objected to the principle of making the expense of the new light on the isle of May fall on vessels that had no advantage from it. He thought that it should be paid by an increased rate on those vessels that navigated on the east coast of Scotland.

observed, that hitherto the northern lights were managed by one commission, and much the greater number of light-houses were on the west coast of Scotland. It would be found difficult, if not impossible, to proportion exactly what every vessel should pay to each lighthouse separately. The charge had therefore been paid to the common fund which supported theta all. Those who navigated the western coasts of Scotland, had hitherto all the advantage, as they paid less money, and had more light-houses. Those who navigated the eastern coasts, and who had paid most money to this fund, were entitled to have a good light on the isle of May, which should be paid from the same fund. They had been paying a long time towards the light-houses on the western coast; and it was but just that this light, which he knew to be necessary, should be paid out of the general fund.

spoke to his knowledge of the necessity of a new light on the isle of May.

A long conversation took place, and the committee divided, when there was a majority of 73 to 30 in favour of the Bill.

observed, that if in the committee it should be deemed expedient to make an augmentation of the income of the Princess of Wales, he was empowered to give the royal assent to such augmentation.

begged leave to put one question on a point of form, before the Speaker left the chair. He doubted whether it was regular, without any message from the crown, and without any distinct proposition, for the House to resolve itself into a committee. He did not think the papers upon the table afforded a sufficient ground for such a proceeding.

, not appearing to comprehend the nature of the question, replied, that if the Princess of Wales did not think fit to accept the augmentation to be proposed in the committee, it would be in the power of her Royal Highness to refuse it.

repeated his question. He thought it would be irregular for the House to proceed to the consideration of this subject without a message from the crown, or some other distinct information before it.

said, that it was a matter entirely for the decision of the House, whether the documents presented upon this subject, bore upon the face of them sufficient ground and authority for the proceeding now suggested. He was not aware that a question of this kind had ever before occurred in the history of parliament, and of course, therefore, the House would not expect from him any opinion. No grant of the public money could be made but by the royal assent; the only case that had any resemblance to the present was that of the 4½ per cent. duties.

observed, that all he could learn from the Speaker was, that this was a new case upon which the House was to make its own decision. There was certainly nothing in the papers that would raise any money question: they contained no reference to any grant of money: all they amounted to was, an agreement between the Prince and Princess of Wales, to separate in 1800, and another agreement in 1809, respecting an allowance then to be made to the Princess, upon condition, that if she incurred debts by exceeding her income, they were to be defrayed by act of parliament. It could not be said that there had been any such exceeding since that period; in short, nothing to authorize this novel mode of proceeding. The usual mode was for a message to be sent down, desiring the House to enable the crown to make any addition. He saw no reason why the noble lord should in this instance have gone out of the established practice, which had been pursued on every occasion when grants had been made to any branches of the royal family. There were but two modes in which these matters could be regularly discussed, either by moving an Address to the crown, or by bringing a message from the crown. The precedent that the noble lord was now about to set, might be attended with the most mischievous consequences. If it were a new case, a new remedy must undoubtedly be provided.

observed, that in all cases where grants had been made to the junior branches of the royal family, the most usual and most natural way had been by message from the throne; but he did not think the House would judge it expedient to follow this precedent on all occasions, where an allowance, under circumstances like those of the present case, had already been made. In cases where the crown was addressed by parliament, the occupant of the throne was not supposed to be acquainted with the object. The question had been already raised in parliament; the disposition of the House to make an additional allowance was well known; it was not, then, unnatural or improper in the crown, to give its assent that the question might be brought under the view of the House.

begged the noble lord to inform him of what it was in this case that the crown took notice? It was all very well for the noble lord to say that there was a general feeling in the House in favour of an augmentation,—but what was the fact? One single member had made a motion upon the subject, which was afterwards withdrawn. Did this look like a general concurrence in the House? The question he wished to be answered was, Of what it was that the crown took notice?

added, that the crown possessed so much knowledge of the fact, as to order the papers to be laid before the House. His lordship did not see any objection to any member making a motion on the subject, the consent of the crown having been given, and in the exercise of his discretion he wished to make such a proposal to the House.

replied, that no answer had been given to his question. The royal assent having been given, any member, it was true, could make a motion; but why were the papers upon the table referred to the committee before that assent was known? There was no information before the House relating to any question of money. He requested the opinion of the Speaker.

remarked, that he saw no objection to referring the information to a committee of the House. What was to be done in that committee was another question: it might be a question whether upon such a basis the House could found a measure like that which was now to be suggested.

thought that the better way would have been for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the establishment of the Princess of Wales. His principal object in rising was to ask the noble lord on what precedent he founded his motion? He had understood him to say, on a former occasion, that it was consistent with the practice of parliament, though not in the best times.

