he was chairman, on a bill to prevent "the forestalling and regrating of cattle." This was opposed by Mr. Dundas, who contended that the measure was founded on ideas long since exploded, and that it militated directly against the principles laid down by Dr. Adam Smith. Mr. Tierney, in reply, 66 complained that these objections had not been urged sooner, as they might have prevented all the trouble of the enquiry which had taken place. He did not like the mode of reasoning employed, nor did he know what pretension there was to new lights on the subject. The house had come to a resolution in 1764, that the high price of provisions was owing to the laxness of the laws against forestalling; in 1767, this resolution was contradicted by one directly opposite; in 1770, all the laws against forestalling had been repealed; twenty-five years experience had intervened, and the price of meat had been found to increase. A committee last year had decidedly pronounced the high price of provisions to be owing to forestalling, so that the lights of the house on that subject were against the principle of reasoning assumed by the right honourable secretary.

"He wished to appeal to facts, notwithstanding the authority of Dr. Sunith, however high he rated him. Meat was one penny or one penny halfpenny cheaper per pound sixty miles from London, than it was in the capital; and to what cause was it to be ascribed? The cause was, that Smithfield market was a mockery, for there were places at a small distance from London, which formed a kind of middle

market,

market, where the salesman and the jobber, or the carcase butcher, in collusion, settled the prices to the disadvantage of the grazier and the farmer, who were thus deprived of competition in the market, and to the great distress of the public, who were thus compelled to pay not only the per centage profit to the jobber, but whatever extortion he might also please to add.

"These plain facts he conceived to be better than the speculative reasoning of Adam Smith, whose arguments, however substantial they might be, the public could not feed upon. If an open trade were so necessary for the butchers, why was it not thought equally so for the bakers? and how happened it that the legislature did not suffer them to sell a quartern loaf at tenpence or a shilling, as they pleased, since the market must so regularly find its level? If the poorer classes of the people were to rise in a mass, on account of the high price of meat, he suspected the right honourable gentleman would then prefer the riot act to all the reasonings of Adam Smith. The salesman and butcher, and the clerk of the market, had all agreed that forestalling was the sole cause of the dearth of butcher's meat; and he did not sce how the bill could injure the grazier, since its object was to allow every one to send his cattle to Smithfield market. He wished at least that it might pass for a limited time, because if the effects of it were not good, it could be easily altered or repealed. There were scenes of misery among the poorer classes, in consequence of the high price of meat, of which E 3

few

few gentlemen could have an adequate conception; and he hoped they would reflect upon the necessity of adopting some regulation. He wished, for God's sake, therefore, that they would not scout the bill, but either lend their assistance to render it unobjectionable, or suggest something better in its stead. It was not consistent with humanity to get rid of it by telling the poor that the market would find its level, for they might as well tell them at once that they were not hungry." Notwithstanding these arguments, the bill was opposed by the secretary at war (Mr. Windham), and the chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. Pitt), and it was thrown out by a majority of thirty-two.

Soon after the meeting of parliament, in the autumn of the same year, Mr. Tierney gave notice that he should move the house "not to acknowledge the right honourable Henry Dundas in any parliamentary capacity;" a proceeding which originated in a supposed legal disability on the part of the gentleman in question, in consequence of his acting in the capacity of third secretary of state. He accordingly brought the question forward, and stated, "That if he spoke on that occasion in a style of asperity, it was not because he felt any personal dislike or private animosity to the right honourable gentleman, but that he thought the whole transaction of which he complained a most corrupt job-a job not avowed but detected a job that never would have been brought to light if it could have been kept in concealment, and which was at last brought to light by the labours of a committee."

He

He then proceeded to state, that in consequence of the efforts of the late Mr. Burke, the office of third secretary of state was abolished in the year 1783, but that this had been lately revived, and an increase of the patronage of the crown being the object, a new establishment in 1794, with enormous additional salaries, was created, so that two great officers of the crown, whose offices seemed to interfere, might say to each other, "I am secretary at war, and you are war secretary."

After shewing that Mr. Burke's bill had expressly provided, that the office "commonly called the office of third secretary of state, or secretary for the colonies, (as it was then called) should be suppressed, abolished, and taken away, and that two only should remain, those for the southern and northern departments; and that if any office of the same name, nature, or description should thereafter be established, the same shall be taken as a new office;" Mr. Tierney proceeded to state, " That he was not actuated by a desire to interfere with his Majesty's service, or to throw difficulties in the way of the public proceedings, but by an anxious desire to vindicate the honour and character of the house, by prevailing on them to shew that they wished to preserve inviolate the laws." He then concluded by moving,

"That the office of secretary of state for the war department was in addition to the offices of secretary of state for the home or foreign departments, established on the 11th of July 1794;

“And, That the right honourable Henry Dundas having accepted the office of secretary of state for the war department, was incapable of being elected to serve in parliament, and ought not to sit in this house."

The chief defence on the part of Mr. Dundas consisted in this, that no new salary was enjoyed by him, and that he was not third secretary of state, because he had been a secretary of state before the appointment in question; yet on a division of the house, only eight supported the mover, and no less than one hundred and thirty-nine were against him.

This proceeded, perhaps, from the secession of several of the principal members of Opposition, who deeming the war unjust, and perceiving themselves unable to stem the torrent, had retired in a body from the house. Mr. Tierney, on this memorable occasion, acted a different part, Thinking it his duty to remain, and support the cause of his constituents and his country, he manfully, although almost singly, opposed such measures as appeared to him to trench either on the policy or the rights of the nation; and it was allowed on all hands, that he in general acquitted himself with no common share of discretion, talents, and ability,

Accordingly, when Mr. Chancellor Pitt proposed to raise seven millions within the year, the member for Southwark rose and observed, "That he congratulated the house and the country on the dereliction of his usual peremptory tone. He had stated in the former session, that the new sources of supply he then proposed, would not only make up for former deficiencies, but amply meet the expences of the current year; yet the navy bills had increased the calculation one million and a half, and notwithstanding a supply of five millions for the extraordinaries of the