rose, pursuant to notice, to make a motion upon this subject, and he thought the present moment a peculiarly fit one, when a new agreement was to be made with the executive government, and when, therefore, we ought precisely to know what was to be granted. With regard to these duties, it was his opinion they were the property of the inhabitants of Barbadoes, and ought to be applied to colonial purposes. This was his first opinion; but if that should be negatived, and if it should be thought that these duties ought to find their way into the Exchequer, then he would submit whether they ought not to be applied in aid of the public expenditure. But, if neither of these opinions should be held valid, he hoped that the abuses in the application of this revenue, which he had the power of proving, would be thought sufficiently important to deserve the attention of the House. To prove that these duties were the property of the inhabitants of Barbadoes, he would mention a few historical facts. In the beginning of the reign of Charles I, a grant of the whole island of Barbadoes, which was then worth norhing, was made to the earl of Carlisle; during the troubles of the civil war and the Protectorate, however, many persons went over there as settlers, and it became, from a desert island, a very prosperous place. The earl of Carlisle died very much in debt, and his son transferred the grant of the island of Barbadoes to the earl of Kinnoul. The creditors of the first earl of Carlisle, hearing that the island had become a valuable possession, made some applications to the privy council, soon after the restoration of Charles the 2d, enforcing their claims upon the island of Barbadoes, under the grant of that island by patent to the earl of Carlisle by Charles the 1st, and as those claims most materially affected the rights and interests of the land-holders in Barbadoes, some of the planters came over to England, and to the same privy council made an offer of something like a royal revenue, if they were continued and secured in their rights and possessions. What was really conceded by the delegates of Barbadoes to the crown on this occasion is difficult to find out; we have however the authority of lord Clarendon, who assisted at their privy council, for the facts, viz. that the patent to the first earl of Carlisle was surrendered, and lord Kinnoul was to have an annuity of 1,000l. per annum in perpetuity, and which he has to this day in satisfaction of his claims under lord Carlisle. We know, too, that a colonial act of the island of Barbadoes passed in 1665, immediately after the return of the delegates from England, in which it was declared, that in consideration of the charges incurred in maintaining his majesty's authority there, they gave and granted to his majesty, and his successors, for ever, an impost, or custom upon the dead commodities of that island, at the rate of 4½ in specie, for every five score. But this money was raised for public service in that island for the raising and repairing of fortifications, &c.—none of it was intended to come to this country. (Then the hon. member read the act of the island, with all the specific appropriations of this impost to colonial purposes.) In the reign of Charles 2, when the regulations for his revenue were adopted, no mention was made of this fund as a royal hereditary revenue; nor was there any in that of James 2, to whom the whole royal establishment was transferred, as held by his predecessor. In William 3, indeed, this fund was recognized in two acts as among the small hereditary revenues of the crown: but when the civil list of queen Anne was arranged, a petition was presented from the planters of Barbadoes, stating, that the funds had been perverted from their original purpose, and praying that they might be applied to their legitimate use. In consequence, a committee of the House of Commons examined this petition, and addressed the queen, and requested that these funds might be appropriated, as they were intended, to colonial purposes; and they were so. In George 1, this fund was again specifically exempted when arranging the royal revenue; and the same in George 2. Upon the accession of his present Majesty, however, a new species of arrangement took place. It was agreed, that upon his surrendering certain revenues he should receive a specific sum for his the civil list. It might be said, indeed, (and that was the only thing that could be urged) that in the enumeration of the revenues, which was moved for in consequence of his Majesty's message to parliament, this fund of 4½ per cent, was not surrendered by name. True: and why? Because he could not be said to possess them. Queen Anne never had them: and they were specifically exempted in the regulations for the revenue of George 1 and 2. But admitting that these sums ought to find their way into this country, they should certainly go to the consolidated fund, and not in aid of the civil list. With regard to the abuses, he would state that this fund had produced l,600,000l. since his Majesty's accession and out of this, 400,000l. had been paid for salaries to governors. If this sum had been paid, however, to the governors of Barbadoes and Leeward islands, there might be no reason to complain; but out of this 400,000l. all the governors of islands seemed to be paid, even those of Guernsey and Jersey. Why this unfortunate island of Barbadoes should be saddled with payment of governors of all our other islands in every part of the world no man could devise. For special or secret service, a sum of 326,000l. had been taken from this fund, altogether without the knowledge of parliament, a proceeding as injurious to the constitution as it was unjust to this island. In the same way, it appeared, 48,000l. had been apportioned amongst different secretaries of the Treasury, probably for parliamentary electioneering purposes; 170,000l, had been given at different times from this resource to the civil list without the knowledge of parliament, though the civil list was a fixed and settled sum, and though the crown came to parliament asking for payment of its debts, and concealing this contribution it raised from this devoted island of Barbadoes. But of this fund too, 740,000l. had in the course of the present reign been paid in pensions to different persons in this country. This fund had the double advantage of being out of sight, and that pensions to a greater amount might be granted out of it than out of the civil list, where by Mr. Burke's act they could not exceed 1,200l. per annum. These united circumstances had made the 4½ per cent, duties the general resort for all the fashionable world who were in pursuit of pensions. It was really too much that all those lords and ladies, and members of parliament, with their wives, and brothers, and sisters, who were to be seen in such numbers in this list of Barbadoes pensioners, should be permitted any longer to plunder this proscribed portion of the empire. The only remedy for this crying grievance to these islands, and this source of corruption to this country, was to do what was done in queen Anne's time, to. restore for a second time these duties to the local and colonial purposes for which they were originally intended. He should however, in the first instance, content himself with moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to examine into the nature of the duties arising in the island of Barbadoes, and the other Leeward islands, commonly called the 4½ per cent. Leeward island duties, and into the amount and application of the same; distinguishing each year, from the period of his Majesty's accession to the throne to the present time; and to report the same to the House, with their observations thereupon."