then stated his opinion: The case was admitted to be entirely novel; all that was analogous to ordinary proceedings was, that certain papers, by royal command, had been laid upon the table. It was competent, then, for any member to move that those papers should be taken into consideration; but if the object was a grant of money, the recommendation of the crown was necessary. Whether these papers, so referred, would afford a sufficient basis, was not a question for his decision, but he knew of no irregularity in referring the papers to a committee, or why the crown might not be supposed to know the contents of papers that it had ordered to be laid upon the table. It was impossible to judge in this case but by its analogy to the ordinary proceeding.

said, he would submit to the doctrine laid down by the Speaker, if the papers on the table had any reference to a grant of money.

said, that the difficulty arose from the premature motion of the noble lord, who ought to have waited until the House was in a committee, before he stated that he was commissioned to give the royal assent. The mode of proceeding that night adopted, was certainly not the most respectful to any individual, but more particularly to the Princess of Wales. When the noble lord on the night of the discussion of this subject, announced the various documents that had passed, he certainly had mentioned in terms a formal deed of separation, but among the papers upon the table no such paper was included. The noble lord had asserted, that it was drawn up by the highest legal authorities of the day, but it turned out to be nothing more than a pecuniary arrangement for the augmentation of the income of the Princess of Wales to 17,000l. by quarterly payments, and providing that, if her Royal Highness should exceed her income, such excess should be defrayed by act of parliament; although, in another part of the same instrument, the Prince was made liable thereby, disproving the assertion, that it was drawn up by the most eminent legal authorities. It was but justice to state, as he did then assert from the best authority—authority which he could not doubt—that so far from any cause having arisen for the motion of that night, the fact was, that the Princess of Wales had made such œconomical arrangements to meet the difficulties of the times, that at the present moment she was not indebted to the extent of a single shil- ling. The princess had made no call upon parliament or upon the Prince for assistance, and she had given no authority for any application for the increase of her income. Before the House went into the committee, he deemed it right further to state, what had been the pecuniary situation of the Princess of Wales up to the present time. The Princess of Wales arrived in this country in 1795, expecting to participate in all the splendor of the heir apparent of the British throne; but very shortly afterwards, from circumstances which it was not necessary to recapitulate, a separate establishment was formed for her Royal Highness, which was paid by the Prince of Wales until 1800. In that year it was thought fit to make arrangements, limiting the expenditure of the Princess of Wales, When she resided in Carlton House, with an establishment provided for her, she was allowed 17,000l. per annum, exclusive of 5,000l. pin money, allowed by act of parliament; but upon the separation, her whole income was reduced to 12,000l. a year: out of that limited sum, not being able to pay the necessary expenses of furniture, plate, and linen, for a new and distinct establishment, considerable debts were incurred; and it was agreed by the minister of the day, to recommend to his Majesty the payment of those debts; but the provision being made near the time of the death of Mr. Pitt, the discharge was not completely accomplished. Afterwards, the Princess of Wales had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Perceval, at which time the debts altogether amounted to 51,000l. and a fraction. The Prince of Wales agreed to take upon himself the payment of 49,000l. including the balance remaining unpaid under Mr. Pitt's arrangement. At this period also, the income of the Princess of Wales was augmented to 17,000l. per annum and the excuse made for the smallness of the previous amount was, the difficulties in which the Prince of Wales was involved, which reduced his own income to 24,000l. It must be confessed, however, that these embarrassments were in no respect to be attributed to the Princess of Wales, and she had, on separation, a right to expect such a provision as became the rank she held. The hon. member begged to take this opportunity of obliterating the impression which the noble lord had made upon the House and upon the country, by his solemn assertion, that a formal deed of separation, drawn up by the first legal authorities, had been agreed upon by the Prince and Princess of Wales, and sanctioned by the authority of the common parent of the parties and of the people. The truth was that no such instrument had ever been signed, nor would the Princess of Wales have put her hand to any such document. When, however, the income of the Regent was increased to 60,000l. it was required that some addition should be made to that of the Princess of Wales, which then was limited to only 12,000l. per annum. In consequence, in 1809, that 12,000l. was increased to 17 000l. The rapid rise in the value of all articles of consumption was felt by all; and on this ground applications had been made by other branches of the royal family for additions to their salaries: the Princess of Wales, however, had met these difficulties by other means; she had adopted economical arrangements by which the interference now proposed was not necessary, and Mr. Whitbread believed never would be required. She had not exceeded her income, and had neither suggested, directed authorized, nor sanctioned any application to parliament for pecuniary assistance. Thus much he had thought it necessary to state before the House went into the committee.

said, that he should postpone some remarks upon what had fallen from the hon. member until after the Speaker had left the chair.

supported the motion for the House going into the committee.

observed, upon a confusion of terms employed in this discussion. The consent and recommendation of the crown were totally distinct; the proper phrase in this case was certainly the latter.

said, that he was authorized to employ the word 'recommendation' in its largest sense.

