presented a Petition from the East India Company, which was received and read. It took a retrospective view of the connexion between the company and the British government since the year 1793; stating, that upon the expences incurred, by several expeditions which had been undertaken, debts were incurred on both sides, which were never clearly balanced and liquidated; but that a considerable balance was due to the company, which they now prayed to have examined by the House, and any balance that might appear due to them be paid.—The hon. gentleman moved, that it be referred to the Committee appointed to consider of the affairs of the East India company.

rose, to offer some observations upon the statements alledged in this petition. It stated, that the government was in debt to the East India company on account of the expences incurred in the late war: but their account was referred to a Committee in the year 1805, who reported that the amount of the balance then due to the company was 2,300,000l. Out of this they were paid two millions, and there still remained a balance in their favour of 300,000l. But in the next year the company produced a new statement, in which they swelled this balance to 1,500,000l. making their original claim, instead of 2,300,000l., 3,800,000l. He denied that such a thing ought to have been done; it was done however, and now they came forward with a new claim for l,900,000l. alleged to be due upon this stale account. They seemed totally to forget that, in fact, the public owed them nothing. He could easily understand that, wanting this sum, they preferred claiming it as a debt to asking for it in any other shape; because if it was granted to them in the shape of a debt, it would be got by a single motion; whereas, in any other way, the progress would be circuitous, and liable to be impeded by much discussion. It was now four years since any discussion of the company's affairs took place in that House; for they had been now four years without bringing forward any budget, although they had, in successive years, claimed and obtained large sums in advance, on pretence of answering the exigencies of the moment. All, in fact, that parliament knew of the East India company for the last four years was from its petitions on their journals. In the year 1807, a bill passed for enabling them to borrow 2,000,000l. In the following year another bill passed for enabling them to raise 1,900,000l., they stated again last year, that they wanted another 2,000,000l. to meet the exigencies of the occasion, and yet another session had passed without their submitting to the House any general state of their affairs, owing to the want of which it was impossible for the House to come to a full and fair discussion upon a subject so important. He considered the present claim as one of the most preposterous that ever was offered to parliament, and he trusted the House would grant the company nothing until a full account of the state of their affairs was produced and investigated. The law positively required, that before any dividend was made of their profits, they should clear their accounts with the public; and yet, although no such clearance had been made, the company were now dividing on their last years profit 10½ per cent. He hoped, therefore, the House would come to some decisive issue upon the subject.

said there was one topic from which the hon. gent, generally abstained when speaking of the affairs of the company; namely, the justice due to them. He, (Mr. Grant,) however, would maintain, that they had a just claim to a very considerable balance in their favour, that the true balance due to them in 1808, was 1,500,000l. and that the company had never acceded to the statement as laid down by the honourable gentleman. They desired only to appeal to the justice of the House; they asked only a fair examination of their accounts, and if any balance should appear due to them, that they might receive it. It was said on a recent occasion that the doors of that House should be opened wide to petitions, and he hoped the India company were as fairly entitled, to the extension of such an indulgence as any other description of people. If any money was due to them it ought to be paid. The hon. gent. he was sure, would not contend that no balance was due; and he trusted the House of Commons would not close its ears against just claims offered in respectful language.

, in answer to some allusion from Mr. Creevey with respect to his interference in the last claim of the company for a loan of two millions, said he had not encouraged the company in that application by any thing like a pledge of the sanction of the government; nor by any opinion that the country at large would favour it; but what the House of Commons would do upon a petition submitted to them he could not say. It did, however, appear to him, that the company had a right to an opportunity of having their claims fairly examined and equitably adjusted.

expressed himself astonished at this petition. He had formerly objected to the grant of money to the East India company, unless the exposition of their affairs was laid before the House. He now wished for that exposition, before he granted any more. The whole accounts and transactions were laid down and closed by the Committees in 1805 and 1808, and he was surprised, after having read their reports, that the right hon. gentlemen opposite, on the part of governments, should be found to assent to any new claim.

said, although the accounts between the government and the India company had not been completely liquidated, balances ought to be struck from time to time. The hon. gentlemen opposite to him had said, that the company did not think themselves fairly dealt by in the last settlement of their account. The president of the board of control was the same person then as now; so was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They made no objection to the former settlement; and if that was their opinion at the time, he did not see what right the company had now to come forward, and claim a new investigation upon an account already settled two years ago. The right hon. gent. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that on the former oćcasion he withheld his own countenance from their claim. But had they no opportunity of conversation with him since? Had they not before received his formal refusal to support their claim; and yet two years after the account was closed, they were allowed to come forward with the countenance of the right hon. gent. and again set up their claim, which he considered as unfair and unadmissible by the public.

