presented a petition from Thomas John Waters, praying the House to abolish capital punishments in all cases excepting murder.

called the attention of the House to the subject of this petition, which, though only signed by one individual, expressed the sentiments of many benevolent persons. On the important subject of inflicting the punishment of death, it prayed the House to consider, whether it might not in all cases except murder, be commuted for imprisonment. Although we boasted that we were the most civilized people in Europe, our criminal code was the most severe of all. Neither in America nor France was death ever inflicted, except for the crime of murder. In the latter country, the practice had been, for the last twenty years, to send delinquents to penitentiary houses, where their morals were reformed, and they came out valuable members of society. It was seldom, he feared, that persons committed for offences in this country came out of prison with any improvement whatever in their moral sentiments. As the public attention was now drawn to the general subject of this petition, he trusted that it would speedily fall under the consideration of the House.

rose for the purpose of presenting a petition from the inhabitants of Narborough, in Leicestershire, praying for annual parliaments and universal suffrage, doctrines which, he had no doubt, would excite the indignation of an hon. and learned gentleman, who on a recent occasion had condemned them as chimerical and absurd. That they were chimerical and absurd, as had been stated, was mere matter of opinion, but when he heard an hon. member of that House designate those who supported these doctrines as included in two classes, the misleading and the misled, the designing and the dupes, he felt himself bound to say a Few words. Among the many authorities he might now mention, he should merely take one. Judge Blackstone had observed, that the law, in order to be binding on all, must be made by all, and that every man was supposed to be present at the making of a law, in consequence of his being represented. Now, if such was the case, if the law became only binding on those who were present at its being enacted, what was to be said of the great body of people who were not represented? What, he would ask, was to be said of Scotland, the country in which he was born, where out of a population of two millions there were only 2,700 electors? He maintained that the inhabitants of that country were not bound by the laws enacted here, as [loud cries of order! order!]—

apprehended such language was not parliamentary, and could not by any means be permitted in that House.

said, that had the House heard his sentence finished, they might have thought otherwise.

—I am sorry to say the noble lord's sentence is already too complete.

proceeded. Such had been the opinion of the learned judge whom he had thought proper to quote. That such opinions as those of the petitioners might be entertained without their having any intention to subvert the constitution or established forms of the country certainly required no demonstration, and it was equally clear they might be entertained without any imputation being thrown on individuals. He had risen the other night in consequence of a pointed requisition made by an hon. and learned gentleman, that if any member thought the visionary theories of universal suffrage and annual parliaments could be maintained, he should show that they could. That requisition he felt himself bound to comply with, and had complied with, although he was then conscious to himself, and still was so, that he could not compete with the hon. and learned gentleman in words. He had then felt it necessary to state, that to the wisdom of the people he was more disposed to trust than to the wisdom of the House, persuaded that the people on every occasion decided coolly; that they decided wisely and brightly [[Hear, hear! and a laugh. He had also no hesitation in saying, that he was decidedly of opi- nion any system of representation was better than the present. But he would have expected that the hon. and learned gentleman would have felt for the petitioners, when he considered that he himself was not long ago of the same opinion, and had made an open declaration of them, in a speech, on a day which he (lord C.) could name, and would name, when that learned gentleman had not the good fortune to represent a rotten borough, as he did now. The day was the 23d of June, 1814, when there were strong expectations, he would not say by that hon. and learned gentleman himself, but by others, that he would be returned for the city of Westminster. This speech then delivered was certainly a sure criterion of his political opinions at that crisis, whatever they might be now; and of the genuineness of that speech he had sufficient proofs in his hands. The hon. and learned gentleman declared his opinions were firmly in support of annual parliaments, and suffrage co-extensive with taxation. He had seen that hon. and learned gentleman's words on paper, not taken from him by a reporter, who might be afterwards charged with having mistaken them; but written coolly and deliberately—And by whom? Why by himself, although indeed no name or signature was attached to the declaration. Soon after (a day or two) he was waited upon for the purpose of correcting his speech, when he, instead of correcting it, thought it less trouble, and much better for him to write it afresh, which he accordingly did. The hon. and learned gentleman at the present moment represented a rotten borough; but still he (lord Cochrane) had sufficient evidence to prove these to have been the opinions of the hon. and learned gentleman, and he would now read them from the speech written by the hon. and learned gentleman's own hand. But first, to put an end to all doubts on the subject, he wished to know whether the paper he now held in his hand was the writing of the hon. and learned gentleman. [Cries of Order, order!]? He hoped the House would hear with attention the then sentiments of the hon. and learned gentleman, which he should now read from a manuscript he held in his hand: "As often as we have required that parliaments should be chosen yearly, and that the elective franchise should be extended to all who pay taxes, we have been desired to wait, for the enemy was at the gate, and ready to avail himself of the discords attending our political contests, in order to undermine our national independence. This argument is gone, and our adversaries must now look for another. He had mentioned the two radical doctrines of yearly election, and the franchise enjoyed by all paying taxes; but it would be superfluous to reason in favour of them here where all were agreed upon the subject." Now, such were some of the words made use of on that occasion by the hon. and learned gentleman, and certainly he (Lord C.) knew no man who wore shoes or eat bread, who did not pay taxes; because though he perhaps did not pay them directly, they were laid on the articles he consumed by the person from whom he purchased them. But he would proceed in his extracts from the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, aware that they must be very amusing to the House. "He suggested a fact for the use of such as might have occasion to defend their principles. It was one for the truth of which he might appeal to his hon. friend (Mr. Byng) the member for Middlesex, who knew, as well as he did, that there was a great improvement always observable in the conduct of the House of Commons towards the last year of a parliament, insomuch, that he had heard it observed, that more good was done in that year than in all the other five or six. The reason of this he should not presume to state; but some persons were of so suspicious a nature as to insinuate that it might be the knowledge of members, that at the end of that session they must meet their constituents, such of them as had any, and give an account of their trust." He says again, in another part of the same speech, after complaining of a toast given by mistake, and which had said, "a full, fair, and free representation in parliament," leaving out the people, "this is just what is done elsewhere. There is a full, fair, and free representation in parliament, we need not drink to that.—There is a full representation of the aristocracy, a fair representation of the landed interest, a free representation and a free ingress of the court, but not so much representation of the people. They are left out, as they were to-day. It must, however, be otherwise soon. While they bear the burthens of the state, they must, as of right, share in its government, and to effect this reform, all good men must now unite." Such were the sentiments of the hon. and learned gentleman, who was now falling so unmer- cifully foul on the friends of reform, charging them as deluding and misleading. There had, then, been three periods in the history of the hon. and learned gentleman when his opinions had differed. The first was, the time before he changed his opinions to that of annual parliaments, when he was neither among the misleading nor their dupes, but was an advocate for moderate and temperate reform. The second period was, the time he had made this memorable speech. And here he could not help alluding to the time when this speech had been delivered. It was when he (lord C.) had been expelled from the House, and when, consequently, a vacancy was expected for Westminster. He did not impute motives to the hon. and learned gentleman, but it was singular that this very period should have been selected as the most proper for making the speech. Any one, however, who knew that such a speech had at such a time been made by the hon. and learned gentleman, would have expected he would of course have been less severe on the reformers, instead of now pronouncing anathemas on their motives and characters; and it would therefore have, perhaps, been more prudent for the hon. and learned gentleman to have said less. With respect to an individual who had been noticed formerly as the source whence all these petitions, or the most of them, emanated, he meant major Cartwright, he begged leave to say, that he did not know a more disinterested or upright individual. Attached to the principles of no party, advocating neither the claims of one class or another, that venerable man had devoted his whole life to the cause of the people, and in defence of their best and most sacred privileges. He was proud to bear this testimony, having had the most satisfactory evidence from personal knowledge that this was the case. He should not now further trespass on their attention, unless he was compelled to say more, when he should produce more facts. He concluded by moving for leave to bring up the petition.

said, it had often been observed, and indeed with great justice, that there was not perhaps a more painful and irksome situation, than that where a man was obliged to speak of himself. In proportion to that painful situation, and in compassion to it, the indulgence of the House had always been extended, and he hoped it would be so on the present occa-