The Speaker then left his seat, and the House went into the committee.

rose, and spoke as follows:—It is my wish, before I proceed further into the subject, to correct some misapprehensions as to the nature and extent of the income of the Princess of Wales, which have gone abroad at various periods, but which do not vary the result. The hon. member has repeated the statement made by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Methuen) on a former night, that previous to the year 1800, the income of the Princess of Wales was 17,000l. besides 5,000l. for her privy purse, paid out of the Exchequer. If I am correctly informed, drawing my intelligence through the most authentic channels, the Princess of Wales, previous to the year 1800, had no fixed annual income, and that after that year 12,000l. were allowed. While her Royal Highness continued to reside at Carlton House, her fixed income was only 5,000l. allowed by act of parliament, her other expenses being paid out of the general fund for domestic charges, as the bills of the Prince of Wales. It is entirely a mistake to suppose, that upon any occasion I spoke of a formal deed of separation: that which amounted to the same thing was signed in 1800, which first established a fixed income for the Princess of Wales. It is not the fact that the Princess of Wales was allowed 22,000l. before she quitted Carlton House; but it is true, that on leaving it 12,000l. a year was granted, not as any deduction, but as a new arrangement, and a fixed income. I must repeat, what I said upon a former night, that, considering the existing circumstances of his Royal Highness, this allowance was as liberal or more liberal than any individual so situated would have given; it exceeded one quarter of his whole income. I will not enter now into any arguments respecting extravagancies on either side, but on the part of the Prince of Wales, I do maintain, that he acted in this engagement with the same liberality that has ever marked his conduct towards the Princess of Wales. He took upon himself, in 1809, the payment of 49,000l. the debt of his wife, who lived in a state of separation, and rather than allow her creditors to suffer, he put himself to great personal inconvenience. With respect to the amount of the debts of the Princess of Wales, the hon. member and the House will see that if the sum of 49,000l. paid in 1809, be divided into an annual income between that date and the separation in 1800, it will appear that the actual income of the Princess of Wales was more than 22,000l. per annum. This was exclusive of the sums paid out of the droits of Admiralty, amounting to 32,000l. and 6,000l. The actual reduction, however, of the Prince of Wales's income, from 1800 to 1809, was 22,000l. per annum. It now came to the question, what addition it was fit to make to the revenue of the Princess of Wales, and what sum it was expedient for parliament to grant?

At the time the arrangement was made in 1809, it was intended to be final and binding upon the parties who treated, as in a state of absolute and complete separation. However conclusive it might be upon them, it does not, however, preclude parliament from interfering to enable the Princess of Wales to maintain an establishment more suited to her station in the country.—The measure, which under all the circumstances I think most desirable, is to raise the income of the Princess of Wales to that point, to which it would be raised in the event of the demise of the Prince Regent; for, without entering into legal details as to the nature of the separation, it is universally known to be as complete in fact as any separation which can take place between two persons. As, therefore, the Princess of Wales cannot be in the enjoyment of those advantages which, if both these illustrious persons lived together, she would receive, and as it is not within the province of parliament to investigate the causes of these differences, nor consistent with the interest or dignity of the royal family that any question respecting their differences should be entertained in this House—it seems consistent with justice, that her Royal Highness should be placed in the same situation pending this separation, in which she would stand in the event of another calamity. By the proposition which I shall submit to the committee, the income of her Royal Highness will thus be raised to a net amount of 50,000l. per annum. The manner in which I wish to propose this income to be payable, is, that the whole charge of it should rest on the consolidated fund, instead of being in part issued from the income of the Prince Regent, and in part from the Exchequer, as is the case at present; and that the public shall be indemnified to the amount of the sum which is at present paid to the Princess of Wales, out of the income of the Prince Regent.