wished that the hon. gentleman had studied the history of the period he had alluded to with a little more attention, and he would then have found that the grant to the king by the act of the colony 1663, was in consideration of the planters being allowed to keep possession of their lands; and though he readily admitted, that in the island of Barbadoes (and there alone) a part of this revenue was to be applied to local purposes, yet the remainder was intended to be reserved to the king. When the hon. gentleman referred to what had been done by queen Anne, he should have taken into his observation all the collateral circumstances. The fact was this: a commission was sent out to Barbadoes to look into the state of the fortifications, which they had reported to be in complete ruin, and an Address was consequently presented to the queen, that she would be pleased to apply these duties to the purpose of repairing those fortifications, which she accordingly did, and therefore they were excepted in the arrangement of her majesty's revenues. It was his decided opinion that these funds were a part of the hereditary revenue of the crown, and of which it could not be divested but by an express act of parliament; and this opinion had been held by a recent committee of that House, which had declared that the 4½ per cent, duties had been considered as continuing at the disposal of the crown as its hereditary revenue. When he considered these circumstances, he could not but express his dissent at going into a committee to inquire into the application of this inferior branch of his majesty's revenue.

said, that the simple question was, did those funds belong to the crown, or did they not? He contended that they did not, that they were on the same footing as the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall, and no one would contend that the crown could grant pensions on the revenues of that duchy.

said, that the only person found on either side of the House to oppose the motion for a committee, was a right hon. gentleman who was a pensioner to the amount of 1,500l. a year upon these 4½ per cent, duties which it was the pur- pose of the motion to inquire into, and that right hon. gentleman had defended this disposition of them upon the sole ground of usage, as if because an abuse was an old one, it ought, therefore, to be continued. He then proceeded to shew that these duties were excepted out of the civil list of queen Anne, and also out of those of George the first and second, and could not consequently have vested in his present Majesty, The list given in to parliament at the commencement, did not contain any specification of these duties, because that list was not, as it had been alleged to be, a list of what his Majesty had given up in lieu of the civil list establishment, but a list of what theo vested in him, so that, according to his Majesty's own list, they had then the strongest negative testimony that the 4½ per cents, were not then in possession of the crown.

