glad to perform the duties of the distributor of stamps for 300l. a year. In Scotland these distributors, in the year 1795, received a poundage of 10 per cent, but now the 24 distributors only received an allowance of 6 per cent upon all their disbursements. Mr. Muir, of Glasgow, was patriotic enough to receive only 4 per cent; but it appeared, notwithstanding, from the returns, that he received 4,8854. annually, and, if the people of Glasgow were to be believed, a great deal more. He would have government put up the places of these distributors for public biddings. It could not be objected here that the parties who would bid for them would not be persons of property; for, if the individuals gave good security, all was done that was necessary. Besides the objections to the manner in which stamps were distributed, he had another objection to urge: it was this, that if an individual wanted a shilling stamp, he was charged 13d. for it. He himself had oceasion the other day at Bath, to get a 5s. atamp, for which he was obliged to pay 5s. 5d. Thus the public were paying to the distributors, an additional tax of from 5 to 7 per cent. This was a most shameful imposition; and he could not see any reason why, if a man who took five nails from his majesty's yard was thought deserving of transportation, the individual should not be subjected to a similar punishment, who imposed a tax of an additional penny upon every stamp sold to the public. This evil, however, arose very naturally out of another. The distributors of stamps did not discharge their duties in person, but by deputy; and the consequence was, that when an idle poet (Mr. Wordsworth) was appointed one of their number, he minded little in what manner his deputy made his profits, provided he received his share of them. The hon. member then proceeded to notice the manner in which the distribution of stamps was conducted in Scotland. There was in that country, one head distributor, who had the appointment of all the sub-distributors. The head distributor was appointed by the noble lord, in whose hands all the patronage of Scotland was supposed to be; and consequently, as the head distributor was a creature of the noble lord's choosing, the appointment of the sub-distributors was, in point of fact, part of the patronage of the noble lord. Now, all the sub-distributors in Scotland remitted directly to one and the same person in London. Why could not this be done in England ?If it were done, a saving of 4 per cent might, by that measure alone, be gained to the country. The aggregate of the saving which he had pointed to, would be 132,000l. It was with satisfaction he observed, that the attention of the Treasury had been directed to the subject. But what was the great relief proposed? A contingent saving of 20,000l. at some distant period! Another objection to the present system was, the patronage which it created, and the use made of that patronage. The fact was, that the distributors had been gradually increased from 50 to their present number, to meet the political views of the existing administration. For instance, he had been informed, that some years ago there was but one distributor of stamps at Liverpool. On the death of the individual holding that office, application was made to government by general Tarleton, then one of the members for Liverpool, and the other member, both of whom were supporters of the administration, each in behalf of a friend. In this dilemma what did government do? They adopted the mode of splitting the office into two, and thus of gratifying both the applicants. He was very apprehensive that in many cases the influence which this patronage gave was used most injuriously to the public interest. There was a double motive, therefore, for reforming the present practice-the diminution of the national expenditure by 132,000l., and the abolition of 167 sinecure places. If the House would not consent to such a reform as this, what could the country expect? Government themselves would eventually benefit from such a reduction of patronage; for, on the same principle as that by which the currency was affected, a diminution of amount would render the remainder more valuable. He repeated what he had said on a late occasion, that he was the government's best friend. If on the present occasion they would adopt. his suggestion, they would give universal satisfaction-except, indeed, to the 167 sinecurists. He defied any person to make out a stronger case, coupling policy with economy. He did not propose any thing of a substantive nature. None were so able to carry any thing of that kind into effect as the Treasury: but if ministers would not do so, let. them move for the appointment of a com mittee [Hear, hear! from lord Castle-whatever might be their effect as to reagh]. He was happy to hear the patronage; that was a consideration cheers of the noble lord: he certainly did which he would put entirely out of the not expect them, because the proposal question. They would examine into the last year was met by the noble lord with details of the plan of the hon. member, a direct negative. He would now move: and see how far the arrangement he pro1. "That there are 65 receivers-general posed could be carried into effect. He of the land and assessed taxes in England could not think that the existing system and Wales, who received an allowance of was worthy of such complete reprobation 41,415/. and of 41,9847. in the years end- as the hon. member bestowed upon it; ing the 5th Jan. 1820 and 1821, for the but if on examination it should be found duties of their office, although the greater that defects existed in those establishnumber of these receivers-general per- ments, he would not object to their reformed