said, the hon. gent. was right; he (Mr. Dundas) did at that time state that the account was closed, and the reason was, that the Report of the Committee of 1805 was proceeded on by that of 1808, and the East India company denied the justice of the conclusions of that Committee, and complained of their injustice in refusing to admit their claim. They therefore now came to the House for relief, and that was the basis of their present petition. A claim was some time since made by a person of the post-office, who complained of the injustice done to him 20 years ago, and no objection was made by the House to entertain and investigate that claim: therefore he could see no reason why this petition should not be received and attended to.—The motion was then agreed to.

said he held in his hand a Petition from a gentleman, who subscribed himself a Freeholder of England; but before he pledged himself to present the petition he had first read it over, in order to ascertain, whether there was in it such offensive matter as would preclude him from presenting it. He found however, according to his judgment, that it was altogether unexceptionable, and in its matter and terms every way decorous and respectful. He had therefore no hesitation in doing what was his duty in presenting that Petition to the House—The petitioner, major Cartwright, was a gentleman of such well known private worth and respectability, that it would be the less necessary for him to advance any thing upon the score of that gentleman's individual claims to their attention. It was notorious, that he had spent a long and valued life in a steady and systematic pursuit of the great national object of Parliamentary Reform; and that a better character with regard to integrity and patriotism did not exist. The right hon. gent. might not think as highly of the claims of this gentleman. If so however, it must be clear, that he differed from his colleagues in the Admiralty, who had promoted lieutenant Cartwright, after being 48 years a lieutenant in the British Navy, and at the age of 70, made him a master and commander. With respect to the allegations contained in the Petition, with many of them he cordially concurred; upon some of them he doubted; and from a few of them he dissented; as, however, they had been all stated in terms and in a manner unobjectionable, he could not allow his dissent from a few positions in it to interfere with what he considered his duty in presenting the petition.