^*

sion [Hear, hear!]. He trusted it would rot, however, be thought that he was courting anxiously an opportunity of going into detail, or that, on the contrary, he wished to avoid such detail, for he felt it his duty to say, that he expressed his warmest thanks to the noble lord for the frank and open manner in which he had afforded him the opportunity of going into the subject. A more groundless aspersion had, he believed, never been brought forward against any individual. He did not accuse the noble lord, however, or those out of doors who had put the brief into his hands, of uttering any falsehood in the statement which had just been submitted to the House, but he decidedly accused them of rashness and imprudence, and of not waiting for only a few days longer, when they would have had a full and fair opportunity of hearing his opinions on this most momentous and important subject, and when they could then have found whether he was or was not inconsistent. Had those out of doors, whose tool the noble lord was, but waited those few days, they would then have known what his real sentiments on the question were, having, as the House well knew, reserved to himself the right of then speaking what he felt on the subject [Hear, hear!]. How then could the noble lord, how could they in whose hands he is, presume to know what were the opinions he (Mr. B.) had formed on this most interesting question? How did they know that he would not have stated his opinion then in the very terms which had just been read? That they should have ascertained Iris sentiments was a moral impossibility [Hear, hear!]. But the noble lord had given a misstatement of what took place, and he should now endeavour to give the House the particulars of the case. A dinner was given at the London Tavern to the friends of parliamentary reform, at which he (Mr. B.) attended, with his friend the member for Middlesex, with the late truly respected and much lamented member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), with the member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Brand), and the member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet). In the course of what passed there, some observations fell from him similar to what had been read by the noble lord. The chief motive he had in correcting what he had there stated was, to prevent the possibility of his words on this important question from being misrepresented. He then said, or at least meant to be understood as saying, what he still maintained, that it was consonant to the genius and spirit of the constitution, and expedient in every sense of the word, that the power of election should be limited to those who paid direct taxes. He corrected what he had said on the subject, as he was aware of the mistakes of reporters. He again repeated, and wished it to be understood, that what he then said the same he now maintained, viz. that the payment of direct taxes ought to be the limit of the elective franchise. He did not wish to compete with the noble lord, but this was his meaning when he so spoke.—He should wish to say one word upon what had been said respecting his advocating the cause of a moderate and gradual reform. Six years ago, it would be remembered, he had repeatedly said, both within and without the House, that it would be proper for those who wished for annual parliaments to unite with those who were more moderate, and thus secure a footing. There was no reason for their stopping short, and he did not hold it to be inconsistent in the friends of annual parliaments to unite with the more moderate reformers, and to obtain, in the first instance, a beginning. This was the opinion he then held, and he had never deviated from it. The noble lord was much mistaken when he supposed that the mere production of a speech delivered by him (Mr. B.) at a tavern, would make him swerve from the line of duty, merely from, the foolish and childish desire of keeping up an appearance of consistency. If he supposed him to do so, he was much mistaken. The House had heard him declare his intention to reserve his right of being heard, when the question was brought fully under the consideration of the House, and he could only add, that he would still reserve to himself that right, uninfluenced by any thing the noble lord had said. He again repeated, that when he spoke of the extension of suffrage, he meant it should be to those who paid direct taxes only, for he never dreamt of it going further. As to the miserable motives alleged to have actuated him, as if he could prostitute himself at one time to deliver opinions which were not the sentiments of his heart, for the purpose of being carried into the House on the shoulders of a rabble, and at another time to bend to prejudices he might have to contend with in the House, all he should say was, that he treated such charges with the contempt they deserved. The only pain he felt was, when he contemplated the folly and the madness of some wild theorists, and the base expedients and false practices they made use of to divide the people from the constitution, merely to gratify party purposes, and to compass objects in which the good of the country was neglected, while the interest of one or two individuals was the all in all [Hear, hear!]. This gave him more pain than all the noble lord had said or could say.

expressed his persuasion, from the long knowledge which he had had of his hon. and learned friend, that he was incapable of the inconsistency which had been imputed to him. There was one expression, however, in his hon. and learned friend's speech, to which he wished the House particularly to attend, in order that they might be on their guard against the commencement of a system which would eventually be destructive of every constitutional principle. His hon. and learned friend had advised those who were the friends of the most extensive reform to be satisfied if they made but a beginning—if they obtained but a footing on the subject. When the question of parliamentary reform should come to be regularly discussed, and when the House should be told, as no doubt it would be told, by the advocates of what was called moderate reform, that the alterations which they proposed were trifling, and could do no harm, he would remind them of his hon. and learned friend's suggestion, that a beginning, was at any rate advisable; and on the ground that the beginning of an inroad on the constitution was dangerous, would he firmly resist every proposition that might be made on the subject.

trusted that few persons in the House would be found disposed to agree in opinion with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He begged leave to say, that it was a very weak argument to contend, that because any measure might be bad if pushed to extremity, it was therefore not desirable to adopt it as far as it would be wise to do so. He hoped that this kind of reasoning would not have the effect of inducing the House to refuse to consider the proposal for the introduction of so much reform as would remove them from the control of the executive government. Would it be justifiable in those who thought that all kinds of property should have its protection in that House, by conferring on the possessors of all property the right of nominating their protectors, to resist a proposition of that nature, because a large body of the people wished for a reform still more extensive? It was a most unfair way of stating the case, to maintain that the House ought, not to concede any thing, because much more than they might be disposed to concede was requited by a numerous body of the people. If the House adopted any measures by which the public purse should be in future effectually protected against the rapacity and extravagance of ministers, he firmly believed that the rational part of the community—the great bulk of the nation—would be satisfied. It was curious to observe the hon. gentleman so-fearful of the slighest alteration in the structure of parliament—so apprehensive of the smallest inroad on the constitution—sitting behind persons who had made the greatest inroads on the constitution; sitting behind those who, in effecting the Union with Ireland, had actually bought up the Irish parliament (a fact not resting on rumour, but offered to be proved in that House by the then Speaker of the Irish House of Commons), and had introduced a hundred Irish members into the British House of Commons. Surely that was a great alteration in the constitution. He would not argue whether it was a good or a bad one; but it was certainly singular to find the hon. gentleman supporting those by whose influence that great alteration was effected, and yet expressing his determination to resist the slightest attempt that should be made to wipe out the foulest and most disgusting blot that existed on the character of that House. With reference to the explanations which had taken place on the subject of direct taxation, he had no difficulty in saying that he was apprehensive the proposition for universal suffrage could not be considered as tenable, and he was persuaded that such a reform as would protect property, and protect the bulk of the community from oppression, would satisfy all who had rational views on the subject; and that then nothing more would be heard about universal suffrage. He deeply lamented that gentlemen who agreed in the general principle of the necessity of some reform, instead of keeping their own eyes, and directing the eyes of the public to the notorious fact that the members of that House were nominated by a very small body, and that less than two hundred persons actually nominated the majority of the House, acted towards each other with the hostility of the professors of different sects of religion; instead of uniting to obtain the abolition of at least that enormous grievance. It was much to be regretted that those who were all anxious to obtain a salutary reform, should thus waste their strength in acrimonious contention, instead of combining to obtain the great object in view.

said, that his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Ward) had been that night, it seemed, laying the foundation for the resistance which it was his intention to make to any proposal for reform, however moderate. His hon. friend had talked triumphantly of the expression used by his hon. and learned friend, that "a beginning" was desirable, as if that expression afforded any support to his argument. Of what was the beginning, recommended by his hon. and learned friend? Not the beginning of mischief.—not the beginning of revolution—but the beginning of moderate and rational reform. He therefore strongly protested against the insinuation conveyed in his hon. friend's remarks. He agreed entirely with the hon. baronet in regretting the differences which had arisen among those who were all the friends of parliamentary reform. It was a subject on which he had felt great anxiety ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. He lamented much this disagreement; and he particularly lamented the chimerical systems held out as if to divert the people, and impede the progress of that rational reform, which every true friend of his country must wish to see established. His hon. and learned friend had vindicated—he ought rather to say he had completely repelled, the uncalled-for and undeserved attack that had been levelled at him. He hoped that from this time until the general discussion on the subject, the noble lord would abstain from personal attacks on those who were desirous to co-operate with him, to a certain extent. He would support the question of reform to the extent which he thought beneficial, although perhaps not to the extent to which the noble lord was disposed to go. He recollected that when he brought the question of reform before that House, he had the noble lord's support, although not on the principle on which he himself maintained his motion; for he wished for reform, because it would weaken the hands of government, and strengthen those of the people; while the reason for support assigned by the noble lord was, that he wished to strengthen the hands of government.

adverting to the observations which had been made by Mr. Ward, thought that the hon. gentleman might have abated somewhat of the severity of his observations, and might have expressed himself in terms of less decided hostility against all descriptions of parliamentary reform whatever, from the recollection of his having formerly supported, the other side of the House, and sat by the side of Mr. Fox and other distinguished individuals, who had maintained the cause of rational reform. When the subject should be regularly brought before the House, and when he should be called on, in common with every other member of the House, to give his opinion upon it, he should state the reasons which convinced him that reform to a certain extent was indispensable to the well-being of the country.

in explanation, denied that there was any inconsistency in his sentiments on the subject of parliamentary reform. He knew it was very natural for so distinguished an individual as the noble lord to be ignorant of the opinions of an individual so little distinguished as himself; but he thought he was entitled to require that the noble lord should not misrepresent that which he did not know. He appealed to those who knew what his conduct was when he sat on the opposite side of the House, on the question of parliamentary reform, even at the hazard of the displeasure of some of his best friends. At that time he as strongly, as earnestly, and as sincerely pronounced an opinion against parliamentary reform as at present.

