opposed the bill on the principle of it. As a matter of regulation he should feel no objection to it, but as a finance measure it should not have his concurrence, and he believed the chancellor of the exchequer would find himself disappointed in his expectations, if he thought it would be productive to the revenue. He also opposed it as it would tend considerably to injure the kelp trade.

wished to be informed by the chancellor of the exchequer, whether this bill was intended merely as a regulation bill, or a bill to raise money, and if the latter, he would ask what sum did the right hon. gentleman think it would raise? He had been informed that it was calculated to raise two or three hundred thousand pounds.

replied, that the bill was intended first to protect the whale fisheries, but afterwards it was found that it would produce an addition to the revenue, which was not calculated to exceed 150,000l Some regulations had been introduced into it which had been afterwards altered on the representation of the manufacturers of hard soap, who had pointed out the inequality of the operation of the bill on them and the manufacturers of soft soap. The whole of the increased duty would fall very lightly on the public, not being on an average more than three-pence per head on each person in the kingdom. The additional duty would not amount to more than eight or nine shillings in the hundred weight, and the whole duty would not be more than 30s. per hundred.

opposed the bill. He observed that though the duty might be but small on individuals, yet it was by these imperceptible degrees that taxes had been raised to their present enormous amount.

believed the calculation would fall short of the amount, and that the tax would be 2s. each on a million of families. He would not object to any fair plan of taxation; but he was convinced this tax would fall most heavily on the lower classes.

observed, that by the alterations, the regulation part of this bill was dropped, and the tax part continued. Like other bills professing regulations, this was in fact a revenue bill, and was imperceptibly slipped through the House to a certain stage, before people knew the nature of it; and so they were prevented from considering their interests properly. The manufacturers, however, could easily combine, and one set get their exemptions, and another their drawbacks: and the consumers still had the tax to pay, after the manufacturers were relieved from what particularly pressed on them. It seemed the practice of the treasury never to bring in a bill of regulation without turning a penny by it. It was said that this tax would amount only to three-pence a head on an average, as it would be about four-pence on the higher, and three-halfpence on the lower classes. But thus measures advanced by degrees. Straw was laid on straw, till the last straw broke the mare's back. Additional taxation on soap, even at the lowest rate, must increase the price of labour. Had the tax on salt been begun at fifteen shillings a bushel, it would not have been borne; but the practice was to begin low, and then to advance, and say it was only threepence or four-pence in the increase. He hoped the House would pause before they passed a tax bill on an article of necessity, for which the only defence was, that the amount of the increase was small.

said, nothing was more beneficial to the public, in matters of taxation, than to avoid taxes on articles of consumption: but what was to become of the revenue, if all such taxes were resisted, after the property tax had been given up? If the revenue could not be supplied in a more desirable way, we must be driven to the necessity of laying on such taxes as the present.

observed, that gentlemen opposite, finding they could not, through the assessed taxes, or any other assessments, find an equivalent for the lost property tax, were determined to propose such taxes as would make some people regret the abolition of the property-tax. He believed, however, that it would be found that any property-tax would fall ultimately most severely on the poorer Classes.

The bill was read a third time and passed.

rose to ask a question of the noble lord, which he hoped he would be able to answer. It appeared that a noble lord, the member for Monmouth (the marquis of Worcester), had vacated his seat, in consequence of accepting the office of one of the lords of the admiralty; and upon referring to the army list, he saw that he held a commission in the 7th regiment of hussars, being a lieutenant in that regiment, which was now serving in France. He wished to know whether he still retained his commission. If he did, it was evident that he either could not attend his duty, or if he did attend his duty as a lieutenant, then he must neglect his office as a lord of the admiralty, in which case it might be presumed the latter was a sinecure.

said, he was not prepared to give any answer to the question of the hon. baronet, being unacquainted with the facts of the case.

inquired whether it was intended to fill the vacancy in the above office, which had now been unoccupied above three months? If no appointment took place, it might be fairly inferred that the office itself was a sinecure.

said, he had himself once filled that office, and he could assure the noble lord its duties were of a nature which rendered it any thing but a sinecure. He believed an appointment would soon take place.

observed, that the noble lord held the office in conjunction with that of secretary of state for foreign affairs, and therefore he no doubt found the double labour sufficiently severe.

replied that, independently of any other occupation, the duties of the office, if faithfully and adequately discharged, were of a most laborious description.

rose, and adverted to the continued indisposition of Mr. Western, with whom this subjeet had originated, and whose absence, he regretted to say, could not be adequately supplied by any other member; but he wished some time appointed for the final consideration of the question respecting the distressed state of agriculture. He had delayed hitherto a proposition concerning wool; but it seemed necessary to dispose of a former resolution before he could proceed. He should therefore move to postpone the consideration of Mr. Western's resolution, leaving that open to him when his health was sufficiently restored. He then noticed some reports from the committees. Two resolutions had been made; one respected wool, and another the duty on rape-seed imported. The rape-seed duty was now 4s. per ton, and the selling price was 4l per ton. He thought it important to get as much rape-seed and linseed as possible, as they made such excellent manure. The wool-traders had every claim to protection, but their interests could not bear competition with that of the growth of corn in the country. It had appeared before the committee that tobacco might be grown in this country; but duties could not be effectually levied on the home growth, from the temptations to smuggling. He then moved that the first agricultural resolution be postponed.