The Petition was then brought up and read by the clerk at the table. It stated, "That certain doctrines which have of late been maintained, and certain decisions which have of late been come to, in the House, have at length placed the long agitated question of a Reform in the Representation of the people in Parliament in a point of view, in which it cannot be rightly contemplated without affording a demonstration that the sole alternative left our country is, Parliamentary Reform, or National Ruin: bow can the petitioner speak the emotions of his heart; what language can express his sentiments; when he thinks to the astonishing decision by which the House, in the night between the 11th and 12th days of May 1809, absolutely refused, by a majority of 310 against 85, to inquire into the criminal accusation, brought by a member in his place, against viscount Castlereagh and another member, one, for having sold for a sum of money a seat in the House, and the other, for a connivance at such sale: the petitioner was the more shocked at the said decision, as the viscount, Castlereagh had, not long before, when under the examination of a Committee, confessed an attempt to obtain for another placeman a seat in the House, by what to the petitioner appears a double corruption, in bartering for it an East India writership, which an act of parliament had forbidden to be so disposed of; when seats in the House are bought and sold, the people, their laws, and liberties, are bought and sold: although there be not in human speech words by which the thoughts of the petitioner on this the decision of the House can be expressed, he cannot dismiss the subject without saying, but disclaiming any idea of being indecorous, that such treatment of the people is beyond endurance: after such a decision, and after inquiry into the criminal charge in question has been resisted on the ground of the sale of seats being as notorious as the sight of the Sun at noon day, the petitioner cannot remain silent on those truths of the constitution by which the dangerous error of the decision of the House, the shocking profligacy of selling seats, and the audacity of vindicating it, must be made manifest: in order to this, the House is requested to contemplate the three several species of sovereignty with which we are familiar; namely, first, the original inherent and proper sovereignty which necessarily resides in the entire mass of the nation; secondly, the legislative sovereignty, which, by delegation, resides in a Parliament of King, Lords, and Commons (being the most conspicuous and important feature of that constitution by which our nation has consented to be governed;) and, thirdly that executive sovereignty, which, by a farther delegation, resides in the sole person of the King: if the petitioner has correctly distinguished the literal from the figurative significations of the word sovereignty, it will be discovered that a Commons House, after deducting only the royal family, the temporal nobles, and a few ecclesiastics, is intended exclusively to represent and to personify the national Majesty: it will also be discovered that such a House of Parliament is peculiarly the depository of the nation's liberty, the guardian of its property, the organ of its will; and that, in fact, it is the vital part of the state; wherefore it ought, on every principle of reason and political wisdom, in an especial manner to be securely fenced around, fortified, and at all points defended by the solemn sanctions, and the awful terrors of appropriate laws against high treason; for treason is a betraying of the state; and the first and the highest treason is that which is committed against the constitution: But, instead of the majesty of the nation being thus enthroned, instead of this palladium of its liberties being thus guarded, the nation sees the House, which ought to be an object of universal confidence, respect, and veneration, exposed to every abuse that can undermine, to every violation that can degrade, to every vice that can pollute, and destroy it: The people see it abandoned, as a common prey, to the factious borough patron and the trading adventurer, to the unprincipled sharper and the unfaithful minister, to the Asiatic nabob, and even to the hostile European despot, who all know its seats to be vendible wares, in which, through the agency of certain panders of corruption, they can place their agents; that the agent of a French king's mistress had once a seat in the House is within the remembrance, as at the time it was within the knowledge, of the petitioner, and it is well known that at one time the nabob of Arcot purchased for his agents seven or eight of those seats: the learned Blackstone hath said, that with regard to the elections of knights citizens and burgesses, we may observe, that herein consists the exercise of the democratic part of our constitution, for in a democracy there can be no exercise of sovereignty but by suffrage, which is the declaration of the people's will; in all democracies therefore it is of the utmost importance to regulate, by whom and in what manner the suffrages are to be given, and the Athenians were so justly jealous of this prerogative, that a stranger who interfered in the assemblies of the people was punished by their laws with death, because such a man was esteemed guilty of High Treason, by usurping those rights of sovereignty to which he had no title; in England, where the people do not debate in a collective body, but by representation, the exercise of this sovereignty consists in the choice of representatives; so the petitioner contends, that where a minister of the crown, or a peer or other disloyal person, either by purchase or barter, by nomination or undue influence, seats a member in the House, he by usurping a right of sovereignty to which he has no title is guilty of High Treason, and that every species of buying and selling of seats, and the interference of any person whatever, for corrupting or for violating the freedom of election, is consequently High Treason, and ought as such to be guarded against by express law: Such treasons are far more deadly than that which even strikes at the life of the executive sovereign, as in law the king cannot die, so were one king to be slain another must instantly succeed, nor would the throne be for a moment vacant, but a murdered constitution has no successor, when that perishes there is national