that duty entirely by deputy, and moval. He could not, however, but be retained balances of cash in their hands, cautious in laying aside a system of colwhich, on an average of these years, ex- lection which had been tried so long, ceeded 367,5741. sterling per annum. and which had secured the public revenue with a degree of accuracy, which the hon. member was not aware of. Under this system, for a period of 30 years, a sum of 337 millions of money had been collected, and the whole loss on that sum was but 13,750l. He should now move, as an amendment, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider of the duties of the receivers-general of land and assessed taxes, and of the distributors of stamps, in Great Britain, and of the allowances made to the said receivers-general and distributors, and to report their observations thereupon to the House." 2. "That it appears by the returns before the House, that ten receivers-general were, on the 1st of Jan. 1820, in arrears at the time of their death, or of leaving their office, since 1790, to the amount of 304,3371. 12s. 4d.; of which amount a balance of 117,115l. 1s. 8d. then remained due to the public, as stated in the annual finance account laid before this House in 1820. 3. "That the office of receiver-general of the land and assessed taxes is one of deposit, and for remittance of the taxes from district collections to the Exchequer; and in the present state of the finances of the country, that such service may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service. 4. That there are 95 distributors of stamps in Great Britain, who received allowances or poundage amounting to 87,2331. for the year ending 5th Jan. 1820, and 87,9731. for the year ending 5th Jan. 1821; and also retained balances of cash in their hands, which, on an average of these years, exceeded 138,9267. sterling. 5. "That in the present state of the finances of the country, the duty of distributor of stamps may be performed at a less charge to the public than is now incurred, with equal security against loss, and with equal efficiency to the public service." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he would move as an amendment, for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire whether the object of the motion could be carried into effect consistently with the public interest. He would adopt the suggestions of such a committee, VOL. IV. Sir J. Mackintosh said, that his hon. friend was entitled to the gratitude of the country, for the zeal and perseverance which marked his public conduct, and which rendered him one of the most useful members of that House. The perseverance of his hon. friend had obtained that concession from ministers which they had formerly refused to make. Besides, they had that night heard a lecture from the chancellor of the exchequer, on the propriety of retrenchment-on a total disregard to patronage-on purity and disinterestedness in public life, which would do honour to the exchequer of Utopia. With respect to the abuses of which his hon. friend complained, those abuses were too glaring not to be denounced by the committee. With respect to them, he considered inquiry and condemnation as synonymous. The concession which ministers had just made, would pretty clearly show the salutary effects of occasional majorities against them in that House. It showed how those majorities tended to liberalise their minds. It brought the language of economy to their lips-it induced them to consent to investigations which they had formerly resisted with all 4 X of which induced them to make a surrender of their offices. To use a common expression, he would advise the hon. and learned gentleman not to halloo before he was out of the wood; for he was much mistaken if he supposed that the late division had induced the present concession. He could assure him, that ten days since, he (lord C.) had attended a meeting, at which it was agreed to refer the subject to a committee, without reference to any patronage whatever. Lord A. Hamilton expressed his acknowledgments to the hon. mover, for his unwearied exertions in promoting retrenchment and economy, at a time when the public interests so imperiously called for them. their might. He trusted that this ex-with regard to private breweries, neither ample would not be lost on those hon. members who were generally in the habit of supporting them. They would see that a measure beneficial to the country might be carried, without depriving_ministers of their offices. This must afford some consolation to those who had frequently shown themselves so desirous of securing to them a perpetuity of power. The time certainly had been, when a government would have required support in all great measures of policy or taxation, as the condition of their carrying on the public affairs. The time had been, when if either their foreign or domestic system, or any important part of it, were rejected by the House of Commons, ministers would no longer retain either power or office. But the time of these proud constitutional distinctions had passed away: it was now found that an administration might continue to enjoy power, after that confidence by which it could alone be justified, was withdrawn. He should not After some further conversation, as to make any observations on the list of the the appointment of the committee, a comcommittee, read by the right hon. gentle-mittee consisting of the following members man, further than to remark-which he did without invidiousness, or, he hoped, indelicacy-that, with the exception of four or five names eminently qualified for the task, the list did not contain a fair representation of the different political views known to be entertained in that