As to the nature of the arrangement formerly made between the Prince of Wales and the Princess, the object was, that his Royal Highness should not be, subsequently to the signing of that paper, liable to the debts contracted by the Princess. It is true that it was only on the generosity of his Royal Highness that the creditors of the Princess had any claim; as they had not complied with the rules of the law enacted for the regulation of the Prince of Wales's income, in which it was expressed that unless all debts were given in within three months after they had been contracted, they should not be re-claimable. Thus it was to the generosity of his Royal Highness, that the creditors of the Princess of Wales were indebted for the payment which has been alluded to, and not to any want on the part of his Royal Highness of legal protection. But his Royal highness was not secure against being liable to the future debts of the Princess, as he might at any time have been obliged to pay any debt contracted by the Princess, if her creditors had taken the trouble to give in their claims to the Prince within the stated time. It may be doubted, indeed, whether it would not have been a sufficient bar to the recovery from the Prince of all debts contracted by the Princess of Wales, that the two illustrious persons were notoriously in a state of separation, and that her Royal Highness had a separate allowance assigned for her sustenance. If in such a case, independently of all deeds of separation, the creditors of the wife could not recover à fortiori with a deed of separation, they could not have any claim. But it was the peculiar situation of the Prince of Wales at that time, that, for the purpose of justice to his actual creditors, the parliament had taken away from him the ability of incurring debts, and from entering into any deed which might affect his income. It was thus that his Royal Highness required the protection of the law more than any other subject, and it was to this purpose that the paper which has been presented to the House was drawn up, and his Majesty's signature affixed, not only as a proof of the separation of the illustrious parties, and the separate maintenance, but that there was not only the separation de facto, but such an improbability, or rather impossibility, that a termination of this separation should take place, that his Majesty was induced to lend his sanction to the deed of arrangement. From motives of delicacy, his Royal Highness had at the same time undertaken to pay the debts previously contracted by the Princess, with the assurance on the part of his Majesty, conveyed in the paper which has been mentioned, that in future cases, if any such occurred, he should be allowed to seek protection from parliament.

As to the nature of the regulations of the measure, it will be unnecessary for me to detail them minutely, until the Bill itself shall be submitted to the considera- tion of parliament. It will not be advisable to place her Royal Highness under the same disability in which the parliament has thought fit to place the Princess of Wales, because in fact no debt has been lately incurred by her Royal Highness to call for the interference of parliament. Another object of the measure I shall propose is, to protect the Prince Regent from the payment of any debts which may in future be contracted by the Princess of Wales, as her Royal Highness will now have a distinct separate income charged on the consolidated fund. I wish to propose that the net annual sum of 50,000l. be granted to the Princess of Wales, and that the 5,000l. per ann. and the 17,000l. per annum, which she at present enjoys, be withheld from the Prince Regent's income. His lordship having stated that this was the general outline of the measure he should propose, concluded by moving this Resolution—"That it is the opinion of the Committee, that his Majesty be enabled to grant the annual sum of 50,000l. out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain, for the maintenance of her royal highness the Princess of Wales."

rose to set the Committee right as to the past income of the Princess of Wales, and observed, that she was not guilty of the embarrassment created by the act of parliament to which she was not a party. He could not illustrate the matter better than by a statement of the various arrangements which had been made for the payment of the Prince of Wales's debts. Before the Princess of Wales came to this country, she expected to find the Prince of Wales in the full enjoyment of the splendor due to his station, as the second final arrangement for the payment of his debts had been made previous to her arrival. Shortly after her arrival in this country, it was found impossible that his Royal Highness could continue his establishments in the dignity in which parliament had expected them to have been maintained. In the consequent reduction of the establishments, the Princess of Wales necessarily shared, which, after two final arrangements, she could not have expected. Seventeen thousand pounds were, however, at that time set aside for her, whether paid into her hands or not, besides the 5,000l. Which was legally due to her as pin-money, and which was vested in the hands of lord Cholmondeley and lord Thurlow. In 1797 the separation was determined on, and here he should ask why the term separation was so much dwelt on by the noble lord? Did he mean to found any legal measure on such a term, or to prevent her Royal Highness from the enjoyment of any of her just rights? Her Royal Highness was no party to a use of this word, nor did he agree that the paper which had been laid on the table, amounted to a deed of separation. The Chancellor himself had expressed the gravest doubts, whether any instrument of separation could have a legal effect. When the Princess of Wales had been limited to 12,000l. a year, it was said that it was a great act of generosity to increase her allowance. But it was just to remember, that when the Princess left Carlton-house, she had to provide her furniture, plate, and house-rent—for the only articles which were given to her from Carlton-house, were some knives and forks. It would not, therefore, seem any great act of generosity that this allowance was increased. It would be seen how moderate this allowance of 12,000l. a year, to which the necessity of the Prince of Wales had reduced her Royal Highness, was, when it was remembered that by an application made on his behalf on the 5th of December, 1797, by lord Cholmondeley, her Royal Highness was offered, in the event of a separation, a house in town with 20,000l. a year, besides the 5,000l. settled on her. In 1800, however, when the separation took place, 12,000l. was the extent of the allowance to her Royal Highness; and yet surprise was expressed that a debt should have been contracted, and paid out of the income of the Prince of Wales, to the amount of the 6,000l. paid for the relinquishment of a house in Greenwich park, All that was necessary on this part of the question, was to relieve her Royal Highness from the imputation of extravagance, and from the idea of her having entertained any wish or desire of the means of gratifying that propensity, or that such was the intention of the applications which had been made to the House. She had not been satisfied with the allowance which she had possessed, nor had she any disposition to have it increased until she had known the sense of the House on the subject. No such intention was entertained by any one who had applied to parliament on the subject of her Royal Highness, and he could distinctly state, that the Princess had never authorized any one, directly or indirectly, to make any proposition on the subject of increasing her income since the arrangement of 1809.