ruin, and the betrayed people drag on in chains, in misery, in vice, and slavery, a degraded existence: having then lived to see a distinct charge of selling a seat in the House met by a vote; and inquiry into that treason borne down by a majority, we have seen enough, had we seen nought else, to prove that the sole alternative left our injured and not respected country, is a radical reform in our representation or a final extinction of our liberties: between taxation and representation there is. in the English constitution and in the English mind an inseparable union, and Parliament, as it is easy to demonstrate, cannot, constitutionally, have duration beyond one year: Wherefore the petitioner solemnly protests and appeals against all treasons in the sale or barter, or disposal of parliamentary seats, and against violating in any way the freedom of election, as well as against the present unconstitutional inequality of representation and long Parliaments, as the chief causes of all the calamities our country has at any time experienced since the incomplete reformation of our government, effected by the revolution in the year 1688, and as the causes more especially of unnecessary war, a state of things most prolific of patronage, abuse, and taxation, to which such a derangement of our system holds out to corrupt ministers a perpetual, and, as it should seem, a resistless temptation: When it is said by any member of the House that a Reform in Parliamentary Representation cannot lighten the burthens of the nation, the people must have indeed a new feeling, they must feel their understandings insulted, they know that their burthens may be lightened, they know that the increase of them may be prevented, they know that such a Reform only twenty years ago might, and probably would, have averted a war that has burthened the nation with an additional debt of nearly 600 millions, and added forty millions a year to its taxes: The flagrant violations of the elective rights of the nation, the shameful inequality of representation, and the unconstitutional length of parliaments, as well as the seducing of member from their fidelity to the people by places and pensions from the crown, being obviously wrong against the constitution, against the principles of our law, against justice, against reason; against decency, and utterly subversive of public liberty, big with every species of ruin, whether pecuniary, political, or moral, and tending no less to the subjugation of these islands to a foreign conqueror than to the debasement and misery of the people and their posterity, constitute a grievance truly intolerable: wherefore the petitioner, deprecating all that metaphorical and contemptible sophistry about the constitution, by which wicked men endeavour to exhibit as a mystery that which our brave unlettered ancestors framed as a plain, practical, and honest rule of government, trusts that the House, as early as may be, will originate a law for extending representation to the same limit as direct taxation in support of the poor, the church, and the state, for distributing that representation with justice and impartiality, for bringing back parliaments to a constitutional duration, for so ordering the elections as to prevent unnecessary trouble and expence, as well as tumult, and for preserving their freedom and completing the polls in one day, and likewise for protecting from treasonable violation, by appropriate laws, the Majesty of the nation, as it ought to be personified by the House: few and simple as are these propositions, they would, as the petitioner is humbly of opinion, do more for our country, its liberties, its prosperity, and its glory, than were done for it by Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights: here, under a strong persuasion that the evils of destroyed representation had arrived at their acme, this appeal to the serious reflection of the House had actually been closed, but that erroneous persuasion has been done away by recent events, which have placed before the nation's wondering eyes those evils in still more terrific shapes, and leading to still more dreadful consequences: on the question of undefined privilege, so analogous to undefined prerogative, may it not be respectfully asked, if there either be or can be a prerogative, a privilege beyond this—a power of acting for the public good, where the positive law is silent and again, where the law can be made to speak, can it be either necessary or expedient, or safe, that there should be any discretionary prerogative or discretionary privilege? If the law be capable of redressing a libelled sovereign, and for that cause deny to the King a privilege of being at once accuser, jury, judge, and executioner in his own cause, how can such irreconcileable powers be justly claimed by either of the other two branches of the legislature?—And would not a union of such powers constitute a despotism unknown to the English constitution, and revolting to reason? But leaving to the serious meditation of the House these important questions, in which the legality or illegality of their warrant against sir F. Burdett seems to be involved, allow the petitioner to call the attention of the House to the late military proceedings rising out of orders issued by civil authorities, and more especially to the act of breaking open, with a military force, and by violence, the house of the said sir F. Burdett—not charged with either treason or felony or a breach of the peace, and conducting him through a body of armed soldiers, drawn up in his own hall, to a carriage surrounded by an army, and so to a prison: on the flagrant illegality of such an outrage on an Englishman, the petitioner presumes there is but one opinion: it is personally known to the petitioner, that two days prior to the seizure of sir F. Burdett as aforesaid, when a number of persons assembled before his door were charged with being rioters, a body of soldiers belonging to the standing army, in military array, and under the orders of a general officer then present, were employed, and, as the petitioner humbly conceives, illegally employed, to keep the peace; and he believes the same illegal mode of keeping the peace was persevered in until the imprisonment of the said sir F. Burdett was accomplished: A standing army, although necessary for offensive war and the protection of external possessions, being yet altogether unknown