have noble Lords to observe that

it is not by coming here to talk of the poverty of that country that we

can remove it. If noble Lords will endeavour to tranquilize the country,

and persuade those who have the means to buy estates and settle there;

by holding out to them a picture of industry and tranquility with its

other advantages, they will soon find the country change its aspect, and

complaints of the dangers arising from its poverty will no longer be

heard. The influence of the presence and fortunes of the proprietors of

land in Ireland spent in that country, would do more to serve it than

any legislative enactment parliament have it in their power to pass.

_November 2, 1830._

_Repeal averted by Emancipation._

The repeal of the union is opposed by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke

of Leinster) and all his friends in Ireland: it is opposed by all the

proprietors in Ireland, by the great majority of the Roman Catholics, by

nearly all the Protestants of Ireland, and with one exception by the

unanimous voice of the other House of Parliament.

Such is the present state of this question, but how would it have stood

had not that other to which he alluded been carried two years ago? And

how did that one then stand? Why, the noble Duke and all his friends,

and a large proportion of the Irish people, were anxious that that

question should be carried. Such, also, do we know to a certainty was

the desire of the majority of the other House of Parliament, whilst at

the same time there was in this House a minority in its favour, daily

acquiring greater strength; and at present, I presume, no one will deny

that a large body of the best informed people of this country were also

decidedly for conceding this point. We do not now stand on worse ground

on the question of the repeal of the union than we should have done had

not the Catholic question been carried. I do not see the advantage,

therefore, of repeating reproaches against me for having given way on

that occasion from fear. I gave way because I conceived the interests of

the country would be best answered by doing so; I gave way on the

grounds of policy and expediency, and upon those grounds I am at this

moment ready to justify what I did. The noble Lord must forgive me for

saying that the state of irritation which has continued to exist in

Ireland since that question was carried must not be attributed to the

King's Ministers: they have done every thing in their power to

conciliate, and heal the divisions which distracted that country for so

many years previously to the settlement of that question. It is not my

duty, any more than my inclination, to cast imputation on any man; but

this I will say, that if the King's Ministers had been supported as

strongly as they have been opposed in their endeavours to heal those

divisions, Ireland would have been in a very different state from what

it now is.

_November 2, 1830._

* * * * *

_Magistrates should be appointed by Lords Lieutenant._

Lords Lieutenant of counties are generally chosen in consequence of

their possessing large properties, and from their weight and

consideration in the counties over which they preside. They must,

therefore, be the most highly interested in selecting proper persons,

and a proper number of persons, whom they know will do their duty well

as magistrates.

In choosing magistrates, in my opinion, it is essentially necessary that

local knowledge should operate. Before any man should venture to

recommend another to be appointed to the commission, he should have

knowledge of his character, and of other circumstances, which can only

be discerned by local knowledge.

_Nov. 29, 1830._

_The Agrarian Outrages of 1830._

It appears to me that the outrages which have taken place in the country

are of two descriptions--the first is that open description of outrage,

which there is no doubt, may be got the better of by the operation of

the ordinary process of law; the second is that description of

crime--the destruction of property by fire,--of the perpetrators of

which Government have not hitherto been able to discover any trace

whatever. I do not know what information the Noble Earl may have

received on the subject within the last week, but up to that period we

had discovered no traces whatever of these incendiaries.

It is supposed by some noble Lords, that the perpetrators of the second

description of crime--the destruction of property by fire--are

foreigners, and that they are following the example set in another

country. I believe, however, there is no evidence whatever that

foreigners have been engaged in the perpetration of those crimes. It is

certain that they have been effected by a conspiracy of some kind or

other; but whether the conspirators are foreigners or Englishmen, I

believe that no man can at this moment possibly say. As to foreigners

being in gaols, I can only say, that with reference to one county--the

county of Hants--in which outrages of the most flagrant kind have

occurred, there is not one foreigner among the persons with whom

Winchester gaol is filled.