explained. All that he contended was, not that the hon. gentleman had actually supported parliamentary reform, but that the recollection of his former connexions should have prevented him from contending that all those who supported moderate reform had some ulterior object in view.

was not anxious to prolong the discussion, but some things had occurred in the course of it, on which he wished to say a few words. An hon. baronet had deprecated all differences of opinion among the friends of parliamentary reform; and indeed with good reason, for the poor reformers seemed really about very seriously to quarrel. It was very natural that some of their more prudent friends, when they observed demonstrations of that nature, should advise them to keep their differences of opinion in the back ground, for the present at least, until the necessity of reform had been actually admitted by the House, when they might be brought forth with a greater chance of success. The House had that night heard at least six different projects of reform. The hon. baronet's was, he believed, the fifth; and thinking probably, that enough had been said about the subject, and that all these political haberdasheries should not be prematurely exposed, but some samples reserved for future exhibition, the hon. baronet advised that the show should end for the present. For himself, he earnestly entreated every hon. gentleman who had brought a pocket plan of reform with him, to open it, in order that the House might compare one with the other, and be prepared to say, in the discussion which was to take place after Easter, which they preferred. The only concession they were called upon to make was, to give up the House of Commons as it stood, and as soon as that concession should be made, they would be immediately admitted to the view of a beautiful variety of experiments, out of which it would be impossible that they should not be enabled to adopt one that would be highly satisfactory. Not having been in the House at the outset of the discussion between the noble lord and the hon. and learned gentleman, he could give no decided opinion on the serious difference which seemed to exist between them. But, as far as the question of reform was concerned, he really thought the noble lord had been very hardly used. He advised the noble lord to stick to his own plan. Although it was ruin; although it was confiscation: although it was desolation; it was at least founded on principle. For what was it that it was proposed to gain by reform? A great additional strength to the constitution by winning the hearts of the great body of the people. Now, if the signatures to the different petitions were counted, the majority would out of all size be found to be for universal suffrage. He knew very well that the suggestion of universal suffrage was now brow-beaten by the very persons, who during the first fortnight of the session rebuked those on his side of the House who ventured to condemn it. The cause of this change of opinion, he would not profess to assign. His own opinion remained unchanged. If adopted, it would be followed, not only by the ruin of that House, but by the subversion of the constitution. But still, were he asked if universal suffrage was not a direct deduction from the principles maintained by all the advocates of reform generally, he would reply that it certainly was. He was, therefore, decidedly for opposing the beginning of a system which must end in national destruction. The debate of that evening had, in his opinion, been very advantageous; and he was persuaded that the country would feel much obliged to his hon. friend for not allowing the expressions used by the hon. and learned gentleman opposite to pass, without taking the opportunity of warning the House against the danger that would inevitably result from giving way in the smallest degree to any of the plans which were in contemplation. The principle of all those plans, whatever might be their details, was, that the House of Commons was not at present adequate to the discharge of the functions which belonged to it by the constitution. This was not a little blot, as the hon. baronet bad alleged; but a broad principle, pregnant with the most fatal consequences. He, and those who thought with him, said, that the House of Commons was adequate to the discharge of those functions; that it represented the opinions of the people; and that it protected their interests. On the six or seven plans of reform which had been produced, the House would have leisure to meditate until the discussion which was threatened after Easter. He trusted they would beware of giving way a single step. If they did so, they must recollect that they would do it not for the adoption of any definite system, but that they would pass from a deep to a lower, and from the lowest depth into inextricable confusion.

said, that whatever construction of the legislature some persons might propose, whatever projects of unattainable advantage they might suggest, he would not lend himself to any of them, when a real and practical benefit was all that he wanted. He must declare that he conscientiously believed that, in the present constitution of the House of Commons, the interests of the people were not consulted to the extent to which they ought to be consulted. What particular remedy it might be advisable to apply, he would not now consider. But he could assure the right hon. gentleman, that although he was desirous of making the House of Commons gradually and practically a truer representation of the people, beyond that he would not go. As to the right hon. gentleman, he believed that he was the only man in his majesty's dominions who maintained that no practical good could result from any alteration whatever in the constitution of that House. That any one, and more especially a right hon. gentleman in power, should feel alarmed at a great and theoretical proposition on the subject, was not surprising; but when the right hon. gentleman declared, that he viewed with jealousy and apprehension every suggestion for reform, however moderate and practicable, he was persuaded that he would not in that House find a seconder of such a declaration. As to the question of annual parliaments and universal suffrage, if the noble lord required any thing more to convince him of the propriety of desisting from being the advocate of propositions of that nature what had passed that night ought to operate still more forcibly on his mind than any previous circumstance. The noble lord had heard the right hon. gentleman call on him to go on. He, who hated all reform, implored the noble lord to persevere in that which he knew could never succeed. If, after this, the noble lord should continue to be the friend of annual parliaments and universal suffrage, he (Mr. T.) should not think that he was consulting the good of the people, but that on the contrary, without intending, he was playing into the hands of their enemies. One word more. The right hon. gentleman had treated with a sarcastic kind of humour the wish expressed by an hon. baronet, that the noble lord and the hon. and learned gentleman, and the other friends of reform might make up their differences. Why was this sneer? Had the right hon. gentleman a monopoly in making up differences? [Hear, hear!] How did the right hon. gentleman and those about him contrive to make up their differences? After that specimen of reconciliation, surely no difference of opinion, however wide among the friends of reform might not with facility be adjusted [Hear, hear!]. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Ward) had laid in his claim, whenever this subject came to be discussed, to sound the alarm to the country, in conse- quence of an expression which had fallen from his hon. and learned friend. And what was the amount of the hon. gentleman's objection to this expression? That if any thing were reformed, the door would be opened to the mob and to unlimited reform! This doctrine he feared was entertained on other descriptions of reform, besides parliamentary. There was reason to fear that a late surrender by a noble marquess began to be considered as a dangerous beginning. He had no doubt, that among a certain class of individuals the honourable step taken by lord Camden, was held to be the most mischievous proceeding on the subject of reform that had hitherto taken place, opening a door to the mob into which they would rush, and then who could tell whose place or salary would be safe? For himself he felt perfectly convinced, that while the noble lord on the treasury bench was making a very rational speech the other evening in favour of practical economy, many who were seated near him, viewed him with extreme horror, as uttering sentiments essentially injurious to the public service [a laugh]. The effect of this alarm had, indeed, been in some degree apparent; for all at once the career of reduction had stopped short; and no hope seemed to be cherished that the splendid example of the Prince Regent would be further followed. We were to be perfectly satisfied with what had been done. It was rather extraordinary, considering the alarm expressed by the hon. gentleman opposite, lest any reform whatever should be entertained, that he should have been at one period chairman of a committee on sinecures, by which it was declared, that it was not necessary that two paymasters should receive one salary. It was surprising, considering the sentiments now avowed by the hon. gentleman, that he could ever consent to be a party to a declaration so dangerous to the constitution [a laugh].

had heard with considerable pain the personal attack made by the noble lord on his hon. and learned friend, and with great satisfaction the complete manner in which his hon. and learned friend had vindicated himself. Adverting to the observations made on his hon. and learned friend's speech last week, he observed, that his hon. and learned friend was not liable to the imputations cast on him by the noble lord. All that his hon. and learned friend contended was, that propositions maintaining that annual parliaments and universal suffrage were the birthright of the people, had been put into the mouths of ignorant persons, in direct contradiction to all historical testimony. There was also a sort of oblique attempt on the part of the noble lord at intimidation, unless his hon. and learned friend and those who thought with him went the length of the noble lord and his friends. For himself, he was quite ready to share in any odium which might attach to his hon. and learned friend for his conduct on this important question. He trusted that there were none who, like him, espoused the cause of moderate and constitutional reform, but would be the same. The worst enemies of true reform were those strange, unconstitutional, and he would say, designing innovators, whose advocate the noble lord was, and whose seconder and supporter was the right hon. gentleman opposite.

assured the House that had the hon. and learned gentleman in the observations made by him on a former occasion confined himself to the reprobation of his (lord C.'s) conduct, he would have been the last man to make the statement which he had that night made, and which he had felt himself called upon to make, because the hon. and learned gentleman's censures, instead of having been so confined, had been bestowed on the most honourable characters, and on almost the unanimous voice of the country, which the hon. and learned gentleman had maintained was divided into only two classes; the deceivers and the deceived. It was on that account that he had quoted the hon. and learned gentleman's former opinions, in order to show that he ought to have been less severe, and he was happy to observe the good effect of the step which he had taken in the altered tone of the hon. and learned gentleman. He was in the recollection of the House, that nothing personal had originated with him. He had merely stated, that triennial parliaments would only reduce, and not remove the existing corruption; and he had that evening quoted, in support of that statement, the hon. and learned gentleman's observation, that in the last year of every parliament, more benefit accrued to the public than during all the preceding years of its existence. It was his firm conviction, that unless the House discussed the subject with the deliberation which its importance demanded; unless every part of it should be fully and fairly investigated; unless the doors of the gallery should remain open during the whole of the proceedings, that the public might, in the usual manner, become acquainted with—[a loud cry of order!]. Unless a full, and free, and open discussion should be entered into on the question which the right hon. gentleman and the hon. gentleman behind him, declared ought not to be at all entertained, the country would consider that it had a most serious cause of complaint.