to the law and constitution of this kingdom, such army not constituting part of the civil state, but being under a different command and subject to a different law, cannot of course be a legal instrument for governing the nation, that is, for executing any process of the law, or for ministerially per forming any act of a civil authority for giving effect to the law, even although such act were lawful to peace officers: When an indiscreet populace, angered by violations of public liberty, or other cause, assemble together, annoy, by any species of assault, those whom they consider as their oppressors, none can deny that the law is violated, and the peace broken; but those who lead out a standing army, in full mitary arráy and equipment, to restore order, commit a violation of law a thousand times more criminal, and a breach of the peace ten thousand times more violent and alarming: A rabble of idle men or unruly boys might on a sudden daub our clothes, demolish our window glass, and assume a momentary authority; but an organized posse comitatus would instantly restore peace, and the dominion of the law; whereas, when a standing army, assuming the office of our protector, subjects us to a government of ball and bayonet, then indeed our constitution is foully stained, liberty is stabbed, and the law itself is demolished! The sword may indeed again return to its scabbard, and the soldiery retire to their barrack fortresses, but, if their re-appearance be to depend on the discretion of any, from a police magistrate up to the King, is not this military government? It is not surely with discretionary power thus despotic that parliamentary privilege, forgetting its own defensive nature, will claim to have kindred, or seek to hold fellowship. The English government is itself only to blame, if its legal means of suppressing riots, by a resistless county power, be not at all times, and in all places, in perfect readiness at a call for preserving the public tranquillity; shall it claim to use for this purpose the military force of a standing army, because it has purposely and insidiously kept the civil power in a state of inefficiency? Shall it first cripple the law and then claim to use an army for our government? If then our rulers have, and particularly for the last thirty years, against law, against remonstrance, against exhortation, intentionally left the county power which is vital to our constitution, in its shamefully neglected state, and have on all occasions of trifling disorders in our streets, disorders to which their own neglect of duty gave birth, got into a constant habit of illegally introducing the standing army for restoring quiet, what is the obvious inference to be drawn from this constant practice: here the House is implored to reflect whether without being misled by names or appearances of any kind, it must not be acknowledged that a state is in reality under a civil or under a military government, as for the ultimate inforcement of its laws, if resort be had to a civil power or to a military force, and the House knows that civil government alone is free government, military government rank despotism; having thus established the principles whereby to judge, the character of the proceedings for executing the late orders of the House, will now be easily determined; the Serjeant at Arms solicited and obtained for this service an army, including all the troops on their march from country quarters, for supporting those within the metropolis, the whole is generally believed to have exceeded 34,000 men, beside an ample train of artillery, a greater force than that with which an English King defeated 100,000 French at Cressy, and an army which in this instance could have no other object than to overpower or to kill all such as might have attempted to resist, by force, the execution of the order of the House; the House is therefore intreated to give mature consideration to the following queries: If a standing army be unknown to the law and constitution of this kingdom, must not its employment, under pretence of inforcing law, be in fact the greatest of all violations of law, and an actual subversion of the constitution? Is it not the duty of every man within the ages of 15 and 60, as a member of the county power, to resist by force a breach of the peace; the breaking into house, orany act of illegal violence against a fellow subject whether the peace breakers or the house breakers or other violators of the law be or be not soldiers? If any person or person defying the law should determine to perpetrate acts of illegal violence in open rebellion against law, and should, with an intent to overpower or to kill all persons who should attempt to resist them, put themselves at the head of an army of mercenary soldiers, and by means of such army should actually carry their illegal and violent designs into execution, would not this be of open deed levying war against our lord the King in his realm? Is not such levying of war of open deed among the treasons enumerated in the statute of 25 Edward III? Must not the killing of any of the people by an army while so acting be murder? Must not all the soldiery of such army, present at any such murders, be in law principals, as well as those under whose orders they should act? Considering how much the soldiers of a standing army are machines and instruments in the hands of them who command, must not those who give them orders be the most criminal parties in any such murders? And whether in the present circumstances of this kingdom, considering the immense number of native soldiers under a different command from that of the civil magistrates, and subject to a different law from that of the civil courts, and the vast addition of foreign mercenaries born under arbitrary power, and as soldiers doubly enslaved, a military despotism, as rigorous as that of France, can possibly be averted, but by restoring to full vigour and energy the county power, as thirty years ago was earnestly recommended and urged by sir William Jones: Wherefore the petitioner trusts that in the present awful crisis of our country, the House will take in good part his dutiful expostulations, cheerfully relinquish, every unconstitutional claim of power, heal our distractions, and preserve our liberties, by exerting all its energies for restoring our two-fold constitution in its most vital organs, its Commons House, and its County Power."