_Nov. 29, 1830._

_Our Portuguese Relations affected by the State of Ireland._

In reference to Ireland, it is of great importance that we should be on

good terms with Portugal. Unfortunately, the great measure which I had

the honour to prepare three years ago, has not answered so as to

produce--I will not say all the advantages I expected from it, as I was

never sanguine in my expectations, but the amount of advantage which

some of your Lordships and part of the public expected. To use a vulgar

expression, a new hare has started, and we must probably look to a

length of time ere the agitation excited in Ireland by the new question

shall have subsided. Now, I want to know, whether Portugal will not be

as important to us during the agitation of that question as it has been

previously? Will not our reception in the Tagus, and friendly occupation

of it, be as important to England now, as it has been heretofore? I do

not now wish to discuss the claims of Don Miguel and Donna Maria--this

is not the occasion for it--I only mean to convey my decided opinion,

that the friendship of Portugal is necessary to this country. If we

deprive Portugal of the advantages of this wine trade for a revenue of

100,000 l., putting political economy and commerce out of the question,

we shall make the greatest political blunder that has been seen for a

long time past.

_Feb. 21, 1831._

_How is the Government to be carried on after the Reform Bill?_

With respect to another subject (Reform) which must occasion discussion,

I quite agree in the determination which has been adopted of postponing

all discussions upon it till a future period; but when that period shall

arrive, I hope that his Majesty's ministers, who, upon their own

responsibility, have brought the question under discussion, will be so

kind as to explain to the House in what manner, and by what influence,

they propose that the Government of this country--the Monarchical

Government of this country--shall be carried on, according to the

principles and practice established at the Revolution.

_March 3, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Downfall of the Constitution predicted as the Consequence of the

Reform Bill._

It is far from my wish to impute to the noble Earl (Grey) or his

colleagues any desire to introduce revolutionary measures into

Parliament; but, I must say this, that having looked at the measure

which has been brought into the other House of Parliament under their

auspices, I cannot but consider that it alters every interest existing

in the country,--that in consequence of its operation, no interest will

remain on the footing on which it now stands, and that this alteration

must lead to a total alteration of men--of men intrusted with the

confidence of Parliament. I am of opinion that this alteration must have

a serious effect on the public interests,--an effect which, I confess, I

cannot look at without the most serious apprehension. I do not charge

the noble Earl and his colleagues with a desire to overturn the

institutions of the country, but I cannot look at the alterations

proposed by the bill without seeing that those alterations must be

followed by a total change of men, and likewise by a total change of the

whole system of Government. Why, I ask--for what reason--is all this to

be done? I will not now enter into the question of what is the opinion

of the other House of Parliament--but I will say again, as I have said

before, in the presence of your Lordships, that I see no reason whatever

for altering the constitution of Parliament.

It is my opinion that parliament has well served the country, and that

it deserves the thanks of the country for a variety of measures which it

has proposed, particularly of late years. I see no reason for the

measure now proposed, except that stated by the noble Earl--namely, his

desire to gratify certain individuals in the country. It is possible

that a large number, nay, even a majority of individuals, in this

country may be desirous of this change, but I see no reason, excepting

that, for this measure being introduced or adopted.

Whilst I thus declare my sentiments, I beg your Lordships to believe

that I feel no interest in this question, excepting that which I have in

common with every individual in the country. I possess no influence or

interest of the description which will be betrayed by the measure now

proposed. I am an individual who has served his Majesty for now, I am

sorry to say, nearly half a century; I have been in his Majesty's

service for forty-five years--for thirty eventful years of that period I

have served his Majesty in situations of trust and confidence, in the

command of his armies, in embassies, and in his councils; and the

experience which I have acquired in the situations in which I have

served his Majesty, enables me, and imposes upon me the duty, to say,

that I cannot look at this measure without the most serious

apprehensions, that from the period of its adoption, we shall date the

downfall of the constitution.

_March 24, 1831._

* * * * *

_Under the Reformed System, how is the King's Government to be carried

on?_

I have, myself, examined the bill, with reference to its effects on the

county of Southampton. In that county there are several

towns--Winchester, Christchurch, Portsmouth, Southampton, and the

borough of Lymington. Several boroughs in that county are struck out of

the representation by the bill, and there are, besides, a vast number of

considerable towns left unrepresented, but the voters of these places

are to come into the county constituency. According to the old system,

the voters of the towns had votes for the county; now, copyholders and

50l. householders are to vote for the county. In the towns, these two

classes are, for the most part, shopkeepers.

