expressed his satisfaction to learn, from what had fallen from an hon. and learned gent. yesterday, that it was his intention to bring the Report of the Bullion Committee under the consideration of the House. The public was much interested in the question, and he was sure it would not fail to prove satisfactory to the nation that it should undergo a discussion in that House. He should, with a view to that discussion, move for certain returns in addition to those ordered yesterday, to the production of which he did not suppose any opposition would be made. He should thereupon move for the following accounts:

1. An Account of the Gold imported into his Majesty's Mint, and the amount of Gold monies coined there between 1st Jan. 1773 and 31st Dec. 1798, both inclusive; distinguishing as far as possible, the ingots received from guineas in each year from those from foreign Gold, with the value of each.

2. An Account of the Notes of the Bank of England in circulation, on the 1st days of January and of July, in the years 1761, 1762, and 1763, 1783, and 1784, and on the same days in every year from 1790 to 1810, inclusive.

3. An Account of the amount of the Bank Notes in circulation in each week, from the 9th of March 1809.

4. An Account of the highest amount of Bank Notes locked up in the Exchequer in each year, from 1803 to the present time.

5. An Account of the highest prices paid by the Bank for Bullion in each year, from 1773 to 1809, both inclusive.

6. An Account of the amount of the Notes and Post Bills of the Bank of Ireland in circulation in the months of January and June, from 1804 to 1810, both inclusive.

7. An Account of the value of Corn and other grain and flour imported into Great Britain, except from Ireland, from 1800 to 1810, both inclusive.

8. An Account of the official value of exports from, and of imports into, Great Britain, for 1790, and in every year since to 1809 inclusive.

9. An Account of the highest and lowest prices of silver in each year, from 1790 to the present time.

10. Copies of any letters that were written from the Secretaries of the Treasury to the Commissioners of the Customs in 1782 and 1783, communicating directions from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury for enforcing the laws against the exportation of coin.

also moved for, A Copy of the communications between the Bank of England and the Lords of the Treasury, and of a Letter written by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Attorney and Solicitor General, and of the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor General submitted to the Treasury in 1772, respecting the execution of the laws which prohibit the exportation of Gold and Silver.

moved the order of the day for going into a Committee of supply.

rose to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to what he considered an intolerable grievance in the manner in which grants of public money and money bills were carried through that House. They all knew that grants of public money and redress of grievances formerly went on together. Of late, however, they had got into the habit of Voting grants of money and proceeding with money-bills at late hours, and when the House was exhausted with debates, and no discussion could take place. This he allowed was inseparable from the practice of discussing great public questions, which occupied so much of the time of the House during every session. But to whom was it attributable but to the minister, who usually condensed public business within so short a period, that it was impossible to bestow the necessary attention upon every important question? Since the union with Ireland, which added so much to the business of that House, they had much shorter sessions of parliament than previously. The minister, by clothing his grants of public money in ambiguous terms, could contrive to get them voted without objection, and could reserve his desperate cases to the close of the session, when it would be too late to make any effectual opposition to them. In illustration of this observation, he need only refer to what had happened last session. The bill for granting a million and a half to the East India Company, and for the interest of which fresh taxes must be laid upon the people, passed through no one of its stages previous to the last, before one o'clock in the morning. In one of its stages there were no less than seven notices to precede it, and it was one of fifty orders of the day. The House must see, therefore, that under such circumstances it was impossible? it could have been maturely or fully discussed. The last stage took place at an hour earlier than that at which public business commenced usually. He had intended to oppose it; but on coming down to the House at half past four, he was astonished to find that the bill had passed. He had particularly noticed the Members who attended on that occasion, and could take upon him to assert, that they were either Directors of the India Company or their servants, or Directors of the Bank or persons in office; and that there were not six members of any other description then present. It was an intolerable grievance, he must contend, that they should thus choose their own time, and consult their own convenience in bringing forward public business, without giving to members of that House an opportunity of delivering their sentiments. He considered it also a great grievance, that the miscellaneous grants were not more distinctly submitted to the notice of the House, so that members might come prepared for the discussion of them. Of this the grant of 6,000l. to lords Glenbervie and Auckland last session was a proof. No mention of the names was made in the notice of the vote; and the grant itself was not brought forward till the last Committee of Supply, and when the Appropriation Act was far advanced in its progress. The demand for those two noblelords was of seven years standing, and had been preferred to the government of the day, and that which succeeded it, and was refused by both. This accounted for its having been deferred to the end of the session. The act of appropriation, too, was generally hurried through without sufficient deliberation. As it contained all the grants of the session, it should certainly be more fully discussed. He had, last session, complained that the emoluments of the great Tellers of the Exchequer, lords Camden and Buckinghamshire, should be augmented by fees out of the taxes; but was then told, he was too late. He trusted, however, that in the appropriation act of the present session, provision would be made, that these Tellers, if they had a freehold in their offices, should not derive in future, any increase of emolument from fees upon public grants. He besought the House to consider the extent of power possessed by ministers in consequence of the Appropriation Act. Though that House had voted Mr. Palmer's claims to be just last session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by leaving the grant out of the Appropriation Act at the end of the session, actually defeated the intentions of that House. The manner in which the grant to lords Glenbervie and Auckland had been carried; shewed also how the minister, if disposed to favour individuals, could accomplish that object, as well as in other cases he could frustrate the views of Parliament by means of this Appropriation Act. It appeared, therefore, to him desirable, that the matter should be referred to a select committee, to consider of framing some standing order, whereby members on looking over the Order-book might be able to ascertain what particular grants or money bills were to be brought under the consideration of the House. It would otherwise be impossible to give the proper attention to such subjects. He had felt it necessary to say thus much upon this occasion and indeed the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had admitted the propriety of some regulation on this head, and even intimated an intention to propose some arrangement on the subject in the present session.