explained. He did not say that any length of time was a justifiable reason for the continuance of an abuse; but he stated the continuance of the practice in the crown of granting pensions out of this fund as a proof of its not being an abuse.

replied, that the only difference between him and the right hon. gentleman was, that what the right hon. gentleman called an old, practice he called an old abuse.

argued, that the excepting of this fund out of the civil lists of the sovereigns of this country from the time of king William, was not a proof of the fund not being an hereditary revenue of the crown, but rather the contrary. The fact was, then, when such exception took place, the crown took the disposal of the revenue into its own hands, and regular accounts of its application were constantly laid before parliament. It was not therefore, as the hon. gentleman had said, a fund out of sight. If this fund was to be appropriated particularly for local purposes, as it was contended, how came it that the Board of Trade, when recommending the repairing of the forts of Barbadoes, did not direct the expences attendant on such repairs to be defrayed out of these 4½ per cents? Lord Thurlow, too, as lord chancellor of England, had recognised the right of the crown to grant pensions out of this fund. The right hon. gentleman then defended the pension held by his right hon. friend. Considering his labour, for ten years, and the arduous situation which he filled with an inadequate salary, it was hard to say that a pension of 1,500l. was too great a recompense for him.

contrasted the situation of the inhabitants of Barbadoes now and at the time when, in the exuberance of their loyalty, they voluntarily made a grant of this revenue to the crown. Then they were a flourishing colony: now, they were reduced to a state calamitous in the extreme, by duties which we had imposed on them without their consent. They were now an oppressed, a tax-burthened, as well as a calumniated people.

replied, and said, that what ever might be the fate of his motion, he was determined not to let the subject sleep. He pledged himself to take every opportunity of bringing it forward in every shape he could before the House.

said, that he should not have risen, but for what had fallen from the hon. gentleman; and he certainly was astonished in no little degree, to hear the hon. gentleman's threat of renewing this question, after the plain and satisfactory statement of his right hon. friend. He did not mean to enter into the question; but he could not help alluding to the strange argument of the noble lord, which deduced a non-possession of this revenue in the crown from its being excepted out of the civil list. The simple truth was, that the excepting it out of the civil list was actually leaving it as an hereditary revenue to the crown. Before he sat down, he thought it right also merely to hint at what was said by an hon. gentleman of the distresses of the colonists. It was unfair to impute those distresses to duties levied on their sugars by us, when it was well known that they were to be attributed to the want of their usual great market,—to their being shut out from the continent.

observed, that it was very unusual for any member to take up a debate in the way that the right hon. gentleman had done. Without meaning any personal disrespect to the late Secretary of the Treasury, he had no hesitation to say, that on this subject he was a most questionable advocate: and however pleased the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been with the speech of the right hon. gentleman, be must confess that what blunted the right hon. gentleman's appetite, only whetted his. He thought with his hon. friend behind him, that it was highly improper that the business of these 4½ per cent, duties should rest where it now did. As to what the right hon. gentleman had said in relation to the distresses of the colonies, when the acquaintance with the state of the colonies of the hon. gentleman who called those colonists a devoted people was considered, he believed that the House would think with him, that what the right hon. gentleman had said was a little too much,—a little too presumptuous. Besides, the reply that those distresses proceeded from the difficulty of access to the continent, came with a very bad grace from the right hon. gentleman, whose measures were the chief cause of that difficulty. The hon. gentleman then remarked on the propriety of the pension settled on the Secretary of the Treasury. He asked, would parliament have addressed the King to grant him 1,500l. a year for his services, in case the 4½ per cents had not existed? Certainly not: and did not this fund, therefore, defeat the object of Mr. Burke's bill? He then alluded to other heads mentioned in the accounts of the expenditure of this fund, particularly that of Special Service. He did not know what this special service meant; but if he could lend an ear to the calumnies that were always going about, he might perhaps be able to understand it. It was to be sure impossible that any such thing as bribery and corruption could exist in that House now: but certainly there was a time when it was notorious that rank and gross bribery did exist there: and who knew but that the special service of that time was this very rank and gross bribery? To him it appeared, that there were sufficient grounds laid for going into the committee.