I am convinced that there are no less than 4000 or 5000 such inhabitants

of towns in Hampshire, who will have votes for the county, as well as

the freeholders. Now, of whom does this class of electors consist? As I

before stated, they are shopkeepers--respectable shopkeepers--in the

towns. I beg to ask, are they fit persons to be the only electors to

return county members to a Parliament, which Parliament is to govern the

affairs of this great nation, consisting of 100,000,000 of subjects, and

so many various relations, foreign, domestic, colonial, commercial, and

manufacturing? Men of the description I have mentioned, with their

prejudices and peculiar interests, however respectable as a body, cannot

be fit to be the only electors of members of the House of Commons. But,

I beg to say that, however respectable this, or any other class of

electors may be, there is a strong reason against any uniformity of

system in the representation of the country. I have heard already of the

establishment, in this town, of a committee formed for the purpose of

recommending candidates for the representation to the different towns

throughout the country. I confess, I do not believe that this committee

has been established more than a few days; but I beg to say that, taking

into consideration the means of combinations, and the facilities of

communications in the country, such a body is dangerous. I know that

such committees, in other countries, have been found to be effectual in

putting down the Government. And I ask whether you should allow such a

uniform system of election--it matters not in whose hands it is

placed--that a committee, sitting in London, shall have the power to

dictate what members shall be returned for Leeds, or for Manchester, for

instance? I wish to know what security noble Lords have for their seats

in this House, if such a committee as this should exist at the first

general election of a reformed Parliament? But, my Lords, these are not

all the objections which I entertain to this measure; I have others,

founded upon facts, which I know to have existed in other countries. I

was in France when the law of election was passed, in the year 1817; and

this circumstance deserves your Lordships' attention, because the

situation of the two countries is not dissimilar. At that period there

were, in each department 300 persons, who, paying the highest amount of

taxes, were chosen to manage the representation. The King and Government

altered this, and gave the power of choosing representatives to persons

paying taxes to the amount of 300 francs. Two years afterwards, they

were obliged to alter the law again, and form two classes of electors.

Since then, there have been two general elections, one more unfavourable

than the other to the Government; and the matter ended in the formation

of a Parliament, the spirit of which rendered it impossible for a

Government to act.

My Lords, I do not mean here to justify the Government of Charles X.;

and I trust the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) will allow me, on

this occasion, to declare that I never wrote to Prince Polignac in my

life (much as I have been accused of encouraging the proceedings of that

person), and I have never written to Charles X. from the time that

monarch lost his son, and his grandson was born. In fact, I have never

corresponded with any French minister without the knowledge of my

colleagues. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack may rely on it,

that I had no more knowledge of Prince Polignac's proceedings, than the

noble and learned Lord himself; or, most probably, still less. I am not

the apologist of Prince Polignac; but, I say, that things had been

brought to that state in France, that it was impossible but there should

be a revolution.

When I see a similar mode of election established in this country--when

I see the adoption of a uniform system of election--when I see the

election placed in the hands of shopkeepers in boroughs all over the

country--I think that we incur considerable danger, and put the country

in such a situation as that no minister can be certain that any one

measure which he brings forward will succeed, or that he will he enabled

to carry on the Government. The circumstances of France and England are,

in many particulars, alike, and we ought to take warning by the dangers

of the neighbouring country.

I wish the House to advert to what the business of the King's Government

in Parliament is. It is the duty of that Government to manage

everything. I heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in a

speech of admirable eloquence and knowledge, propose a new judicial

system at the commencement of the Session; but I tell him, that it is

impossible for the Government ultimately to decide on that question; and

that if a Parliament be constructed on the new plan, it will be too

strong for Government on that question. So, also, in matters affecting

commerce and manufactures, Government would depend entirely upon

Parliament.