observed, that though an arrangement, which was considered final, had been made respecting the Prince of Wales's debts, yet as they had been contracted, it was necessary for them in some manner to be paid. He had not mentioned the sum of 6,000l. for the house at Greenwich, as having been paid out of the Prince of Wales's income: it had, in fact, been paid out of the droids of Admiralty. But 6,000l. was paid out of the Prince of Wales's income, being the balance left unpaid on those debts intended to have been paid out of the droits of the Admiralty, but which were only paid from that fund to the amount of 32,000l. If the amount of the debts of the Princess paid by the Prince, had been added to her income, it would have amounted to 22,000l. per annum, with a remainder of 6,000l. The Princess also had never been at the entire expence of her places of residence, for places of residence, with considerable outfit, had been assigned to her by his Majesty; though he did not intend to found any argument on the statement he had made, yet he thought it just that the Prince Regent should have full credit for the exertions which he had made for the Princess. He repeated, that never any husband surrendered up so much for a wife as his Royal Highness had done; and that, whatever was the cause or result of the separation, it had never been his intention to visit the Princess with any pecuniary inconvenience.

observed, in explanation, that between 26 and 27,000l. had been paid for the Princess out of the droits of the Admiralty, and not 32,000l. which was the amount of all the debts intended to have been so paid.

did not wish to trespass on the time of the Committee, but he must say, that he understood the separation between the Prince Regent and the Princess of Wales, simply as a separation arising from incompatibility of temper, or some such reason, and no farther. He lamented that the difference had run to such an extent, but he should decline all comments upon it. He offered to the noble lord his thanks for his achievement. All he had already done was less than this, by which he had advised his Royal Highness to recommend a suitable provision for the Princess of Wales. By this proposition, the rank and dignity of the Princess of Wales were recognised by parliament; and that step happily having been taken, he hoped that, on the approaching day of public thanksgiving, there could be little doubt, that her Royal Highness would find her place in the procession, though not particularly near to the Prince Regent, and her place in the cathedral: than which nothing could be more pleasing to the House and to the country. One word as to the mode of payment. When he said that the Princess, if apart, was entitled to 50,000l. a year, he added, that if he had the honour of being her adviser, he should recommend her not to burthen the country with so large a sum. He should think, perhaps, that 28,000l. would be what she might be disposed to receive. But supposing the 50,000l. granted and accepted, he did not understand the arrangement respecting the consolidated fund, on which it was proposed to charge it in one sum, as it was said, for greater convenience; and in lieu of the 17,000l. and the 5,000l. a year. But what, then, became of the remaining sums from the fund? The Prince of Wales had 60,000l. a year from it for his father's and his own life. The Prince could not be in want of that sum, except in the case of the King's recovery. He now received 60,000l. per annum, voted to him only as Prince of Wales; but he was otherwise provided for by the Civil List, &c. He wished to know why this might not be taken away altogether, and the public be relieved of the burthen? Why not transfer fifty of the 60,000l. to the Princess? The noble lord thought the Prince, under present arrangements, could have no debts; yet it was said he retained a sum to pay debts. It would appear that the Prince of Wales made the charge, and that the Princess was to take all the odium of it. But the Prince had encumbrances. He should never argue on that topic. All he would say was, if it were so, and there was no fund, to pay all off at once, and above board, as had been done for his royal father, and let his Royal Highness live like the sovereign of this great empire. In justice to the Princess of Wales, he must say, if she accepted the 50,000l. a year, that it was not her charge on the country; but that it was necessary, from another sum being devoted to purposes unknown to parliament.

disclaimed any credit to himself for the proposition which he had made. More credit was due to the hon.

gentleman whom he did not see in his place (Mr. Methuen); for if the advocates of the princess had before fairly said that an increase of her allowance was the object, there would have been no difficulty on the subject. In answer to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, he should say, that the last occasion on which he should endeavour to bring together parties who felt mutual repugnance, would be on an occasion where devotion might be interrupted by feelings of the nature alluded to. As to the income formerly granted to the Prince of Wales, it had been applied since the time of the regulation which first took place after the Regency, to the liquidation of the debts of the Prince Regent. Since that time the liquidation had proceeded; not one new debt had been charged on that fund, and it was the intention of the Prince Regent that no new debts should be charged on it, and when the present debts were liquidated, it would revert to the country.