denied that he had at all altered his tone on the subject. He had repeated that night what he had said last week. He had not altered his tone either to the noble lord, or his abettors, and he never would do so; and he begged the noble lord to receive that as his final avowal on the subject. The noble lord had introduced one topic in the observations which had just fallen from him, that was enough to stagger the stoutest friend of true reform in that House. The noble lord had alluded to a certain influence to be exercised over that House; not the influence of well disposed persons; not the influence of the wishes expressed by the people in their petitions, but another description of influence, which appeared to him to be of the nature of intimidation. Warm friend as he was to the cause of parliamentary reform, he held that that cause must be supported by other means than this. If there should appear any symptom of such a proceeding on the subject, he should not have the slightest hesitation in resorting to one of two expedients in order to counteract it; either to move the adjournment of the discussion sine die, or to prevent all possibility of that influence being used in the way to which the noble lord had alluded.

in explanation, denied any intention of intimidation. He was only anxious that the House might fully consider the important subject that would be brought before it.

in rising to call the attention of the House to the increase made in the Salaries of the Secretaries of the Admiralty in consequence of the war with Algiers, said, that I it was remarkable how different was the appearance of objects, according to the difference of the mind and disposition of the person by whom they were viewed.—There was not a more striking instance of this than the transaction before the House. Undoubtedly the Prince Regent who, from his high situation, was best acquainted with the means of the country to bear the burthens imposed on it, when be surrendered one-fifth of the sum assigned to him to support the dignity of the first magistrate, must have been fully convinced of the necessities of the people. This example had been followed by a noble lord, high in rank (marquis Camden), who bad relinquished a part of the emoluments of an office which had been bestowed on his family as the meed of the services of those from whom he had descended. But at the time when those and other exalted characters were giving examples of surrendering a part of that to which they had an undoubted right, and which, of course, only a sense of the necessity of the times could have induced them to relinquish, another gentleman, in a subordinate office indeed, had procured an addition to his own salary. With what different eyes must this honourable gentleman or the admiralty have beheld the symptoms of the times, when they conceived the autumn of 1816 the most convenient opportunity For taking advantage of a single expedition, to bestow an increase of salaries on the secretaries and others. While others were surrendering their rights, the secretary of the admiralty was adding to his emoluments. The ground on which this claim had been set up was an order of council, of January 15th, 1800, by which, on account of the increase of duties in time of war, the secretary and some other persons were to have an increased salary in time of war. But the question was, had it been fairly made out to the sense of any man, that the time for which the increased salary had been given was in reality what could be fairly understood by a state of war? He denied that it was, and he could give good reasons for the denial. He did not mean to assert that a declaration was necessary to constitute a state of war—for declaration there certainly was none—but neither were there even letters of marque or order of reprisal issued on that occasion; nor any other circumstances which attend and characterise a war. A fleet was sent to Algiers, with lord Exmouth in the double character of a negociator and a commander. He had to exert himself as a diplomatist before he had recourse to force. When the attack was finally made and had succeeded, what did lord Exmouth say? "Thus has a provoked war of two days existence been attended with a complete victory." These were the words of the dispatch. A quarter's salary on the war establishment was claimed by the hon. secretary for a war said to be of two days duration by the commander who conducted it! Upon what pretence did lord Melville and the two other naval lords presume to date the war from the order to fit out the expedition? Any thing so monstrous as this had never been before advanced. We might have been at war for years without such an order; or the expedition might have been fitted out for a considerable time without proceeding to hostilities—as was the case in 1810 with the Copenhagen expedition, which indeed ultimate proceeded to hostilities. If the commencement of this Algiers war was difficult to be settled, and had been settled wrong, its termination was no less curious: it was dated from the reception of the treaty at the admiralty! These dates of the fitting out of the expedition, and the arrival of the treaty in London, might tally with the duration of the salary; but they could not be said to constitute the commencement and the termination of a war, during the existence of which a war salary could be claimed. The war did not continue while negociations were carried on at home, or till the treaty made was sanctioned by the government of this country: it ended as soon as the dey had consented to yield to the terms with which lord Exmouth was instructed to demand his compliance, and that was on the day subsequent to the victory. But taking it that the secretaries of the Admiralty were entitled to war salaries on this occasion, there were other officers included in the provisions of the order of council which regulated their allowance, and they likewise should have received augmented pay. If any one was thus rewarded for additional duty, all should be rewarded, otherwise the measure was partial, and showed undue favour. The master shipwrights, and the master carpenters, he (lord M.) had been told, were on the footing of war and peace allowance. If this was the case, the order in council allowed an increase of salary to them during war, and if they had not now received it, while the hon. gentleman had, what would the country say—what would it think of that kind of justice that would allow an in- creased salary to a public servant, because he was a member of parliament, while it withheld the increase from others, equally entitled, because less powerful, and therefore not so great favourites, although the real work and exertion occasioned by the expedition had fallen upon them? He was ignorant of the fact, but he hoped the hon. gentleman would give him complete information; he hoped that he would be able to show that all were treated alike; for he (Mr. Croker) would feel that he incumbered himself with a heavy weight of suspicion and responsibility, if he advised a measure of remuneration to himself which he did not to others, who were entitled to the benefit of the same regulation. The magnitude of the sum was not the reason why he called the attention of parliament to the subject: he did so because he wished the House to redeem itself with the country, and to merit its confidence. A call for retrenchment had been made on all ranks of men, from the prince to the peasant: would the House be deaf to the call so unanimously and strongly expressed? If it neglected this call, the public distress might lead to public discontent; and all confidence in the representatives of the people would vanish. The sums were small, but these were not times to pass over small sums. Parliament, in viewing the expenditure of the public money, ought, if he might so express himself, to have a microscopic eye, especially when that expenditure was connected with one of its own members; what would the country think if they saw government discharge porters, workmen, and clerks from the public offices, while it increased the salaries of those who had influence and power? The circumstance of the secretary being a member of parliament, made it imperative on the House to watch with more vigilance over transactions like the present; as otherwise an idea might be countenanced that certain persons in that House might escape the rigour of that system of economy which was applied to all others. What had the hon. gentleman done for his augmented salary—where were his services—what were his increased duties? Did his increased trouble and labour deserve such additional reward? Did the government of 1800 contemplate an expedition against a petty state not admitted into the rank of civilized nations, as sufficient to authorize the secretary of the admiralty to consider this empire in a state of war, which would entitle him to a war salary? Was every insulated and partial armament to be considered as the war meant in the order in council of that date? Here there was no correspondence to be carried on with foreign parts; no difficult arrangements to be made; no co-operation to be managed. The war meant in the order in council must have had something of a general character, and could not allude to a single, partial, and insulated expedition. If such was the case, the public had been much deceived, as was likewise the navy pay-office. The navy pay-office, not thin king-that the attack on Algiers constituted this country in a state of war within the meaning of the order of 1800, refused to pay the war salary till they had consulted with the admiralty. This board accordingly asked, "Are we at war?" "O yes," replied the admiralty, "we have been in a mighty and dangerous war, therefore pay the secretaries their war salary." The navy-office by the question clearly thought that there was no title made out to an increase of emoluments on account of the expedition to Algiers. The utmost duration of the war, even according to the admiral, was two days, which, according to the rate of increase, would have entitled the hon. secretary to 5l. 3s. 9d. instead of a quarter's allowance. It might have happened that lord Exmouth might have found the dey ready to comply with the demands of the British government without coming to extremities; and what would have been the situation of the secretary then? He must have written all his dispatches, he must have undergone all his fatigues, he must have carried on all his war correspondence for nothing. There would have been no war, nor any additional allowance. Was, therefore, the bombardment of Algiers, which gave him no additional trouble, and which lasted only a few hours, to make that a period of war from the fitting out of the expedition to the arrival of the dispatches, which would not have been a war otherwise? While it gave no labour was it to be productive of emolument? and was the hon. gentleman to obtain, under false pretences, a salary which he did not merit by his exertions? What! because we had made war upon pirates, was the hon. gentleman to turn pirate, and make war against the finances of the country? After what had passed last year, he did not think that the hon. gentleman would have provoked the present discussion, or obtruded himself again on public notice. Whatever others might do si quis alius, he did not think that the hon. gentleman would have made the demand of the salary, or challenged the votes of the House in its support. In last session the majority was so small in his favour, that a noble lord came down, and out of a decent regard to the sense of parliament, gave up, in his name, the war salary. This was done at the hint of parliament, and the hon. gentleman himself took the credit of the act. He hoped that the House of Commons would not in the present instance allow his majesty's ministers to take any credit for a similar surrender, but would wrest from the hon. gentleman that to which he was not entitled. He hoped it would show him, that while many were sacrificing what they had a right to enjoy, he would not be the only person allowed to prey upon the distresses of the country, and to increase his emoluments at a time when the Prince Regent was reducing his. A lesson should now be read him that he would never forget. The nation called upon parliament for economy. They did not do so without just cause. They had trusted in government, and they had reason to suspect its sincerity and good faith, and they therefore called upon the House to protect them from the extravagance of the administration—from that system of favouritism which would be the bane and the destruction of any country. If there were now something done for the country, in the way of reducing their burthens and protecting their interests, it would be a better answer to the reformers than all the speeches of the light hon. gentleman, who did not think reform necessary, and who used the extraordinary phrase that the House was as "perfect a representation of the people as it needed to be." He did not see any limits to the perfection of the representation, and thought it was never as perfect as it needed be, unless it was as perfect as it could be. The influence of the Crown had increased, both within the walls of parliament, and without, and should, both in doors, and out of doors, be reduced. If it was not lessened in time of peace, there was no chance that it would be lessened at all. He begged pardon, however, for wandering from the subject into the question of parliamentary reform; and could only plead as his apology, that parliamentary reform, when it came across his mind, touched so powerful a chord, that it vibrated for some time without his control. The best reform was a reform of the House itself, shown in controlling the public expenditure, and watching the general interests of the people. On these grounds he moved, "That the issue of the war salaries to the secretaries to the admiralty, and certain other persons connected with the navy and dock-yards, in consideration of the expedition to Algiers, which terminated in hostilities with that government, is uncalled for by the order in council of January 15th, 1800, and therefore an improper application of the public money."