I want to hear how Government is to carry any measure, on the

appointment of a new Parliament? There is a great question now before

the House of Commons on the subject of tithes. How is any Government to

meet that question? A Government may submit to the will of a majority

opposed to its own view on other questions, but on the question of

tithes and the Church, the duty of any Government is clearly pointed

out--the King's Coronation Oath, and the Acts of Union with Scotland and

Ireland, guaranteeing the integrity of the Church Establishment, and the

protection of the estates and prosperity of the Church. But I want to

know how Government is to maintain the safety of the Established Church,

after placing Parliament on the footing proposed. I really do not wish

to carry this argument farther than it will go; but, looking round, and

considering the operation of the proposed measure in towns, as well as

in counties, and forming the best judgment I can on affairs so

complicated, I must infer, from every thing I see, that the

Constitution of the country cannot be carried on as hitherto, if this

plan be adopted. In such an event, you would alter your whole system of

Government. I do not say the Crown cannot last. You may still permit the

King's interference in the management of the army, the navy, and the

ordnance; and the rest of the Government may he carried on by the House

of Commons. Things may go on under such a system; but this will not be

the British Constitution. It will not be the same England, which has

been, for so many centuries, prosperous and glorious under our present

Constitution.

_March 28, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Unreformed House a complete Legislative Body._

As to the present House of Commons, I maintain that it is as complete a

legislative body as can be required; and that the House of Commons,

since the peace particularly, has shown itself to be the most efficient

legislative body that ever existed in any country in the world, not

excepting this. I say, that it has rendered more services than any

Legislature ever did in the same period--I say, it has continued those

great services up to the present moment, and that those services have

only been interrupted by the introduction of this discussion upon the

Reform Bill.

_March 28, 1831._

_Reasons why the Duke resigned Office in November, 1830._

It is quite true, that when the late Government brought forward the

Catholic question, they were supported by many noble Lords who were

usually opposed to the Government; but it is not correct that the

disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders was made a _sine qua

non_ to ensure the support of the noble Lords to the Relief Bill. I

certainly had the misfortune, on that occasion, to lose the support and

regard of a great number of friends, both here and in the other House of

Parliament--a misfortune I have never ceased to lament; yet I have the

consolation of knowing, that in what I then did, I did no more than what

my duty required of me; and I was not justified in relinquishing that

measure by any intimidation, or by any imaginary circumstance of

danger--which I had no right to apprehend. But I own that things were

going on in Ireland which induced me to think they might lead to a civil

war, in the event of our continuing to refuse the settlement of the

question; and I am satisfied that I should have been wanting in duty,

both as a man and a Minister, if I had hesitated to give up those

opinions which I had previously entertained with regard to that measure.

I afterwards had some difference with a noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey),

but notwithstanding I felt called upon to retain the position I held in

the Government as long as I enjoyed the approbation of my Sovereign, and

the confidence of the Legislature.

Then came the Revolution in France, followed by that of Belgium; and

like the former revolutions of Naples and of Spain, they naturally

excited a strong sensation here; that excitement, increased by speeches

made in various parts of the country, created a strong desire for

Parliamentary Reform. But I did not think then, any more than I think

now, that that desire was irresistible. If Parliament should see reason

to decide that the proposed alteration in the Constitution is not

necessary, and ought not to be made, I am confident the country will

acquiesce in that decision. I believe that the wish for reform is strong

and growing; but if the people see that the subject is fairly discussed,

and honestly determined here, I am sure they will submit without a

murmur. Already the sensation produced by the French and Belgian

Revolutions has subsided; the natives of the country have seen the

deplorable results by which those commotions have been followed, and are

wisely warned by the sufferings of their neighbours.

* * * * *

Upon the defeat on the Civil List, finding I had the misfortune no

longer to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, I thought proper

to resign the situation which I held in his Majesty's service. Upon that

occasion, the question of Parliamentary Reform had no more to do, as far

as I was concerned, with the resignation which I tendered to his Majesty

on the day following the defeat on the Civil List, than anything else

in the world. I admit I resigned next morning, because I did not wish to

expose his Majesty and the country to the consequences that might result

from the Government going out on the success of the question of

Parliamentary Reform. This is the truth; but, to say I resigned on

account of Parliamentary Reform, is wrong; I resigned upon the ground

before stated; and I resigned at that particular moment on the Tuesday,

because I did not choose to expose his Majesty and the country to the

consequences that might ensue from the occurrence of the case just

mentioned. This is the real fact of the story. But the noble and learned

Lord has said, that the late Ministry gave up the principle of

Parliamentary Reform by their resignation; no such thing--we resigned

because we did not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, and

we thought that the same majority which defeated us on Monday on the

Civil List, might defeat us Tuesday on Reform; and then we should have

sacrificed (as the noble Lord says), the principle of Parliamentary

Reform in the Commons. We did not think it worth while to make any

farther struggle in order to retain office a day or two longer.