House. At the commencement the list promised extremely well; but the rear seemed to him to be in great need of reinforcements. Lord Castlereagh observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to be more intoxicated with the majority in which he had found himself the night before than became a person of his experience and ability. He hoped the hon. and learned gentleman, now that he acted as the leader of a party, would not so easily be betrayed into these juvenile indiscretions. The exultation of the hon. and learned member was more worthy of a young beginner than of so grave and learned a personage. If he carried back his remembrance to the period when the present marquis of Lansdown was chancellor of the exchequer, he would find that the administration of that day had received two hints similar to the one of last night, and in fuller Houses, without considering it their duty to resign. They received two such warnings: one with regard to a tax on, iron, and the other Mr. S. Wortley confirmed the statement of his noble friend, as to his attending a meeting at which he had pledged himself to consent to the appointment of a fair committee. was agreed to, with which Mr. Hume HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 23. ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL.] Sir J. Newport, after regretting the domestic affliction which had deprived this question of the splendid eloquence of Mr. Plunkett, and complimenting the gentlemen who had supported it, moved the order of the day for taking the report of this bill into further consideration. Mr. Croker said, that when he gave notice of a motion for enabling his majesty to make provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, he did so upon the full conviction that such a measure would tend to the security of the Roman Catholic no less than that of the Protestant interest; and the more he thought of the subject, the more he was satisfied of its propriety. He was aware, however, that many members, for whose opinion he entertained a sincere regard, objected that the time for introducing the measure was unfavourable, and he therefore was anxious that the House should be enabled to give its undivided attention to the approaching discussion. With this view, he should postpone the motion of which he had given notice until the bringing up of the report of the committee. The House then resolved itself into the committee. On putting the question, that the first clause be agreed to, language could possibly be stronger, The primary object of the oath was, not so much to confer authority upon the Crown, as to divest it from the pope. It was demonstrable that this was the first principle of the constitution, to the exclusion of the pontifical authority even in spiritual matters. It was impossible to possess a greater authority than that which was mentioned in the oath. Give any one a man's conscience, and you give him in some degree the guidance of his actions. But to return to the historical part of the subject. In Elizabeth's reign the oath was qualified by an admonition Sir W. Scott said, that the present was which contained two propositions :—one one of the many bills which had been was, that the queen enjoyed no other brought before parliament by men of great authority than that which was enjoyed by talents, actuated by the best of motives. her royal father and brother. Then what The present measure he believed to have was that authority? Why, an authority been introduced by a right hon. gentle- altogether exclusive of foreign influence. man of equal talent, and with motives no The other proposition was this-a slander less good, and if this bill should ultimately had gone abroad, that the queen, as head fail, it would show that there were diffi- of the church, claimed the right of perculties in its principle which no abilities forming spiritual functions. This was an could surmount. The bill proposed to error even as to the right; for the being relieve certain Roman Catholics from the head of the church did not necessarily inoath of supremacy, and the clause for clude a right to perform the spiritual that purpose, after pointing to the oath, functions. However, against this right suggested the adding of an explanation. the Queen protested, and this was the Now, the original oath of supremacy whole of the admonition. Referring again contained two propositions; the first af- to the terms of the oath of supremacy, firmative, as to the kingly authority over the right hon. member said it was imposthe church; the second negative, as to sible for words to be more exclusive. But exclusion of papal and all other foreign then the clause under consideration stated influence upon matters ecclesiastical or that the Roman Catholics felt scruples spiritual within the realm. This was an upon the subject, lest the oath might be ancient oath; at the Revolution it had construed into a denial of the spiritual been modified, and in that state it conti- authority of the pope. This he rather nued. It was not matter of concealment, conceived to be a gratuitous assumption; but of notorious history, that anterior to though undoubtedly it went to the exthe Reformation, the papal authority did clusion of authority in civil matters. The exist, and was exercised, though checked clause, in short, he conceived to be an occasionally by the firmness of our princes attempt to explain a modern oath by an and our parliament. In one instance, it ancient explanation, in no way applicable had been restrained by an act of the le- to the question. He now came to congislature; but it remained for the Re- sider the enacting part. It was proposed formation to decide against the authority to change the nature of the oath