could not collect from the speech of the hon. gent. whether he meant by it to give notice of some motion during the present session, or whether, having unfortunately neglected last session till it was too late to oppose the appropriation act, he was determined to take care that he should not fall into a similar omission in the present session. If he were to consider the speech of the hon. gent. only as a notice, he should not, perhaps, have felt it necessary to comment upon it; but when he reflected upon the angry tone with which he had imputed it as matter of blame to the present government particularly, that ministers had the option of bringing forward public business at the time most convenient for them, he could not forbear making a few observations upon it. The circumstances to which the hon. gent. had referred, proved that the case was in direct contradiction to his statement. Every hon. gent. must know, that it was not in the power of ministers to put off the discussion of public business to a late hour, when there could be no opportunity of mature deliberation, but in the power of those gentlemen, who, having given notices of motions, had by the usage of parliament the precedence of the orders of the day. That was the true representation of the case, and it was owing to that cause that the different stages of the Bill to which the hon. member had alluded, were proceeded in at the late hour he stated. He concurred with the hon. gent. as to the inconvenience resulting from this cause, and had it in contemplation to propose to the House an arrangement, which would give on certain days of the week a precedence to orders of the day, and leave on the other days of the week, precedence, as usual, to notices. He had intimated as much last session, and as he did not think there would be much difficulty in forming some such arrangement, he should take an early opportunity of proposing it. Having stated thus much on that point, he should shortly advert to some of the topics mentioned by the hon. gent. The hon. gent. complained that the miscellaneous grants were not more distinctly specified, so as to enable the members of that House to come prepared to the discussion of them: and the hon. gent. particularly selected the grant to lords Glenbervie and Auckland, which, from the manner in which he spoke of it, the hon. gent. seemed to intimate as an instance of concealed favouritism towards the objects of the grant. But he must remind that hon. gent. that when an objection was started to that particular grant, on the ground that further time was necessary, the discussion of it was immediately deferred. Numberless cases of a similar description might be quoted; and every hon. gent. at all acquainted with the mode of proceeding in that House, must be aware, that according to the constant practice, whenever any objection happened to be made to any particular grant in the Miscellaneous Services, that grant was uniformly deferred, unless in cases where the service happened to be urgent, and any delay would be injurious. It often was the case, that some part only of the grant was voted, in order to allow time for ascertaining the propriety of voting the whole: so that the complaint of the hon. gent. against the government, or rather against that House, was unfounded in fact. The grants, when voted in Committee, were necessarily reported afterwards, when they might again be discussed: so that so far from not being distinctly notified, ample opportunity of discussing them was afforded. Besides, they might be again discussed in the Committee on the appropriation act, and afterwards upon the report of that Bill. It was not fair, then, to the House for the hon. gent. to state, that there was not sufficient time or notice for the discussion of the grants, when they might all be fully canvassed in four or five different stages. As to the imputation of favouritism, secret favouritism, he had only to observe, that one of the noble lords was not a member of parliament at the time of the grant, and could, therefore, not be expected, to requite the favour in the manner insinuated by the hon. gent.; and if his object had been to practise favouritism towards the other noble individual (lord Auckland,) there was nothing in the subsequent conduct of that individual, to shew that he had gained any thing by the transaction. He knew not by what governments the grant had been refused, but he knew that the government which preceded the present had resolved to accede to the grant (No, no, no, from the Opposition): so at least it had been represented to him. He had stated the same thing last session, without being contradicted. The lateness of bringing forward the grant arose from the cir- cumstance of the commission having only then terminated. If he had not thought the grant right, he should not have proposed it to the House, even though the late administration might have determined on conceding it. He knew of no political connection between himself or his friends, and either lord Auckland or lord Glenbervie, that could make them objects of favouritism. As to the case of Mr. Palmer's demand, he had only done what the hon. gent. himself, or any other hon. member had the power of doing. He thought the demand ought not to have been granted, and therefore had Moved that it should be left out of the appropriation act. The right hon. gent. concluded by giving notice, that he should early in next week propose the arrangement of which he had spoken; and which would, he was persuaded, be a benefit to all classes of members in that House.