said, he was satisfied, now he understood that the fund in question existed only till the Prince's debts were paid, although he did not know when that would be, or what the debts were. As to the appearance of the Princess on the Thanksgiving-day, he did not ask the noble lord to work impossibilities, but it was reasonable that when the House of Commons had voted to the Princess of Wales so large a sum as 50,000l. a year, that she should be present at a solemnity at which the Royal Family, Peeresses, Lords and Commoners were to be present. He did not expect any reconciliation, but it would be pleasing to the public to see the two royal personages together, and he earnestly hoped, that the rank of the Princess would be respected on that occasion, because, otherwise, so large a vote would savour of a bribe or a compromise. He was persuaded that the noble lord could mean no such insult, and that the Regent was incapable of it. The proclamation commanded that all persons should go to church on Thursday, and that such as did not, would fall under his Royal Highness's severe displeasure. What, then, was the Princess to do? Was she to be shut out from the cathedral church? He hoped not; but that if not in the same pew with the Prince, some place would be found for her Royal Highness.

. I again disclaim what has been imputed by the noble lord. That money has been my motive in bringing forward these discussions, I again peremptorily deny.—I had it in contemplation to obtain for the Princess of Wales justice—I had it in contemplation to obtain mercy—I had it in contemplation to obtain the protection of this House, and the protection has been obtained. The member for Wiltshire (Mr. Methuen), who first mentioned the proposition of a vote on a former night, disclaimed all authority from the Princess of Wales. When first she heard of the proposition, she said, "I shall not be allowed to starve in this country—I shall not be obliged to beg my bread—and I will not compromise my rights for any thing which can be offered to me." Whatever she accepts, it must be in the contemplation that she gives up nothing of rank, of dignity, and character, which, by the grant of this separate and ample—too ample allowance, it is evident she holds in the eyes of all the nation. It is matter of consideration, whether her Royal Highness shall be admitted within that Cathedral, where all of high rank are to be admitted. If an application made on her behalf were refused, how would the nation brook this indignity? If there be found one to advise a denial, and if it be intended not only to exclude her Royal Highness from the drawing-room, from matters of ceremony, but from saying her prayers with the nation—what a mere mockery will the proclamation of the Prince Regent and our Resolutions be, if, when we pray for forgiveness of our trespasses as we forgive others, there is one person in the kingdom shut out—not from forgiveness only—but from justice. As to the provision which is to be made by this vote, it is large—much larger than any of the friends of her Royal Highness could have contemplated, if any such idea had entered their minds. It is for her Royal Highness to consider, whether she thinks proper to accept the whole of it. I have no doubt that she will act with dignity and propriety; and if she calls in advisers on the subject, I hope she will call in such as will support her in her own honourable ideas.

felt great satisfaction in voting for the proposition, the rather because he trusted it would be final. By the act of that night, they were following up the manifestation of their sentiments as formerly expressed, in a manner that could not be mistaken. He should have abstained from speaking, but for some observations from the hon. gentleman opposite, which leant rather in favour of her Royal Highness's declining the grant. He had seen but one course in this business, and that was to abstain from particular points, whereon they could come to no decision. If her Royal Highness was advised to object to the grant, it would seem as if she looked to some future dissensions; he hoped, therefore, on all accounts, that the grant, such as the wisdom of the House voted it, would be accepted by the Princess in all its extent. It was for her interest and her honour to avoid any other construction, than that she rested implicitly on what had passed.

supported the motion; but refrained from giving any opinion of the cause of it.

The Resolution was agreed to unanimously.

moved the second reading of the Bill. An hon. alderman, he said, had, on a former evening, represented this Bill as a subversion of the whole constitution of the city of London. He could not conceive how the constitution would be subverted by calling in other members of its corporation to assist in superintending those goals. Notwithstanding all that had been said about the rules of the goals where criminals were confined, he found no other rules but what were drawn up by the gaolors. As to the regulations, the state of most of those prisons, and the Borough compeer in particular, called most strongly for redress. He did not mean to cast censure on the aldermen, but he supposed that, from their many other avocations, they had not time to visit, with sufficient attention, those prisons.

contended, that the present Bill was not justified by any thing which appeared on the face of the Report. In a short time the magistrates of London would have it in their power to liberate 3 or 400 prisoners from Newgate, and then to provide for the better accommodation of prisoners in their other gaols. If the present Bill passed, the aldermen must feel degraded and disgraced. They must feel that a higher authority had been placed over them. To such a degradation they had no right to submit. If they had done amiss, or had forfeited the confidence of the House and of the public, let theta be brought before a competent tribunal, and there exposed: but let them not be stigmatized without proof or cause of any kind. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