said, he felt the necessity of apologizing to the House for being obliged to offer himself to its attention on a subject so very personal, and in expressing the pain which he felt at being compelled to do so, he hoped that the House would extend to him its usual candour and good nature, which he felt himself entitled to claim in no less a degree than the hon. and learned gentleman opposite had this night already claimed it. The noble lord had made this question one as personal as it could possibly be made, for the noble lord had not only stated, that he was rapacious, that he was grasping, but that he was, in short, every thing which he hoped the noble lord was not, and which the noble lord in his heart could not really believe him to be. The noble lord had said that this increase of salary had been made not only for him, but by him, and that it had been extended to a few other officers (but not to all), as a pretence. The noble lord seemed to say that he not only took the increase of salary, but that he procured other persons to lend themselves to the same act. For his own part, he was quite above denying the part which he had taken in that matter. He had made the demand, because he thought it a matter of right; he had made it because he thought it due to the office. The amount was so paltry that it could be no inducement to him to make an unjust or doubtful claim. The noble lord talked of the example certainly the noble example of the Prince Regent. But he would ask, whether supposing that he (Mr. C). had been foolish and vain enough to have commenced in August last, by giving adonation to the public of this 220l., whether the noble lord himself would not have been among the first to have con-

§

demned such conduct, and to have described it as a paltry and cheap way of giving a donation to the public, by relinquishing that to which he had no right? He would tell the noble lord, that he was as ready to make any sacrifice to the public as the noble lord, or any other member. But he thought it his duty first to establish his right, and then he might come forward and give up what the necessities of the times might seem to require. It was in August last that he made this demand. He would not enter into the question of war or peace, though he might observe that the noble lord admitted there had been only a war of two days duration, because no letters of marque had been issued. The reason why no letters of marque were issued was, that Algiers was not a mercantile state, and in no war against that state, by this or any other nation, had letters of marque ever been issued. So much for this part of the noble lord's argument. But he would tell the noble lord that the expedition was not fitted out merely to negociate, or during the time of peace, for his royal highness the Prince Regent stated that the aggressions of the day of Algiers had obliged him to return them upon his head. The noble lord said too, that lord Exmouth was sent to negociate, although the fact was, that he was sent less with a view to mere negociation than the commander of any expedition ever was sent. The noble lord said, "what if hostilities had not followed?" to which he (Mr. C.) replied, that if they had not, he would not have made any claim. The question rested upon the construction of the order in council. That order stated, that during war, the fees of the secretaries of the admiralty were very considerable, and in lieu of them it gave an increase of salary. On the old scale the fees upon the fitting out of the expedition against Algiers would have amounted to more than the quarter's salary. It was quite erroneous to say that a country was in a state of warfare only while actual hostilities were going on. According to such doctrines, the war with Denmark lasted only one or two days; and the last war with France was a war of only one day, for the whole campaign was terminated in one day. The noble lord had said, that he considered there were other persons in the dock-yards who had war and peace salaries; but the fact was, that the secretaries of the admiralty were the only persons on war and peace salaries. He had only to add that he never demanded this increase of salary as a favour, but as a pure right. As a favour he would not have received it; but he thought it due to the office to which he belonged to demand it as a right, and he did not think that, in justice to his successors, he could have refrained from that claim. He hoped that, whatever the noble lord might think of this matter, the House would not consider that the noble lord had a right to investigate the motives of his private conduct. There were those in that House who would view the subject in its proper light, and who would feel with him that if he had not a clear right he should never have made the demand. He would say more, that if the business had not been completed before the quarter day, he was not sure that he should not so far have gratified his personal feelings as not to have made the demand. He should not merely have thought that the occasion presented itself, without considering what was due to his own feelings. Did any gentleman think that he supposed the noble lord, or some other person would not have taken notice of this? Was there any secret whatever in any part of the transaction? He was perfectly aware when he took it, that he should have to explain the grounds on which he took the money, and he repeated that he thought it a duty to make that demand. It was a question merely of pure right. It certainly did not become him to speak of the manner in which he fulfilled the duties of his office: but he might be allowed to say, that he fulfilled them to the best of his ability; and as to this increase of salary, he had made the demand in a way which until that night he had never thought would have subjected him to the imputation of unworthy motives.

thought, after what the hon. gentleman had said, namely, that if hostilities had not taken place, he should not have considered himself entitled to claim that salary—that he might as well conclude the debate, and compound the matter with the noble lord. Let the hon. gentleman pocket his five pounds three shillings, and there be an end. It must be admitted, however, that the chief blame of this transaction rested with the lords of the admiralty. He differed from the hon. gentleman as to this being a personal affair, but he concurred with him in thinking that it was a paltry one. The sum itself was small in amount, but great and important with reference to the sufferings of the people. When the demand was first started, the navy board were so completely in doubt about it, that they applied to the admiralty to know whether we were at peace or at war. The lords of the admiralty, who knew what our actual situation was, should immediately have put their veto on so ungracious a demand, and have refused a salary which placed a subordinate board in doubt whether it could be allowed or not. Lord Exmouth went out with a treaty in his pocket, empowered to offer to the Algerines the alternative of either accepting the treaty, or engaging in war. The treaty was refused, and in consequence a war was commenced, which was concluded in two days. The only claim, therefore, which the admiralty should have admitted was for that short period during which hostilities were waged. If they had done so, then, with all the anxiety and delicacy of the hon. gentleman for the precedent, and for the benefit of his successors, when he was told that the increase of salary would amount to no more than five pounds three shillings and ninepence, his susceptibility would have ceased, and the House would not have been occupied on this very frivolous and paltry discussion. He thanked the hon. gentleman for his cheers; but the question lay in so narrow a compass, and the hon. gentleman had so completely stated himself out of count, that he was at a loss what farther to say on this subject. He supposed the hon. gentleman thought this a fit opportunity to show, that he would take the earliest occasion to recover that which the House of Commons had deprived him of. But what were the real merits of the case? Ought not the hon. gentleman to refund all above the two days? The order in council stated, that the salary of the first secretary should be fixed at 3,000l. in time of peace, with an additional salary of 1,000l. in time of war: but what was a time of war, according to the spirit of that order? It was not the mere firing of shot for which an increase of salary was to be given; it was the additional trouble that ought to entitle him to the additional remuneration. Now, what additional trouble had the hon. gentleman experienced in fitting out the expedition to Algiers? "What additional ships were put into commission for that enterprise? He believed none beyond the peace establishment; and this was enough to show, that the hon. gentleman did not understand the orders in council on which he had claimed this additional salary. Hostilities lasted only two days; and all he could claim was the difference between what he had received on the peace establishment, and what he ought to receive on the war establishment, for those two days. The lords of the admiralty had a great deal to answer for to the country for promising to the hon. gentleman the full war salary. Little, he repeated, as it was in amount, and unimportant as it was in the whole, in money, it was most material in point of principle, and not only showed a contempt for the feelings of the people, but a total disregard to what had passed in that House.