moved that the petition do lie on the table.

said, that after the recent decisions of that House upon petitions not couched in respectful language, it was unnecessary for him to do any thing more at present, than merely to advert to two offensive passages in the petition just read, which, in his opinion, were conclusive against its reception.—The first passage was, that which referring to the vote of last year (the decision on Mr. Madocks's motion of last session) pronounced it beyond endurance. The other in referring to the vote of that House for the committal of sir F. Burdett, characterrised it as an act of flagrant illegality. Indeed, if the House were to encourage the presenting of such long petitions, from an indvidual, as that then presented, it may, for the future, expect to have others presented lengthened out into folios. But confining himself to the two insulting passages to which he alluded, he felt himself bound to oppose the motion that it should lie on the table.

begged to assure the House that it was his firm persuasion that the gentleman whose petition he presented, had no wish either directly or indirectly to insult that House. From such a charge the character, the whole political career of the petitioner, as visible in his actions, as illustrated by his public conduct, and expressed in his writings, ought to protect him. His only object was to take constitutional means of putting upon record his own opinion of the passing events of these times. In stating that opinion, the petitioner felt he did it respectfully, although he would not consent to adapt his style or regulate his sentiments according to the newfangled doctrines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his associates—of that Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, not satisfied with his opposition to throwing the doors of that House open to the prayers of the people, nor with his fastidiousness as to the language of petitions, had on that night found a new ground for rejection, merely, because the petition of a subject was rather of greater length than was ordinarily presented, and that consequently it would occupy too much room upon the journals of that House. The objection made to the words, "past endurance," could not be for one moment supported. A House of Commons, putting the conduct of the present out of all question, might have done and had actually done things, which ought not to have been endured. If the fact was so, ought not the people to complain, and if they thought their acts intolerable, why deprive them of the opportunity of stating their opinions, that they were so? If such a state of events had taken place in the country, that it was almost its general opinion that the conduct of that House was past endurance, would it not be more wise and more politic to receive the petitions of the people, acquainting it that such was the public opinion, rather than by a denial of all redress, to almost urge the people to acts of open violence? Was it by the denial of redress and the refusal ever to hear the public complaint, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would convince the people that the conduct of that House was to be endured? You may put the victim upon the rack; his complaints and cries you may refuse to hear, but you cannot prevent death to take place in some of the paroxysms of his suffering. It was so with that House. It might inflict; the country would complain; by that House their prayers may be disregarded. Their grievances may be multiplied, but the constitution must expire. But with respect to the words themselves, what was more common in the ordinary phraseology of language? Was it not every day heard, when schedules of income tax, assessed taxes, and the catalogue of imposts were sent out, to draw the last shilling from an aggrieved and burthened people;—was it not the common, the heart felt observation, that such things were past endurance? But, in the reference made in the petition, the language could be only considered figurative, inasmuch as the evil so complained of had been endured. The next objection referred to the manner in which the petitioner spoke of the conduct of that House towards sir F. Burdett. He stated it to be, in his opinion, an illegal act. Was this a ground for refusal? Had not the subject a right to state his opinion upon every proceeding of that House? But above all, might he apt be allowed to deliver a speculative opinion upon that very question, which by a vote of that House was now sent to a court of law, in which court its Speaker was desired to enter a plea? Under such circumstances, to refuse to receive the petition of a subject, was going to an extent which never could be supported.

explained. It was not for doubting or questioning their privileges that he objected to the petition. It was for directly asserting that there was but one opinion, that they were illegal, and that the acts of the House were so outrageous, as to be past endurance.

maintained that it was the undoubted right of the subject to question every act of authority of the House, or any other branch of the constitution. He should, therefore, be sorry if the petition were rejected on that account.

thought the expression "past all endurance," fully sufficient to warrant the rejection of the petition. If the House permitted such insulting language, they would deserve to receive it.

A division then took place—For receiving-the Petition 32; against it 91.

rose, in pursuance of a notice he had given on a former day, to move an humble Address to his Majesty with respect to the pension granted to the duke of Brunswick Oels. He regretted that it was necessary to bring a motion in the present shape before the consideration of parliament. He should have hoped that, after the very liberal conduct of parliament towards the civil list at a time not long past, some means might have been provided for affording a sufficient relief to the duke of Brunswick, in his present circumstances, without coming to parliament for another grant of public money. It was for his Majesty's ministers to consider whether it was wise or prudent for them to expect parliament to give money merely because they were asked for it. When he recollected that, within the last two years, no less a sum than 10,000l. per annum was voted for the duchess of Brunswick, he thought that if there had been any other mode of providing for hit highness without laying additional burdens on this country, it should have been resorted to. The large pension which had been granted to the duchess of Brunswick was voted by that House, unanimously, as he believed, and without any observations. As to his highness the duke of Brunswick Oels, although he had as high a respect for his rank and character as any man, yet he did not conceive that his claims were of the same nature as that of the duchess of Brunswick, the sister of the King. He, however, had made no objection to the pension of 7.000l. voted to his royal highness from the consolidated fund. He knew that the consolidated fund was much the best security upon which a pension could be charged, as it would be regularly paid. But while, for this reason, he agreed to the pension being secured in that fund, still if any other means could be pointed out for indemnifying that fund for the burthen so thrown on it, he thought such means ought to be had recourse to. The pension might have been secured on the civil list, or the 4½ per cents. without burthening the consolidated fund; but ministers, however, thought proper to come to parliament, and to propose it as a matter of course to throw it upon the consolidated fund. Now, if any other fund could be shewn to exist sufficient to relieve the country of the burthen of this pension, and he understood that the Droits of Admiralty were sufficient for that purpose, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared not to assent) he thought that such fund ought to be applied to that purpose. He hoped that gentleman would not so far misunderstand him, as to suppose that he meant that the pension should be charged on the Droits of Admiralty, but he did think that a certain portion of them ought to be paid into the consolidated fund, for the purpose of indemnifying it for the burthen so thrown upon it. He could not see any more wholesome application of those Droits, which were supposed by many to be the absolute property of the crown, than to be applied towards making a suitable provision for so near a relation to his Majesty. The right hon. gent, concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to represent to his Majesty that we have proceeded to take into consideration his Majesty's most gracious Message relative to his serene highness the duke of Brunswick Wolfenbuttel: To assure his Majesty, that we participate in his Majesty's anxiety to make such provision as may be suitable to the rank and to the misfortunes of a prince so nearly allied to his Majesty's throne, and for whom his Majesty's feelings are so strongly interested: humbly to acquaint his Majesty, that with a view to secure to his serene highness a settled income, the payment of which shall be regularly made, we have granted to his serene highness an annuity of 7,000l. charged upon, and payable out of, the consolidated fund: to represent to his Majesty, that while we are thus anxious to shew our attachment to and respect for his Majesty's illustrious House, we feel ourselves called upon humbly at submit to his Majesty's gracious consideration the heavy and increasing burthens to which his Majesty's faithful subjects have been and still are exposed in the prosecution of the war against France, burthens which we know not how to alleviate, but which we are bound by our indispensable duty not unnecessarily to augment: humbly therefore to implore, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that from the money at the disposal of the crown from the droits of admiralty, such a sum be paid into the consolidated fund as may be equal to the value of the annuity proposed to be charged upon the same for his serene highness the duke of Brunswick."