_March 28, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Civil List principle, on what arranged._

My Lords, the principle on which I and my colleagues drew up the Civil

List, was always directed to enable the Sovereign, so far as was

practicable, to defray all the expenses necessary to be incurred in

supporting the dignity, splendour, and comforts of the Crown, without

mixing them up with the other expenses of the Government. For this

purpose, it was formerly the practice to grant a considerable sum for

those various, but necessary expenses. Certainly, the Crown enjoyed

great advantage in supporting its dignity, influence, and efficiency, as

long as the system of supporting itself on its hereditary revenues

remained in practice. That system, my Lords, was departed from at the

commencement of the reign of Geo. III.; and a further departure from it

has since taken place, into which I shall, with your Lordships'

permission, examine presently, and compare that departure with those

proposed by the late Government. From the accounts I have seen of the

hereditary revenues enjoyed by Geo. II., I have reason to believe that

were they now enjoyed by our Sovereign, and employed in defraying the

civil expenses of the Government, and sustaining the dignity and

splendour of the Crown, they would amount to a sum larger than would be

necessary to meet those expenses, notwithstanding the increase which has

been made in them by the increased salaries of the judges, the increased

number of the public officers, and the vast increase of the royal family

of England. I say, my Lords, that these hereditary revenues would be

more than adequate to defray all these charges. I believe that these

revenues, independent of droits and West Indian duties, amount, at the

present moment, to 850,000 l. a-year; and these revenues, my Lords, I

consider as much the King's property, as I hold the possessions of your

Lordships to be yours. I make this statement, because it is important

that your Lordships should recollect it, and the public should know that

notwithstanding the magnitude of the expenses of the Sovereign, the

Sovereign has as much right to the sum which I have mentioned, as any of

your Lordships to your own estates. The system of giving the Sovereign

the amount of certain taxes to defray the expenses of the civil

government, was first departed from at the commencement of the reign of

Geo. III., when a fixed sum was appointed, instead of that mode of

payment, for its support. In process of time the expenses of the civil

government increased, and the Civil List became a debt. The consequence

was, that in the year 1815, an inquiry was instituted into the

circumstances which had caused this increase of charges upon the Civil

List, up to the period of the Regency. What was the course then adopted

by Parliament? Why, it was to bring certain charges--as, for instance,

the charges for ambassadors and ministers abroad--under the annual vote

of Parliament; and the immediate object was to avoid thereby the fixing

of any fresh debt, for which no estimate could be previously made, upon

the Civil List. In 1820 it was determined that nothing whatever should

be brought before Parliament, in connexion with the Civil List, that was

a casual expense, or for which a regular vote could not be submitted.

The original system, I have already stated, had been departed from in

the reign of George III., and the late Government in presenting their

civil list made a still further departure from it, and upon this

principle;--wherever a part of a salary was to be paid out of the civil

list, and part out of the consolidated fund, it was resolved to pay all

out of the consolidated fund. The course was adopted with regard to the

salaries of the Judges, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the

House of Commons, and also of various other offices, some of which have

been since abolished. This was thought a less objectionable mode than

that of subjecting those salaries to an annual discussion in the

Committee of the House of Commons. We wished my Lords to place those

salaries upon the consolidated fund, in order to prevent the possibility

of the country being left without a proper and efficient administration

of public affairs. We did not wish to leave the Government to the chance

of being impeded by a small majority, in the House of Commons, which,

according to other proposed plans, might diminish the salaries of public

officers at pleasure. If my Lord we look to the period of the Revolution

we shall find that there were long discussions respecting the right of

the crown to its hereditary revenues, which ended in a concession of the

principle that these revenues did belong to the crown. At that time

nobody ever dreamed of separating the expenses of the crown from those

of the civil government, and of making a separate provision for the

support of the state and dignity of the crown, which should be subject

to the controul of parliament. The plan of separation, my Lords, is one

of modern invention altogether, and I totally dissent from it. Because,

let us look to the situation in which the crown is placed under the

operation of such a system, and we must observe that it will place the

crown in a situation such as it ought not to be reduced to; namely that

it will render it liable to be deprived of the assistance--say of a

public officer, whose salary may be lost by a single vote in a committee

of supply.