observed, that the question to be decided was extremely simple. The salary of the first secretary was fixed at 3,000l. per annum, during peace, with an additional 1,000l. in time of war: the salary of the second secretary was 1,500l. in peace, and 2,000l. in war; As to the commissioners of the navy they did not send to the admiralty to know whether this country was at war or not, but to ascertain at what time the war salary should commence. The answer of the admiralty was, that it should be paid from the 29th of June to the 24th September, the day on which the treaty was received. He confessed, that he had no hesitation in signing the paper for the increase, and should do the same thing if the paper were again put before him. In a private case any individual would have had a right to go before a court of justice to enforce the demand. The policy of making the demand certainly lay with his hon. friend, but it was a matter of right for the commissioners to grant it.

said, the only question was, whether we were or were not in a state of hostilities. It had been urged, that we were not at war, because the noble admiral was sent out to negociate; but from the moment the massacre at Bona took place, the dey of Algiers was required to deliver up all the slaves, or his city would be bombarded. He thought the hon. secretary, therefore, was entitled to the war salary; and he was sorry that his majesty's ministers had come forward to say, that they intended to make any sacrifice of their income. He thought that public men were by no means overpaid; and he regretted that they had yielded to the theoretical and wild opinions of demagogues, who would assume to themselves the merit of having wrung such sacrifices from them by their clamours.

impressed upon the House the justice of considering, not that the war lasted two days only, but that, if lord Ex-mouth had met with any of the Algerines at sea, he would have felt it his duty to attack them.

said, after all he had heard on the subject, his opinion remained unaltered, that the hon. secretary was not entitled to the war salary. If this was to be called a state of war, what was to be called an armament? An expedition might be composed not of ships of the line, and sent to some of the small forts on the coast of Africa, and this was to be considered a state of war. An armament did pot include a state of war. In the case of Nootka Sound (which was in some respects similar to that of Algiers, because the Spaniards then, as the Algerines recently, had been guilty of aggressions) there was an armament. Was it to be supposed that if the order in council had existed at that period, the hon. secretary of that period would have been entitled to demand an additional salary? It was obvious, that the expedition required no additional trouble: there was nothing to be completed but the armament. The lords of the admiralty would have done much better if they had promoted the officers who commanded bombs, which had been the practice on former occasions. Neither the House nor the country would have quarrelled with them for rewarding the services of those officers in the way they merited: but it was impossible to approve of their conduct in granting an additional salary to their secretaries for a war which lasted only two days.

said, that in point of amount the matter before the House was very small, but that in point of principle it was of the utmost importance. It was calculated to create the greatest disgust, to see this additional salary demanded as a right, and conceded as such by the lords of the admiralty.—Most undoubtedly they possessed a discretionary power, which they ought to have exercised. The lords of the admiralty had evidently referred only to the order in council, issued on the 15th January, 1800, and had, upon that document, come to the conclusion that the honourable secretary was intitled to his war salary, consistently with its letter and spirit. No notice whatever was taken by them, of any other order in council. But what he contended for was, that the admiralty lords ought to have, and must have, a discretionary power, beyond the mere general instruction conveyed by that order. He meant, that if they, upon mature consideration, deemed it expedient for the public service, to reduce the salary (he would say, from three to two thousand), they had the power to do so. The order in council, in fixing the salary, simply assumed its maximum, in a similar way to what was adopted by that House, in voting a sum not exceeding a certain amount; but if it appeared there was no occasion for so much as might be voted, ministers were expected to exercise that discretion, which he insisted belonged equal to the lords of the admiralty.—When the honourable secretary went to the navy board and demanded his war salary, he thought that board would have been justified in asking what blustering fellow it was that so clamourously insisted upon his right; certainly they were justified in asking the admiralty whether it was really a time of war, not whether a shot had been fired here or there, and whether any and what increased duties had devolved upon the honourable secretary. To the application of the navy board, the lords of the admiralty returned an answer, that the allowance of a war salary was consistent (he begged the House would mark the expression) with his majesty's order in council. In his opinion, they ought to have construed that order in favour of the country, and not in favour of the hon. secretary; they should have borne in mind, that the penalty was to fall upon the people of England; and unless they could show that it was a time of war, in the common acceptation of that term—unless they could show that the proposed increase was earned by any additional labour of the hon. secretary, he contended they had no sufficient ground to authorize the transaction. As to the question, whether it was really a time of war, it would be wasting the time of that House, it would be an absolute mockery, to argue upon it. With respect to the additional labour created; the modesty of the hon. secretary did not allow him to insist upon that point, for, in fact, it amounted to nothing. There were five sail of the line, not one of which was put in commission for that service; there were five frigates, not one of which was put in commission for that service; there were five sloops, not one of which was put in commission for that service; and there were five bombs, not one of which was put in commission for that service. He should like to know then, in what consisted his additional labour, unless it was contended that his office was a sinecure in time of peace? He really could not help viewing with disgust (he could find no other word expressive of his feeling) the manifest endeavour of the lords of the admiralty to strain the point as far as possible to put money in the hon. secretary's pocket. They could not go further; the date of the Prince Regent's order for fitting out the expedition, was on the 29th of June, and the hon. secretary received his salary up to the 23d of September, though the Gazette containing lord Ex-mouth's official dispatch appeared on the 14th. [Mr. Croker here observed, that the ratification of the treaty with the dey of Algiers did not reach this country till the 23d.] Mr. Tierney said, he hoped the whole House had distinctly heard the answer of the hon. secretary. It now appeared, that, though the lords of the admiralty knew a peace was signed with the dey of Algiers, though not actually ratified, they continued to sanction a measure which might procure, for a few days, a few pounds more for their secretary. The action was fought on the 27th, and the treaty of peace concluded on the 28th. But that intelligence was not enough; and if the vessel bearing the ratification bad been detained longer at sea, or if it had foundered, and another vessel had been sent to bring home the ratification, upon the same principle, the hon. secretary's war salary might have been continued two or three months longer. Would the House bear so monstrous a doctrine; and, if the House could bear it, would the country? He was prepared to maintain, that in any fair and liberal construction of the order in council, the hon. secretary's increased salary had no right to extend beyond the 26th of July, the day on which the expedition sailed, commencing from the 29th of June, when the order for fitting it out was issued, unless, indeed, the hon. gentleman meant to make a charge for his anxiety of mind during the interval. From that day no additional labour could exist, and from that day therefore, at least, no additional reward ought to have been given. When the country heard the whole details of this transaction, it would be able to form a pretty exact notion of what they might expect from ministers in the way of economy and retrenchment. They had shown what their real sentiments were, by their actual practices. Their temper was now manifest. Wherever they could find an opportunity of laying out the public money, had they proved any disposition to husband it? Even here they had strained a point to the utmost, and the six lords of the admiralty, with their secretary, could not get up a little expedition to beat the dey of Algiers without this augmentation of 220l. The hon. secretary, indeed, had begged the House not to suppose that he took the money for the sake of the money; and as he said so he must believe it; but for himself he could only say, that if he were to ask any person for 220l. it would certainly be for the sake of getting it. He remembered, last year, when the question of the hon. secretary's salary was before the House, he (Mr. Croker) complained that it had been forced upon him, and that he absolutely begged and prayed they would not compel him to accept the 4,000l. a year. That was very good, so far as it went; but the hon. secretary had now seen his error, and was trying to fetch up his lee-way as fast as he could. Perhaps he was aware that a day of voluntary contribution to the wants of the country was fast approaching, and as it must come, he thought it prudent to prepare for it: he was looking forward to a deduction of 10 or 20 per cent, and politically provided the means. It was always the usage of an experienced banker, on any alarm, to prepare the means for sustaining a run on his capital. Still, however, they were not to suppose that the 220l. was worth his acceptance. He (Mr. Tierney) contrived to keep his head above water as well as he could, and trusted he would not descend to any thing dishonourable; yet he should be very glad to catch 220l. After all, he was half inclined to believe that the hon. secretary and the lords of the admiralty had acted from resentment. A fine opportunity occurred for revenging themselves upon that side of the House, and the lords of the admiralty urged their secretary to demand his right, with an assurance that they would stand by him. "The House compelled us last year," said they, "to diminish your salary, and now they shall see what it is to quarrel with six admiralty lords." But suppose the admiralty lords had taken another day to consider of the subject, and at the end of their deliberations had told the hon. secretary they could not pay him his demand. What would have become of his right? To be sure he might have told them to find another secretary, but he was far from suspecting the hon. gentleman of so much contumacy. For let it be recollected what he fell back upon, even when his war salary was withheld; upon one of the very best places, in time of peace, which the country had to give. He had, altogether, 3,500l. a year, and a good house to live in. What would the poor chancellor of the exchequer say to that. He had not so much, and yet surely he deserved it, if it was only for the great trouble that he must have lately had in issuing exchequer bills. He would not trouble the House with any more observations. They who could believe that the hon. secretary had a vested right, would, of course, vote against the motion of his noble friend; but they who thought otherwise must support that motion. The principle of the transaction was what he most condemned, and the principle was such, that there could be no person, in doors or out of doors, man, woman, or child, but must allow that the lords of the admiralty with lord Melville at their head, had entirely forfeited all claim to public confidence. He said it in their presence, and took that opportunity of saying it, because he presumed that before the division they would of course withdraw.