considered that an application to his Majesty of the nature contained in that Address would be perfectly novel, and such as had never before been adopted by parliament. He considered that if the House, really agreed with the substance of the Address moved, it would be a more gracious, or rather a less offensive manner, to seek their wishes, by addressing his Majesty at once to grant such a sum out of the droits of the admiralty for the general service of the country, and not for this particular pension. The Address was indeed curiously constructed. It began by taking great credit to the House of Commons for the liberality they displayed in the grant, and for their anxiety in securing a provision for a prince so nearly allied to his Majesty, and yet immediately after taking this credit for liberality, it turned short round upon his Majesty, and requested that he would pay them the whole amount of what in their liberality they had just granted. It must be recollected, however, that out of the droits of admiralty his Majesty had recently given large sums for the general service of this country. Between 3 and 400,000 l. had been given on account of the prizes taken at Copenhagen, which otherwise must have been purchased from the captors, at the expence of the country. The right hon. gent. had stated that two years ago, no one objected to a pension of l0,000 l. a year then granted to the duchess of Brunswick; and yet the same application which was made now might have been made then, and perhaps with greater force, as she was nearer allied to his Majesty. If the duke of Brunswick had been no relation of his Majesty, still from his sufferings he had a claim to the generosity of the English nation. Such claim had been allowed to other royal and distinguished persons, who, driven from their dominions and estates, had sought shelter in this country. It must also be recollected, that the annuity was only contingent, as it was to last no longer than the continent remained in the present unsettled state, and, therefore, it would not be easy to ascertain what sum from the droits of admiralty would be an equivalent for an annuity so circumstanced.

would not by any means admit that the droits of admiralty were the absolute property of the crown. He thought, that when the king accepted a fixed annual income 800,000l. it was supposed that he had given up all other claims. It never could be conceived at that time that such a sum as seven or eight millions could get into the hands of the sovereign, after the commutation which had been made. Although the law officer said that this was completely and absolutely the King's private property, what would be thought of such a sum being devised by will to persons out of the country? In the year 1763, his Majesty acted with respect to those droits of admiralty in a manner that he wished his ministers Lad now advised him to act. He then gave up the whole of it to the public service. An hon. friend of his (sir F. Burdett) had on a former occasion made a motion respecting those droits, and had intended, if it was not for the circumstances which prevented his attendance in parliament, to renew the subject in the course of this session. Many sums had, it was true, been granted out of the civil list, and among these sums was a grant of 25.000l. to sir Home Popham. When it was considered how this House had, over and over again, assisted the civil list; when it was considered how they had, over and over again, made the most liberal provisions for every branch of the royal family, and even what large sums it had voted to pay their debts, he thought that no unnecessary burdens ought now to be laid upon the country, but that the droits of admiralty ought to be applied in the present instance.