_April, 19th, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Expenses of Ministers ruinous, unless they have large Private

fortunes._

With respect to the reduction in the salaries of the great officers of

state, I have only to observe, that even under the existing rate of

salaries, unless a First Lord of the Treasury, (and the remark will

apply to the other state officers) possesses a large private fortune, he

must be ruined in consequence of the heavy expences entailed on him by

his situation, and the inadequacy of the sum allowed by the public for

the maintenance of those expenses. In proof of this, I may instance the

case of three prime ministers--Mr. Pitt, Mr. Percival, and Mr.

Canning,--all of whom were almost ruined by their being in office. I

took upon myself to propose a provision for the family of Mr. Canning in

consequence.

_April, 19th. 1831._

_The Roman Catholic Relief Bill settled the question of the Repeal of

the Union._

It is not my intention at present to enter into the question, as to the

expediency of granting the Roman Catholic claims; for I hope that

question is for ever set at rest. The former government of this country

derived some advantage from the settlement of that question; and I

believe that this advantage will at least be admitted to have flowed

from it,--that now there is no question either in this or the other

House of Parliament, or among the public, respecting the necessity or

expediency of repealing the Union. When I introduced the Catholic Relief

Bill, I stated that political power already existed in the hands of the

Roman Catholics, and that was a statement, generally admitted by noble

Lords on both sides of the House. What the Bill effected was to give the

capacity of enjoying political power to the higher classes of the Roman

Catholics, and to take it out of the hands of those of the lower classes

who did not exercise it themselves for their own purposes, and according

to the suggestion of their own sentiments, but at the dictation of a

body among the Catholic people, who, it will be admitted by everybody,

ought not to possess any political power whatever,--I mean the Roman

Catholic priesthood.

_April, 21st. 1831._

* * * * *

_If the Reform Bill be passed, it will be impossible to preserve

inviolate the Union with Ireland._

My opinion is, that your Lordships will find it difficult, indeed,

after having passed the Bill under discussion of the other House of

Parliament, to maintain inviolate that Union which now exists between

the two countries. I mean to say, that in the event of that bill

passing, it would be impossible to maintain that article of the Union

which recognises the Church of England as a branch of that Union, and

which guarantees its safety. I beg to call to your Lordships'

recollection, that his Majesty is sworn to maintain that Union

inviolate; and that, in adopting the Reform measure, the Parliament do

actually expose his Majesty to the risk of consenting to a bill

calculated to break down the Church Establishment in Ireland. This is

the impression I have always entertained--and it is an impression which

I cannot remove from my mind; and, I must confess, that when I heard the

other night the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham)

assert that the Reform Bill had put down agitation in Ireland, on the

subject of a Repeal of the Union, I was much surprised.

_April 22, 1831._

* * * * *

_Importance of Portugal to England._

There is no country in Europe whose alliance is so important to England

as Portugal; there is no country, the preservation of whose independence

is so important to us, as that of Portugal.

_July 26, 1831._

* * * * *

_A preventive Police checks Crime._

In all foreign countries there exists a preventive police,--but there

is no such thing in England,--which preventive police has the effect of

checking crime in a very great degree. We have nothing of the sort in

England, neither can there be, according to the principles of our law

and constitution. Such being the case, your Lordships must use great

caution in drawing comparisons between convictions in this and foreign

countries; if that is not done, the most erroneous conclusions will be

arrived at.

_September 6, 1831._

* * * * *

_A War of Opinions the worst of Wars._

The truth is, that the government of Portugal has, for the last ten

months, been looked upon with inimical feelings and with passion by the

King's servants; and this measure[13] is not brought forward with any

view to revenue, but for the purpose of opposing and embarrassing the

existing Government of that country. The noble Lords opposite do not

like the situation of the Government of Portugal; it is not to their

mind; and they are anxious, either by revolutionary measures, or any

other, to overthrow it. Let them, however, look well at the

responsibility they are incurring. Let them consider the frightful

consequences in which their planning may involve this country, and the

whole of Europe. If their designs even met with a temporary success,

they would inevitably lead to a war of opinion, to a war of

religion--the worst of wars, and the most deplorable consequences for

all Europe would ensue.