said, he would trouble the House with a very few observations. He had, in common with the House, felt great satisfaction at the numerous jokes and pleasantries which the right hon. gentleman had thrown over the subject; but at the same time he must say, that he had never before heard him labour so hard in argument. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the disgust which he felt at the conduct of the board of admiralty. He (the noble lord) would retort the expression, and say, that he himself felt the most unmeasured disgust, and he was persuaded that it was a feeling in which the respectable part of the community out of doors participated, to see that spirit of detraction abroad against all public men; above all, to see that readiness in hon. gentlemen to appeal to the unsound part of the people, in order to depreciate and degrade the characters of public men. Of late a system had prevailed, not merely of attack upon the measures of ministers, but of endeavouring to extract or infer from their conduct something which might impeach the purity and honour of their intentions. How had the right hon. gentleman argued the present question? Nothing could be more weak or unfair. The conduct of the lords of the admiralty had been such as they were bound both in law and justice to pursue. Lord Spencer's order of 1800 left them no option: it was imperative: nor was any thing left to their discretion, except the bare fact, whether there was peace or war. Could they—could the House for a moment entertain that monstrous doctrine, to which nothing but utter desperation of all reasonable argument could have driven the right hon. gentleman—that it was within the discretion of the board of admiralty to lessen, at their pleasure, the salaries of the officers, civil or military, of their establishment? As well might it be contended, that the commander in chief had the power of abridging the income of the officers of the army. Nothing but a dearth of all fair grounds of attack could have induced the right hon. gentleman to have recourse to such a wretched fallacy. As to the real question, whether it had been peace or war, it was one of easy solution; he was ready to meet it fairly, and he must say, that if the noble lord had not been far more impatient to procure, at all events, a vote of censure, than he was anxious to investigate whether any matter for censure really existed, he would have moved for papers which would have enabled him to see more clearly the proper line for him to pursue. But no: censure was wanted, not a fair judgment; and therefore the expedition itself was to be degraded rather than the noble lord's motion should be lost. Algiers was now called a petty state; he should like to know when a state began not to be petty. What precise magnitude of a state with which we might be in a relation of hostility, was requisite to entitle that relation to be considered in the light of actual war? Was the language now used with respect to Algiers, for the purpose of laying a trap for public men, and requiring them to enter into a useless discrimination between the various degrees of importance of a state which should entitle a contest with it to this or that appellation? What was the fact? Duty to the English flag; duty to the honour of the English character; duty to the civilized principle throughout the world, made a war with Algiers at once lawful and necessary. That war, once determined upon, was not to be settled, except on certain conditions, which were absolute sine qua nons. The gallant admiral, therefore, though in one sense he carried with him the alternative of war or peace, yet, from the nature of the case, could not be supposed to go out for any purpose but for battle. The body of his instructions contained these principles and these conditions: nay, he was directed in express terms to consider as enemies all ships of the Algerines which he should meet at sea, and was ordered to destroy them wherever found. That the noble admiral himself conceived that he went out to fight rather than to negociate, might be gathered from the circumstance, that he allowed only three hours for the consideration of the conditions. Such were some of the circumstances which the noble lord would have learned, if he had been anxious to show himself a man of business, instead of a man of crimination. The dispatch of the gallant admiral had been quoted for one purpose; he (lord C.) would now refer to it for another: and certainly he could not see in that dispatch any thing to justify the surmise, that but little labour had been expended by the board of admiralty: on the contrary, he saw that the gallant admiral, even in the midst of the joy of his recent and splendid achievements, did not lose sight of those extraordinary exertions which had, according to his own account, so contributed to his victory. He had expressed himself grateful that so efficient a fleet had been consigned, to his use. The fact was, that very great exertion had been made by the admiralty for the purpose of sending out a powerful expedition. The former ships in which the noble admiral had performed the first voyage to Algiers were completely dismantled: and new ships were furnished and equipped for the object of the new enterprise. And what was all the present outcry raised about? It was for the enormous sum of 220l. He was ready to admit that government owed to the country a duty of rigid economy: but he was sure that nothing could appear less grave, less important, less beneficial, in the eyes of the country, than the laying hold of so insignificant a thing as this trifling increase of salary, in order to excite a spirit of discontent and distrust against the ministers of the crown.

conceived that the present was not merely a question of war or peace, but whether the war was one of that sort which came within the true intent and meaning of the order in council, and which fair and honourable men could agree to have been contemplated by those whose object had been to creased remuneration to increased services. It might be consistent with the letter of the order in council issued for the guidance of the lords of the admiralty to consider the expedition against Algiers as a war, but certainly it was not consistent with its spirit. What should it be said that there was no difference between a war of two days, and a war where our fleets covered every sea, and blockaded every port? It was a war perhaps, for there had been an expedition and a battle, but was such quibbling, such special pleading, to be adopted against the best interests of the country? In his opinion it was utterly impossible to support the transaction upon those grounds. The noble lord had imputed to that side of the House a desire to traduce and degrade the character of persons filling high official stations; for himself, he disclaimed any such disposition, and he could disclaim it for those by whom he was surrounded. He thought, on the contrary, that any deficiency of dignity, of importance, or of influence, that attached to eminent and responsible offices was an evil in itself, and that it would be most impolitic to attempt to produce it; but at the same time that House could not prevent offices from being degraded by those who filled them. They could establish, that the situation should not degrade the man, but they could not secure the man from degrading the situation. The hon. secretary seemed to think that it was impossible for him not to make the demand he did. In his (Mr. Lamb's) opinion the hon. secretary had judged ill. He appeared to have forgotten, what ought always to be present to the minds of public men, that malignity is ever on the watch to lay hold of the faults of individuals in high stations, and to impute even their best deeds to the worst motives. It was well known that public characters, with what ever integrity and principle they might act, could not hope to escape misrepresentation and aspersion; it was the common lot of greatness; but they should at least take care that the envy, the obloquy, the reproaches, they excited, should have no mean, low, or sordid foundation; and that even the errors, if any, which might be discovered in their conduct, should have somewhat of a magnanimous nature. He thought that principle had not been attended to in the present instance, and therefore he should vote for the motion of the noble lord.

said, he was as anxious as any one to see economy and retrenchment carried into effect, and trusted he had always been found on that side. Though, however, his private opinion respecting the policy of taking the war salary might be different from that of the hon. secretary, yet upon the question of his right to receive it, he could not support the motion of the noble lord.

wished to make one remark. He required to be satisfied as to the real ground on which the House was to vote in this business. The hon. secretary and the lords of the admiralty were directly at issue, as to the main point of the case. The secretary had stated, that he should not have considered the expedition to Algiers, as a war, and consequently should not have demanded his salary, if there had been no battle; the gallant admiral, however, stated broadly, that the war commenced as soon as the order for an expedition was issued. This point ought to be settled one way or other before the House came to a vote; and surely the hon. secretary was the fairest judge, at least he could not be supposed to understate his own claim. He considered the battle to have been the war; the battle was a business of two days; let him therefore have his claim, that is, the salary of two days of war. The noble lord who had just spoken had accused the opposition of making an appeal to the unsound part of the people. Mr. Smith said, he believed, that never was a charge more unfounded than such a charge as this brought against this side of the House as a body: and as to individuals, he could say, that no man of that opposition, no man in the House, not excepting the noble lord himself, was less likely to make such an appeal than the noble person who had brought forward the present motion. Indeed, the charge was not only unfounded, but, so applied, was perfectly ridiculous.

said, that when he animadverted last session on the delay which had taken place on the part of the Crown in the case of individuals under sentence of death, he conceived from the expression which the House gave to their feelings on that occasion, a considerable time would elapse before an opportunity should again occur which might render it necessary to call the attention of the House to the subject. Having how- ever, lately had occasion to visit the prison of Newgate, he found that there were many persons there upon whom sentence of death had been passed three sessions ago, and no determination had yet been come to on the report relating to them. At this moment there were confined in Newgate under sentence of death no fewer than 73 men and 15 women. It was impossible to avoid a feeling of indignation at the scandalous remissness which had taken place in laying the reports transmitted in the cases of those prisoners before the individual at the head of the government of this country. He did not mean to say that this proceeded from any unwillingness on the part of that individual to receive such reports. He believed from the proverbial tardiness of the noble lord whose office it was to lay the reports before the Prince Regent, that the delay would be found to have arisen with him. He would repeat, that the lord chancellor's tardiness and procrastination were become proverbial. There was no case in which any member could in his inquiries come across the path of that noble lord in which he would not find the utmost tardiness and procrastination. The right hon. gentleman opposite bad last year promised tint no practical inconvenience of a similar kind should again be felt, and yet this year they had a renewal of it. The practical inconvenience in this case was not so much the sufferings of the individuals, as the blot on the administration of justice of the country. How many of these persons would suffer the penalty of their guilt he could not know, but some would. Of the hundreds, nay the thousands, whom the cruel pleasure of witnessing the sufferings of their fellow-creatures would draw to their execution, not one probably would be acquainted with the crime for which they suffered. The executions, therefore, would not serve the purpose for which alone punishments were intended—to deter from the commission of crime. He should therefore move, "That there be laid before this House, a return of the number of persons now under sentence of death in Newgate; specifying the crimes of which they were convicted, as well as the date of their respective convictions."