said, that notwithstanding the commutation by which his Majesty received a fixed income in lieu of the crown lands, there were many other branches of his revenue which he held jure coronœ which he had not given up. Amongst them were the 4½per cents. and, as he conceived, the droits of the admiralty. Nevertheless, if there did appear any specific fund which was adequate to the payment of the pension, the House might well take that into their consideration before they threw the burthen on the consolidated fund. When the House agreed to transfer the pension of 9,000l. of the late duke of Gloucester to the consolidated fund, it was from the consideration that the 4½ per cents. on which it was previously settled, would not secure the regular payment of the pension; but if there could at that time have been pointed out a large fund, such as the droits of admiralty were at present, it was by no means clear that the House would have agreed to transferring it to the consolidated fund. If there was a large disposable fund in the hands of the crown, ministers ought to advise his Majesty to apply part of it to the purpose stated in the motion. In 1763, it was true that the whole of these droits were given to the service of the public generally, but nothing was given to the captors. Of the droits, however, which had, accrued during the present war, very large sums had been given to the captors, and at one time a million was given to the public service. He still thought that as it seemed to be admitted by his Majesty's ministers, that there was a considerable disposable fund derived from those droits, the consolidated fund should be indemnified from thence for the additional burthen which was now to be thrown on it.

maintained the strict right of the crown to dispose of this fund in any manner that it might think proper. As to the fixed allowance which has been made to support the King's civil list, it had been always found insufficient, as it was impossible that the same sum of money could now support the same establishment, which was reckoned necessary to support the due splendour of the throne about half a century ago. The consequence was, that frequent applications had been made to parliament to defray the debts necessarily contracted in the maintenance of the civil list. He thought the droits of admiralty might best be applied in supplying the deficiencies of the civil list, and preventing future embarrassments, or applications to parliament.

represented it as a most dangerous doctrine and unconstitutional in principle, to permit the crown to amass large sums of money, over which the parliament should have no control. It would have a tendency to make the crown independent of the parliament. A King might go to war for droits of admiralty, It was no imaginary case. Charles the second had gone to war for the purpose of obtaining the Smyrna fleet. Parliament should always have the right to know what were the sums composing this fund, and how they were applied. He agreed that some provision should be made for the duke of Brunswick; but the question was, whether the country was to be called upon to supply it from its own pocket, at such a time, or whether it would not be better to resort to the alternative proposed? He would support the motion, even if there were no other grounds to go upon than the breaking in upon the droits of admiralty, which had in a former case tended in a great measure, to plunge the country into a war, the most disgraceful and disadvantageous to it.

said, that the droits of admiralty had been considerably in creased in value since the change with respect to the emoluments of the captors of prizes had taken place; and that, in consequence of that change, the sum could be easily reimbursed to the consolidated fund. The liberality of the House had been fully evinced by the various grants that had been made to those who had not claims of so strong a nature as the duke of Brunswick; and, from whatever fund the sum would be eventually paid, he was convinced that that liberality would suffer no diminution.

agreed in the principle of not increasing the burdens of the people, but conceived that the droits of admiralty were not the fund which should be meddled with upon the occasion of the grant to his serene highness. He conceived that, perhaps, if the right hon. hon. gent. (Mr. Tierney) had asked for the full amount of the droits of admiralty, his purpose would be satisfactorily answered.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only made one or two objections to the motion, and those objections were utterly destitute of arguments. He had never seen a greater instance of the uneasiness of a person who wished to get rid of a question, and who could not succeed, than the right hon. gent. exhibited. The House had been asked for a grant of 7.000l. per annum, that grant was agreed to, and it was observed, that there existed means of a reimbursement of that sum; the House was then surely very pardonable in seeking the means by which such reimbursement should be effected. If the crown possessed a capability of repayment, that addition of burden should be taken from the people. It had been said that his conduct in the framing of his address, was such, as to give offence to the crown. It was no such thing. If the crown would not speak to him, he would speak to the crown. If ministers would not interfere upon the occasion, in suggesting to his Majesty the proper mode of conduct to be observed, he would himself make such suggestions; but no disrespect was by any means intended to his Majesty. It had been said, that if a general address for the application of the droits of admiralty to the relief of the public burthens had been moved, more certain success would have been the consequence. He certainly agreed in that assertion; and he would lay aside his present motion, if he was certain of the right hon. gent.'s aid and support upon a proposition to that effect. The cases of the duchess and duke of Brunswick were very different; and if the former was allowed most liberally, that was no reason that the latter should meet with the same treatment. He was firmly convinced that the crown was possessed of money sufficient to reimburse the consolidated fund; and therefore was determined to take the sense of the House upon the question. The House then divided, when there appeared.