rose, for the purpose of moving the House that he might be discharged from attending the committee for which he had moved yesterday, on the subject of the expences of the Civil List. Mutilated as the committee was by the way in which it was appointed; deprived of the power of sending for persons, papers, and records; crippled as it was, in every respect, by the limited powers with which it was invested, or rather by the total want of all powers—he could not but conceive it perfectly inadequate to the accomplish- ment of the object he had in view, or, indeed, to the accomplishment of any good or legitimate object whatever. He most, therefore, beg that his attendance on such a committee be dispensed with. The committee might conjecture, but it could not come to any well-founded conclusion on any one topic which might come before them. They might express regret at any expence which might seem too great, but they could neither come to any sound judgment as to the amount of the unnecessary and improper expenditure, nor adopt means for preventing it in future. He was thoroughly persuaded that it would be a waste of his own time in him to attend such a committee; nor did he feel that he could be an efficient member of it.—The question being put and seconded,

was of opinion that after the hon. member had, no further off than yesterday, moved for the appointment of this very committee, and after the House had, on his own suggestion, reposed in him the duty of being a member of that committee, it was rather inconsistent in him now to come to the House, and desire to be discharged from attendance on the committee, merely because the House had not thought proper to grant to the hon. member alt that he asked. The House had refused, and he thought properly so, to grant to this committee greater powers than they had given to a committee on the same subject in 1804. But still when the committee met, if they should be of opinion that they had not due means of information on any particular subject, or even if any individual member of the committee was of that opinion, might not the committee, through their chairman, or any individual member, come to the House and move for such information as they might think wanting, on any branch of the subject referred to them? He did not see why the House ought to distrust the committee they had appointed; nor could he consent that the hon. member who had had a duty devolved on him by the House, at his own desire, should be discharged from that duty because he had not got all he wanted.

contended that the charge of inconsistency attempted to be made against his hon. friend was utterly unfounded. The right hon. gentleman said, it was inconsistent in his hon. friend to ask to be discharged of a duty which he had asked to be allowed to perform. Nothing, however, could be so unfounded. His hon. friend had asked for a committee to in quire; the House had appointed a committee to consider, but had denied him a committee to enquire. They had given him a committee utterly unfit for any good purpose. But, whether they were fit for any good purpose or not, it was enough for his hon. friend to say, that this was not the committee he asked. The committee appointed was a committee on nothing but accounts, and yet they were denied the power of sending for a single explanatory paper. If this was so, what inconsistency could be attributed to his hon. friend in requesting that he might be discharged from attending such a commit tee, after the House had denied them those powers, which could alone render their appointment available? He thought his hon. friend had acted a manly and becoming part in asking to be discharged from attending a committee whose labours must be completely inefficacious.

was of opinion, that any information which might be wanted by the committee might still be obtained by coming to the House, after they were aware of the particular head on which the papers, or other information, would be required. Then, too, it would be in the power of the House to consider, whether the information ought to be asked by vote or by address. The limited powers of the committee at present, did not go to infer a permanent exclusion of evidence, but only put it on the committee, in the first place, to see what could be done by the information afforded them by the crown.

contended, that his hon. friend had been perfectly consistent.

asked, would the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer now undertake to consent to address the crown for the papers necessary to enable the committee to come to some judgment on the matter referred to them? At present the committee had nothing to do but to take their chance of any papers falling into their way.

was afraid that the pre-sent motion might be of dangerous example, and induce the people to believe that that House wished to deny inquiry.