, in seconding this motion, entered into an enumeration of the comforts and improvements in the situation of the prisoners, lately introduced by the magistrates of London, by which he contended, they were in point of diet, rendered infinitely more comfortable than the generality of the poor inhabitants of Yorkshire, of Ireland, or of Scotland. The prisoners were visited daily by the sheriffs; weekly, by the alderman sitting in rotation at Guildhall; and eight times a year by three aldermen, one of whom had passed, and two of whom had not passed the chair. He asked, could any thing be more complete than this? If the hon. gentleman, however, wished to point out any thing amiss in the direction, let it be shewn and the only desire of the magistrates was that it should be remedied.

declared, he had never in his life seen a worse-managed goal than that of Newgate. When he, on a late melancholy occasion, attended to that prison an unfortunate being, which had deprived the House of the services of one of the best of men, there literally could not be found a room in which to place him. Let the House compare the state of Newgate with the state of the goal of Gloucester, or of that of York. If the magistracy of London spent on the prisons of the metropolis only a fiftieth part of the money they expended in magnificent entertainments, the unhappy prisoners would soon be in a very different plight. That something ought to be done was evident.

allowed that something ought to be done. But the question before the House was, whether the particular Bill that was proposed was the best measure that could be adopted. In his opinion, a great part of the existing evil arose from the crowded state of Newgate, and would be remedied when the prisons now in progress should be completed. He could see no good that would be gained by taking the management of the prison out of the present hands. It would be a great reflection on the magistracy of London thus to supersede them in the exercise of their functions. He admitted that many county goals were in much better condition, but this was solely attributable to the subdivision of the prisoners which took place in them, a practice which in the existing state of Newgate could not be resorted to.

contended, that want of room was not the only evil experienced in Newgate. To this were to be added want of food, and want of clothing. The evidence before the committee fully established the fact, that the prisoners laboured under these privations.

, while he professed himself unable to see why the aldermen and the common councilmen should be considered as antagonists under the Bill, and while he contended, that, on the contrary, they would soon act in perfect concert, admitted that it would be adviseable for the hon. gentleman to withdraw his Bill for a year, in order that it might be better digested, that the individuals to be selected for the management should be better considered, and that the effect of the goals now building should be fully ascertained. He hoped also, that as the attention of the magistracy had been so pointedly called to the subject many important reforms would be adopted. If, however, contrary to his expectation, the evil should still exist next year, neither the antiquity of the present constitution of the city, nor any other consideration, should induce him to withhold his assent from some legislative measure of correction.

said, it was evident from what had been already stated, that many most glaring defects did not originate in the want of room, but in the want of attention in the magistrates. In the Borough computer, that wretched prison, so late as Saturday last, a man was obliged to lie the night through on boards for want of blankets. It had been objected by a right hon. gentleman, that there were no regulations in this Bill for the administration of the prison; but the Bill empowered a committee to make such regulations as should be deemed necessary. The many improvements of late made in county goals had not been made by Acts of parliament, but by country gentlemen meeting together, and putting their shoulders fairly to the work. With respect to the Borough computer, on the 18th of September, application had been made to the court of aldermen on behalf of the prisoners, as there were only 12 rugs for 22 persons. The number of persons was afterwards 35; and yet, during the whole of the last long and severe winter, not the smallest attention was paid to this application.

, in reply, said he saw no reason why the common council should not be associated with the aldermen in this, as well as other matters, such as the building of prisons, &c.

The House then divided, for the second reading, 23: against it, 18—Majority, 5. The Bill was read a second time accordingly.

spoke against the provisions of the Bill, while he bore testimony to the zeal and activity of the author of it, and that of the government with which he was connected. His right hon. friend and the Irish government were, in his judgment, entitled to the highest praise for their endeavours to preserve the peace of Ireland, and especially in suppressing that obnoxious institution the Catholic Board. But while he acknowledged this merit, he deprecated any attempt to cast an imputation upon the general tranquility and loyalty of the Irish nation, to which he was sorry to understand that Great Britain was not generally partial. That four-fifths of Ireland was as loyal and tranquil as any part of England, he was fully prepared to assert, and therefore he disapproved of any intimation to the contrary, which this Bill appeared to convey. The hon. baronet animadverted upon the several clauses of the Bill, especially the provisions authorising the lord lieutenant, of his own will (without any representation from the magistrates) to declare any district in a disturbed state, to subject that district to a superintendent magistrate, with a salary of 700l. a year; such other officers to be paid at the expenses of the county in which such district might be placed. Of these provisions the hon. baronet expressed his decided disapprobation.