said, that the hon. member who had made this motion, must forgive him if he said, that he could not believe that he was serious in his desire of obtaining the information for which he thus moved, without giving any notice to the House. A more inflammatory speech than that of the hon. member he had never heard within the walls of parliament; nor a speech more calculated to produce dissatisfaction in the minds of the people as to the mode in which justice was administered. The hon. member, if he really wished for information, and not to make an opportunity for casting unfounded aspersions upon any individual, would do much better to give notice of his motion. But the sole object of the hon. member seemed to be, to come forward to lay at the door of an illustrious and distinguished individual a charge that he always interposed delays to the admit lustration of justice. Now if there was ever a man whose character was respected, both by those who acted with him politically, or those who opposed him—if ever there was a man who commanded the most unequivocal testimony of approbation of his character, from those who had not the least motive for personal partiality or predeliction, it was that very distinguished character against whom the hon. gentleman had thought fit to hazard his unfounded aspersions. Although he was not possessed of accurate information on the subject, yet he would take upon himself the responsibility of saying, that the delay in the case now alluded to, did not rest with the lord chancellor. It was the recorder whose duty it was to call upon the lord chancellor with the report, to be submitted to the council, and it was the recorder's duty, in the mean time, to inquire into all the facts relating to each case. He therefore must, intreat the hon. member, if he took up this subject with the intention of doing good, and not for the purpose of promoting delusion, to give notice of his motion, and not to put the House in the disagreeable situation of hearing unfounded charges made against persons filling the highest situations, with the greatest honour to themselves and advantage to the country.

said, he did. not rise to defend the noble lord alluded to, for that was unnecessary, but because he was enabled to state some particulars to the House which might throw light on the subject. If the hon. gentleman had drawn his information from persons capable of informing him correctly, he would have found how the delay had arisen. Wiry, the number of persons waiting for the recorder's report accounted at once for the delay. The hon. gentleman had said that 88 persons in all were lying under sentence of death in Newgate. Informer times, long within his recollection, the sessions at the Old Bailey commenced on the Wednesday, and the judges seldom had attended after Saturday. But the sessions now generally lasted a fortnight and longer, and during the whole time the recorder was busied the greater part of the clay, either in attending on the judges, or in trying cases himself. It was a circumstance not generally known, and he was happy to have an opportunity of stating it, that no part of the administration of justice during this long reign had been attended to with so much scrupulous anxiety, as that regarding the manner in which those unfortunate persons remaining under the sentence of the law were to be disposed of. After the conviction and sentence, it was the practice of the recorder to examine all the sources from which light could be thrown on the character of the prisoners; to weigh all the circumstances which might have induced witnesses to go in their evidence beyond the due bounds; and finally, having formed his own opinion, to give a detailed report of the case. He had some days ago had an opportunity of speaking with the recorder on this subject, when he had stated his regret at not being able to prepare himself for the report which it was his duty to give. He had stated the difficulties he experienced from the immense labour of the inquiries, and that of the labour of the sessions; and that at that period there were three score of cases unreported.

regretted any circumstances that occasioned delays in justice. Certainly, they were indebted to the hon. member for the notice he had taken of so important a branch of public administration; and he did not think the grounds assigned of sufficient weight. Whatever might be said respecting dilatoriness in the lord chancellor in the public business, he could say, from his own personal knowledge of him, that the last proceeding in which the noble lord could be dilatory would be in a case in which he might have to recommend mercy.

was not disposed to make any objection to the explanation of the attorney-general, but merely to say in the absence of his hon. and learned friend (Sir S. Romilly) who had frequently, but unfortunately without success, submitted to the House alterations in the rigour of the law as to capital punishment; that the circumstances now stated, afforded the strongest argument in favour of these merciful alterations; for if the law did not impose such severe punishments, it appeared that there would not be such delay, because the principal end of the recorder's report was, to state to a higher quarter, whether there were any cases in which capital punishment might be commuted for one less severe.

said, he did not impute want of ability, honesty, integrity, propriety, acuteness of decision, or intelligence in any of the decisions of the lord Chancellor. He had only complained of delay. As to the number of persons under sentence of death, that might be a reason why the last cases were not reported, but it could be no reason why the first were not laid before the Prince Regent. If there was any inconvenience attending the execution of the law on this subject, it was high time that that inconvenience should be remedied—it was high time that the punishment should follow the offence. What had made him so eager to bring the subject forward that night without notice was, that he could not have an opportunity to-morrow, and the sessions began on Wednesday. But it was not merely the number of persons under sentence of death which called for notice;—at this present moment there were more than 200 persons in Newgate, under sentence of transportation. Wherever he had met the government in the execution of the law, he had constantly met delay. He would appeal to the members for London, whether they had not frequently complained on this subject to the government, without getting any redress? He assured the noble lord, that he should neither be deterred by his compliments nor his censure from doing what he thought the public interest demanded of him.

rose to propose the Estimates for the ordinary service of the Navy, which had been brought to as near the lowest amount of the proposed peace establishment as was possible. The number of men which he had to propose was 19,000, of which number the royal marines were 6,000. The expense was calculated at 6l. 6s. per man a month, which was lower than the expense of the last year, when it was calculated at 6l. 15s. 9d. The estimates were proposed for six lunar months only which left the subject open to the future consideration of the finance committee and of the House. He concluded by moving, "That 19,000 men be employed for the sea service for six lunar months, from the 1st of January 1817, including 6,000 royal marines."

expressed himself satisfied with the intention which ministers seemed to avow, of keeping up a respectable naval force, and was particularly anxious that the marine corps should be attended to. In 1792, he observed the sum voted for seamen was 4l. per man; it had afterwards risen to 7l., and it had now fallen to 6l. 6s. He was glad that the charge had been lowered, and he hoped, that 6l. 6s. would be found sufficient. He recollected, that though, in 1792, the sum voted was 4l. per man, yet it was so much under the mark, that an additional vote was given to cover the actual expense. He hoped that ministers were perfectly satisfied, that the sum mentioned be them would meet the actual expense.

observed, that the proportion of marines to the naval force was much greater than on any former occasion. In the year 1792 there had been 10,000 men, of which 4,400 were marines; in 1800 there had been 18,000, of which 4,600 had been marines. As to the estimated allowance per man, it was formed after the most mature consideration, though it was not possible exactly to foretel the actual expense.

asked, whether it was the intention of ministers to propose that a voluntary contribution should be paid by persons in office, or that an assessment should be imposed in proportion to their salaries.

said, it had not been in the contemplation of his majesty's government to propose any compulsory measure, but to leave it to persons in office to make what contribution they might think proper. He certainly never entertained the idea of fixing any rate of proportion for the regulation of such contributions.

certainly understood, from the speech made by the noble lord a few days ago, that it was intended to levy a kind of tax on persons in office. He not only thought that an assessment was to be imposed, but that its proportion was determined on at the pound.

was confident he never meant to state that any rate would be proposed, and did not think he had said any thing to justify such a conclusion. What he believed he had stated was, that ministers wished to place themselves, by their own voluntary act, under the same burthens from which they had been relieved by the repeal of the income tax. With respect to persons in office, there was no compulsory measure whatever in view.

asked, whether it was intended to propose any reduction in the Windsor establishment? He would not have noticed this delicate subject, were it not notorious that many of the expenses of that establishment were, to say the least of them, unnecessary, and could not be considered as any mark of respect to the illustrious personage who was the object of them. Indeed, many of these expenses, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, appeared to partake more of the nature of mockery than respect.

stated, that motives of delicacy withheld him from answering the hon. gentleman's question, or entering into any explanation on the subject to which he had alluded.

said, he had understood from the speech of the noble lord, that it was intended to levy a duty on the salaries of persons in office, and not a voluntary contribution, as it was now explained to be.

was convinced that, whether the contribution was to be voluntary or not, every man would regret to see it fall heavily on persons holding inferior offices, who were in general very inadequately remunerated for their labour. If the measure had come before the House as a tax, this consideration would doubtless have been attended to; and he hoped that, in any arrangement which might be made, care would be taken to press very tenderly on offices to which small salaries are attached.

again stated, that the contribution of every individual would be voluntary, and that from the lower offices none would be raised.