_September 30, 1831._

[Footnote 13: The Wine Duties Bill; for regulating the tariff as

regards Portugal.]

* * * * *

_The Duke's Declaration against all Reform._

But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the value of the House of

Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the noble Earl (Grey) the

last time, I believe, the last time that he spoke of the House of

Commons. In the month of February, 1817, the noble Lord said,

"constituted as it now was, he, in his conscience, believed that the

House of Commons was, of all other institutions, in all the other

countries of the world, the institution best calculated for the general

protection of the subject. Supported by the people, in temperate and

firm claims for redress, it was not only able, but certain to remedy

every wrong. It was capable of acting as the most efficient control upon

the executive, by diminishing the means of consumption, and reducing the

pressure of a severe and grinding taxation." That was the opinion of the

noble Earl himself, in 1817; and what, I would ask, has the Parliament

done, subsequently, to deserve the disapprobation of the noble Earl?

What had it done between 1817 and the moment when I pronounced that

approbation of Parliament, of which my noble friend (Earl Winchelsea)

and the noble Earl (Grey) have so much disapproved? When the noble Earl

quoted what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote

it correctly. What I said was, that Parliament had done its duty by the

country, and enjoyed its confidence. I said, that if I had to create a

constitution of Parliament, I could not create that which now existed,

because I did not believe the art of one man could invent such a system;

but I said, that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in

which property in land should be preponderant. That was what I said; and

I afterwards had the satisfaction to hear the noble Marquis (Lansdowne)

deliver a similar opinion. He stated that, in any system of

representation which he could support, property and learning must be

preponderant. I said that I should consider it my duty to resist the

adopting of any plan of reform that should be brought forward. I spoke

as a minister of the Crown; I meant to resist reform. The noble Lords

say, that this statement of mine caused great enmity to me, and created

that spirit of reform which has since pervaded the whole country. I beg

the noble Earl's pardon; but the spirit of reform in this country was

the consequence of the French revolution. It is true, that ever since

the American war, a desire for Parliamentary Reform has been manifested,

particularly when any disturbance or insurrection has occurred in any of

the neighbouring foreign countries--above all, since the French

revolution; and when there has been any extraordinary distress or

difficulty in the country. At the same time, I believe that, from year

to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent. I

have, indeed, the authority of those most friendly to reform for saying

that the manifestations of the desire for reform were less frequent,

till the period of the revolution of July, 1830, than they had formerly

been for a number of years.

_October 4, 1831._

_Electoral Pledges Unconstitutional._

It is on the ground of the dissolution, and of the Speech from the

Throne,[14] that I charge the noble Lords with having excited the spirit

which existed in the country at the period of the last general election;

and with having been the cause of the unconstitutional practice,

hitherto unknown, of electing delegates for a particular purpose to

Parliament--delegates to obey the daily instructions of their

constituents, and to be cashiered if they should disobey them, whatever

may be their own opinion; instead of being, as they have been hitherto,

independent members of Parliament, to deliberate with their colleagues

upon matters of common concern, and to decide according to the best of

their judgment, after such deliberation and debate. This is an evil of

which the country will long feel the consequences, whatever may be the

result of these discussions.

[Footnote 14: The Whig ministry dissolved the Parliament in April, 1831.

A new Parliament met in June; and, on the 21st of that month, the King

made the speech alluded to. In the interval there had been great

excitement in the country.]

My Lords, this measure, thus delegated by the people, and thus brought

forward by the Government in Parliament, for the decision of members

thus delegated to give it the force of a law, alters every thing; and

requires, as the noble Secretary of State (Lord Melbourne) says, new

powers, in order to render it practicable to carry on the Government at

all.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_A Democratic Assembly of the worst description will be elected under

the Reform Bill._

Throughout the whole of the empire, persons of the lowest condition of

life, liable to, and even existing under, the most pernicious

influences, are to have votes; or, in other words, are to exercise

political power. Persons in those stations of life do exercise political

power already; but, in a few places, in large masses; preponderating

over the influence of other classes of society. What must we expect when

these lower classes will preponderate everywhere? We know what sort of

representatives are returned by the places I have described. What are we

to expect, when the whole will be of the same description?