itself. altogether. This was the oath required, It was proper to consider the terms. The and taken in the best of times, and which right hon. member then read the proposed the experience of two centuries had con- explanation; and, referring to the words firmed. It was particularly necessary to" in any manner conflicting with the duty observe what was laid down at the time due to his majesty from his subjects,' of the Revolution. It was then consider observed, that this again was founded ed, that a divided religion, a distribution upon a gratuitous assumption; and no of authority with a foreign power, was reliance, therefore, was to be placed upon inconsistent with the safety of the state. the explanation. The interpretation All the intermediate statutes had proceed- he considered directly contrary to the ed upon the same principle; and with re- tenor of the oath; and he called upon ference to the oath itself, he thought no hon. gentlemen to consider whether its introduction would not be the adoption of a dangerous novelty. An oath was now substituted contrary to the tenor of the former; and the person taking the oath was to be informed, that the words of it were to be expounded differently from their ordinary import. This he thought was holding out a dangerous distinction for the private conduct of individuals. A distinction which he considered fitter for the casuistry of schools than the dignity of a British parliament. He had other objections to the measure, but he should forbear to state them, and should conclude by observing, that his objections to it in principle as well as in detail, was invincible. Mr. Horace Twiss said, he should not have presumed to rise immediately after the right hon. gentleman, whose great ability and high character made it so dangerous for almost any man to come into competition with him; but that no other member seemed disposed to speak, and he was anxious, as soon as possible, to bring back the question to the grounds on which the bill had been originally put by the mover. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had said, that the admonition of Elizabeth had gone no further than to disclaim any greater power than was possessed by her father and brother. Be it so: but her father and brother had no law entitling them to administer an oath of supremacy to their subjects. When the right hon. gentleman deprecated the danger of a foreign power over a British conscience, it was material to observe, that there was a religious as well. as a moral conscience: that a power over conscience in matters of abstract religion, which was all that the Catholics sought to except, was quite distinct from a power over conscience in practical matters, as to which all honest men, whether Catholic or Protestant, were unanimous. The oath of supremacy, explained as Elizabeth had explained it, was the only test thought of for a century and a half. It was not till the comparatively modern date of Charles 2nd, that any further test was thought of. And when, in that day, the test as to transubstantiation was for the first time imposed, it was the invention not of the monarchy to strengthen their own power, but of the opposition to weaken it. The monarchy resisted the tests then to be consistent, it should now concur to abolish them. Very different seemed to be the light wherein the government, which saw the birth of that measure, regarded its probable tendency, from that wherein it is viewed by those who now seek to continue it. The laws against Catholics undoubtedly grew more and more severe, till after William's establishment on the throne. But did that settle the law? Was it so meant by the whigs of that day? The late dangers of the constitution were too fresh to allow their returning in William's reign to a regimen suiting a state of confirmed health: and therefore only the laws were for a while endured. Those dangers, it is said, have often recurred, and may recur again; therefore, the restrictions must be continued. Such an argument would go to any length; to repeal the Habeas Corpus act, because it has been sometimes necessary to suspend it: it would go, in Ireland, to establish martial law for ever, because it has been sometimes necessary to proclaim it there-to give up now all that is valuable within the constitution, lest that constitution be endangered hereafter, "et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas" [Cheers]. If the founders of the constitution had been living now, would not they have been the first to apply that great maxim of all com. mon sense, that the reason of the law ceasing, the law itself ceases also? Or must we take those wise, just, temperate legislators to have held this monstrous language to the Catholics, "We put you under a perpetual ban. Times may alter, may mend, but you shall not profit by the change: in the improvement of all else, your condition shall remain stationary and hopeless. Tranquillity, which this generation has not found, may visit our posterity, but your children shall never share its blessings."-The hon. gentleman then referred to a memorial prepared by William and the whigs for the treaty of Ryswick, expressing their opinion, that the penal part of the code might even then be safely repealed, and that if the Catholics behaved well on that indulgence, further concessions might be granted; but that jealousy was excited in the people, when all was sought at once. This document proved two things; first, that the whigs never meant the restrictions to be permanent; secondly, that this system of solicitation by little and little, which the Catholics were so much blamed for pursuing, was the very course which the founders of the Revolution themselves contemplated, suggested, and preferred. |