suggested the propriety of provisions authorizing magistrates in Ireland to appoint petty constables as they were appointed in this country, and also for the constitution of proper places for holding quarter sessions in the several counties.

submitted to the consideration of government, whether it might not be necessary to adopt a stronger measure than this Bill imported, for the preservation of the peace of Ireland. If there should be occasion for such a measure, he trusted that it would be brought forward in due time before the conclusion of the session.

said, that it might be necessary to submit some such proposition to the committee, as his hon. friend had alluded to, but he was unwilling to mix any temporary measure with the consideration of the present Bill, which was brought forward with a view to the permanent preservation of the peace in Ireland, adding that Ireland was certainly not in such a state as could be wished. The present measure, however, had no reference to such a consideration.

The clauses were agreed to; the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.

stated, that considerable reductions would probably he expected in the estimates which he had to bring forward. In fact, a reduction would be found in the present year of 1,500,000l. This sum amounted to one quarter of the whole expenses. It would be recollected that half of the year had passed in war, and there had not been an opportunity to reduce the different expenses immediately. It was the beginning of April before it was known that Paris had been entered by the allies; soon after Buonaparté abdicated, and on the 19th of that month, orders were issued by the Master-General of the Ordnance to reduce the establishments in every possible way. The military department had been reduced one-fourth; the number of horse one third; and in the course of the year they would be reduced another third—that was from 7,000 to a third of that number. He would not pledge himself to an exact estimate of the future reduction of expenses, but he would offer a rough calculation of the probable reduction under the peace establishment. This he conceived would be one half, exclusive of the total reduction of all the foreign corps. In the engineer corps all the officers would be retained. This arose from the peculiar nature of that service, which required a long and laborious course of education, and which, if once suffered to fall into neglect, could not easily be replaced. It was not possible to speak in too high terms of the skill, the industry, and gallantry of the officers in this corps. He would next advert to what might be considered as an infant service, which had, however, arrived at a state of manhood; he meant the rocket corps. For this service, and for the wonders it had achieved in raising the military character of the country, we were indebted to an hon. friend of his, whom, as he did not see in his place, he would name, colonel Congreve. The hon. member then read several extracts from officers in the army, to shew the importance of the services which this corps had performed in Spain, and particularly at the passage of the Adour, where 40 men armed with rockets had put to flight 3,000 of the enemy. The whole of the officers in this corps would be retained, but there would be a reduction in the number of men. In the works at Woolwich there had been a considerable reduction, and there would have been a greater, but from the necessity of giving the usual orders, and buying up materials as early in the year as possible. The whole amount was 64,000l. every shilling of which he thought himself prepared to justify. One article under this head, which it was proper to account for, was 6.000l. for barracks. The fact was that these were intended for a new corps of Sappers and Miners, for whom the barracks at Woolwich were not found sufficient. For the royal powder mills there was a sum of 12,000l. which arose chiefly from the improvements which had been adopted in the different mills to prevent explosions. There had been also great improvements, and consequently some expence in the machinery at Woolwich. Of the magnitude and importance of these works, we might judge from the quantity of arms and ammunition which had been sent abroad from the Laboratary at Woolwich, since the year 1808, among which were 834 pieces of cannon, 30,000 muskets, 77,000 barrels of gunpowder, and in the last year alone 320 cannon, 20,000 barrels of gunpowder, 48 millions of musket cartridges, 6 millions of flints, &c. Among the improvements in the machinery were two saws, which had cost from 16 to 20 thousand pounds, and which had already created a saving of near 8,000l. After various statements and details, the hon. gentleman concluded with observing, that he should not have detained the House so long, but that he was urged by a sense of duty to give every information and explanation in his power.

The Chairman then proposed the vote of 1.746,000l. on account, for discharging the Ordnance Estimates.

testified their approbation of the general view that had been exhibited by the hon. gentleman, though the last-named gentleman thought the peace establishment was larger than either the reason of the thing, or the state of the country, could allow.

deprecated the idea of keeping up a very large military establishment in this country in time of peace.

, without giving any decisive opinion on the subject, thought it not unlikely that a force of from 99 to 100,000 men, including all arms, would be found necessary even in time of peace.

, though he was satisfied that the hon. gentleman himself expected to be able to be much better than his word in the way of reduction, yet did not think it desirable that the idea of the expediency of keeping up a large force in the time of peace should be encouraged, as these were prophecies very apt to produce their own accomplishment.

also deprecated the keeping up a very large force in time of peace.

again said, that it would not be consistent with the interest, hardly with the safety, of the country, to keep up such a force as 100,000 men.

The resolutions were then put, and carried.