We hear, sometimes, of radical reform; and we know that the term applies

to universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, and their

consequences. But, I declare, that looking at these changes pervading

every part of the representation, root and branch, destroying or

changing everything that has existed, even to the relative numbers of

the representatives from the three kingdoms fixed by treaty, I should

call this a radical reform, rather than reform of any other description.

* * * * *

I cannot but consider that the House of Commons returned by it will be a

democratical assembly of the worst description; that radical reform,

vote by ballot, and all the evil consequences to be expected from the

deliberations of such an assembly, must follow from this establishment.

I entreat your Lordships to pause before you agree to establish such a

system in your country.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_The popular Will no ground for conceding Reform._

But we are told that the people wish for this measure; and when we

express our sense of the danger which attends it, on account of the

democratical power which it tends to establish, an endeavour is made to

calm our apprehensions, by the assurance that the people are attached to

the Government of King, Lords, and Commons.

If we are to rely upon that feeling of the people--if we are to adopt

this measure because it is the pleasure of the people, and because they

are attached to the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, why do we

not, at once, adopt the measure which we know the people prefer--I mean

radical reform; that is to say, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and

annual parliaments? If we are to make a change, there can be no reason

for not going the full length that the people wish, if we can be sure

that the measure will not injure the Government--that to which they are

attached--of King, Lords, and Commons.

_October 4, 1831._

_Necessity of the Influence of Property in the House of Commons._

But before we go further, it is desirable that we should examine what is

the Government of King, Lords, and Commons, as established in this

kingdom. In this Government the King is at the head of everything. All

the power is in his hands. He is the head of the Church, the head of the

law. Justice is administered in his name. He is the protector of the

peace of the country, the head of its political negociations, and of its

armed force--not a shilling of public money can be expended without his

order and signature. But, notwithstanding these immense powers, the King

can do nothing that is contrary to law, or to the engagements of himself

or his predecessors.

* * * * *

Every act of the Government, or of the King, is liable to be brought

under discussion in, and is in fact controlled by, the House of Commons;

and for this reason alone, it is important that we should consider of

what description of men the House of Commons is likely to be composed,

when we are discussing a question of Parliamentary Reform, in order

that we may be quite certain that they will exercise their high function

with wisdom and discretion.

It was on these grounds, that I, some time ago, called upon the noble

Earl (Grey) to state by what influence he intended to carry on the

King's Government in Parliament, according to the principles fixed at

the period of the Revolution, and in practice from that period to this,

when this Reform Bill should be passed. The noble Lord answered

immediately--not by means of corruption. I am aware of that, my Lords. I

am convinced that the noble Lord is incapable of resorting to such

means, as I hope he believes that I am incapable of resorting to them. I

did not consider this any answer to my question, which I repeated in a

subsequent discussion, on the motion of my noble friend, the noble Baron

behind me (Lord Wharncliffe). The noble Earl said, that the Government

had nothing to do with such questions; that Parliament was to decide for

itself; and that there was no necessity for the interference of

Government.

I beg your Lordships to consider what are the questions which in every

week, and on every day, are brought under the discussion of the House of

Commons--questions affecting the honour, the interests, the rights, the

property, of every individual in the country, which the King is bound by

his oath to protect, and in the protection of which, all are equally

interested. They are questions regarding the proceedings of Courts of

Justice, regarding the use of the public force, and hundreds of others,

which occur daily, in which every individual is interested. I put

legislation out of the question; but can the King from that Throne give

to his subjects the necessary protection for their rights and property?

No, my Lords. It is only by the influence of property over the election

of Members of the House of Commons, and by the influence of the Crown

and of this House, and of the property of the country upon its

proceedings, that the great powers of such a body as the House of

Commons can be exercised with discretion and safety. The King could not

perform the duties of his high station, nor the House of Lords, if the

House of Commons were formed on the principle and plan proposed by this

bill.

_October 4, 1831._

* * * * *

_The Sacrifice of the Established Church will follow the Reform Bill._