contended, that it was perfectly competent to any member, on the question then before the House, to state, as his hon. friend had done, any grievances of which he had to complain. The right hon. gent. had said, that he could not understand whether in the speech of his hon. friend, he meant to give notice of a motion, or to intimate what his conduct would be in the present session, respecting the Miscellaneous Grants and the Appropriation Act. Upon this point, however, his hon. friend had been most particularly guarded. As to the charge of having expressed himself in an angry tone, he left it to those who had heard both to decide, which of the two, the right hon. gent. or his hon. friend, was more liable to it. With respect to public business, so much of it was crowded together towards the end of the session, that it was impossible for any one to know what time any particular measure would be discussed. He, in common with several other members, had felt the inconvenience which necessarily resulted from this cause. The Bill to which his hon. friend had alluded, had been passed an hour and an half before the usual time of proceeding with public business. The statement of his hon. friend was, he contended, borne out by that of the right hon. gent. He believed that the right hon. gent. was taken by surprise, as much as he had taken the House by surprise, with respect to the grant to lords Glenbervie and Auckland. If the right hon. gent. had taken the trouble to make inquiry upon the subject, he would have found, that the preceding administration had taken this grant into consideration, and then rejected it. As to what the right, hon. gent. had said with respect to his conduct in leaving the grant of Mr. Palmer's demand out of the Appropriation Act, that he had done then only what any hon. member might have done, he should just ask, whether any gentleman who should think it fit to exercise his right in such a way could be sure that he would succeed? Every person who attended to the manner in which the business was conducted in that House, must well know that it was actually impossible to give the proper portion of attention to all the important measures brought under its consideration. The statement of his hon. friend, therefore, was highly valuable; not as against the present minister particularly, but in reference to the conduct of all descriptions of ministers. The right hon. gent. had undoubtedly intimated his intention to propose some arrangement, with a view to remedy the evil; and when his proposition should be brought forward, the noble lord trusted it would meet every attention from the House.

concurred in the statement of his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Creevey), which was well worth the attention of the House. He rose, however, not for the purpose of adding to that statement, but in order to put the House upon its guard against any unnecessary innovation, as to its established forms and rules of debate. They should take good care, that in endeavouring to remedy one evil, they did not fall into one more serious. He was ready, in justice to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to admit, that he had last session intimated his intention to propose some arrangement of the description he had stated that night, of giving to the Orders of the day, on certain days of the week, precedence of notices. The House should well weigh the probable or possible consequences of such an arrangement, before they gave it their sanction. He was not inclined to charge members of parliament of the present day with being more corrupt, more negligent of their duty, more indolent and languid, than members of former parliaments. They should, however, cautiously adopt any arrangement or innovation which might have the effect of dissolving the House. The precedence which notices hitherto had been suffered to possess, gave an interest to the busi- ness of the House, which was sure to procure an adequate attendance. If that interest were to be taken away, they could not be perfectly sure that the routine business of parliament, however important, would insure a proper attendance. The precedence of notices arose out of the right of members to make any motion upon the sudden; which right, when members consented to wave, they were compensated for by the precedence of notices. According to the practice of parliament of late, a great part of the most important business was huddled together towards the close of the session. If there had been no union at all with Ireland, the public and private business to be attended to by parliament had been doubled. The duties of parliament ought to be more laborious than at present, if they were to be well performed. And here it was that the blame was altogether imputable to ministers, who put off parliament whilst they had a shilling in the exchequer; and who never thought of assembling it, until they could no longer go on without money. In the language of the times, they put off the evil day as long as they could. He could well remember, when, before the union with Ireland, if parliament was not assembled before Christmas, gentlemen were apt to complain. Of late years, it had been the practice not to assemble parliament till after the queen's birth-day. There had been, indeed, a few exceptions. Had it not been for the indisposition of the king, no man, he was convinced, could suppose that parliament would have been convened at the period it met before the end of last year. If the business of parliament had so considerably increased, the duration of the session ought to be proportionably lengthened. He had himself experienced, what had also been felt by other hon. members, an indisposition, on the part of the House—disgusted, no doubt, and exhausted by previous debates—to afford an attentive hearing on the most important business, so huddled together at the end of the session. If the House met now later than formerly, they should sit longer. There was no necessity for the ministers to advise his Majesty to prorogue parliament by any particular day. He should add, that insufficient attention was paid to Irish subjects, insomuch that it was almost impossible for any hon. member to obtain a hearing when offering to speak upon them. He should most strongly protest against any innovation, that would give, precedence to Orders of the day before. Notices.

said, that this charge had not been made against any particular administration; but that the general complaint was, that business of the first consequence was deferred to the last moment, at which, time it must of necessity pass, even though it should be without discussion.

The House then resolved itself into the Committee of Supply. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a supply was granted, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.