dissented from the opinion of the last speaker as to tobacco, and hoped he would recur to his original opinions against high duties and high penalties. The legislature had formerly empowered the justices to pluck up all tobacco plants, as high duties had been found inefficient. There was no excuse for the penalties but that of protecting the colonies. The colonists and merchants always enjoyed the advantage of flocking to the treasury, and obtaining laws to help them; But then we had Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia, which were now foreign countries, and we had scarcely an acre of tobacco, except a few in what were Dutch colonies. We were, in fact, giving encouragement only to the American farmers. Why not act concerning home grown tobacco on the same principle as we did with hops, &c? He could not understand the objection on the ground of smuggling. He hoped to hear some better reasons on the subject of growing tobacco at home.

was proceeding at considerable length to discuss the causes of the agricultural distresses of the country, and the general topics before the agricultural committee, when

rose to order. The hon. gentleman, he said, was travelling into topics not at present proposed for the consideration of the committee. He was entering on the general subject of the resolutions, as if the adjourned debate upon them had been resumed, whereas the question before the committee was, whether the consideration of the resolution which had been read, and which opened the general subject, should not be postponed owing to the absence from indisposition of Mr. Western, and the committee should take up at present the consideration of the report concerning wool, which had been referred to the said committee.

although unwilling that the subject should be set aside without his having the opportunity of expressing his opinions upon it, and convinced that he was strictly in order while he was taking a general view of it, acquiesced in the judgment of the committee.

The question of the postponement of Mr. Western's resolution being put and carried,

rose to state his sentiments on the subject of wool regulation, which had been referred to the committee of which he was chairman. In the early part of the session, and when the agricultural distresses first came under the view of the House, he stated his sentiments on the impolicy of prohibiting the exportation of wool, and expressed his wish that the prohibitory laws should be reviewed and repealed. Great anxiety was excited among the manufacturers and woolstaplers in consequence of some disposition manifested by parliament to consider the propriety of such a measure. The subject was referred to a committee, and much information was expected to be derived from the inquiries into which it might enter. The manner in which that committee had thought fit to discharge the duty imposed upon it by the House, he had on another occasion explained: and although the information which had been acquired was not sufficient in itself, or of such a kind as to induce him to change his opinion on the impolicy of the restrictions of which he originally complained, yet it was such as to induce him materially to alter his first resolution. He would therefore now move, that the export of wool should not be absolutely prohibited, but should be laid under certain regulations for the protection of the manufacturer. Nothing was more impolitic than the existing restrictions on the export of wool, and nothing could be more unreasonable or ungrounded than the arguments on which they were justified. One prejudice that existed on the subject was, that a prohibition of exporting that article was necessary to secure the interests of the manufacturer; and another, that an unrestricted export would not benefit the condition of the agriculturists. In proof of this latter position, the committee were directed to the state of the wool-trade for the last twenty years, and were told that it had not fallen in price, but remained steady, amid the fluctuations in the value of other kinds of agricultural produce. Such a fact did not warrant the conclusion that was drawn from it. Wool had actually fallen in consequence of the prohibition, or at least was prevented from retaining that relative price, as compared with other articles of agricultural produce, which it anciently possessed. Corn and cattle had risen in price during the last three centuries in a much greater proportion than wool; and this difference of ratio could be attributed to nothing but the severe restrictive laws under which it was placed. In the year 1339 the price of a tod of wool was at 30 shillings, while the quarter of wheat brought no more than four shillings. Let any one compare this scale of prices with that which existed at present, and he would see the great disparity between them. It was not till the year 1660 that the laws which regulated the trade of wool attained all their height of prohibitory severity; and in 1677 we might find their bad consequences, in a pamphlet, intituled "Reasons against prohibiting the export of wool," stated and complained of. From this work the price of wool, as it stood, might be obtained, and it appeared that it then brought 5d. a pound. The restrictions still continuing in the year 1780, it would be found that no improvement had taken place, the price being then only fourpence or fivepence. This stationary price of wool, during a period when every thing had risen in money value, could be attributed to nothing but the restrictions which were imposed upon its export. The same conclusion might be supported by a fact mentioned in a pamphlet published in 1739. This pamphlet stated, that while English wool sold for sixpence in England, in France it sold for tenpence. Any one conversant with the work of Mr. Arthur Young on France, would know, that while he was in that country English wool was to be sold there for fourteen-pence a pound, which here brought only nine-pence. At the end of the American war the same quantity which brought only 5l. in England was equivalent in value to 20l at Amsterdam. It could not but be inferred, then, that a removal of the prohibition on exporting wool would increase its price, and if this conclusion were undeniable, it must appear equally true, that in so far a change of the wool laws would assist agriculture. What, then, were the objections to a measure that would be attended with such a beneficial result? These objections were various, and he would proceed to discuss some of them.

It was said that a free export of wool would ruin the manufacturer, and that as woollens constituted one of the staple articles of our manufacturing industry, in so far we should injure the trade, and diminish the resources of the country. This alarm appeared to him to be perfectly unfounded and chimerical. The main prop of our manufactures was the monopoly of the home market, and of this the woollen manufacturer would not be deprived by repealing the prohibitory statutes on the export of wool. Let it be considered what a small proportion of woollens we exported to foreign countries, compared with that which we consumed at home, and any fear of ruin to the manufacturer must appear extravagant. The home value of woollen cloth in 1814 was between 26 and 28 millions, and of this quantity we did not export more than to the amount of 5 millions, including the supply of Ireland and our colonies. Here, then, the home market, which the manufacturer would exclusively enjoy, was to the foreign as 23 to 5: and when the monopoly of Ireland and our colonies was likewise taken into the account, the dependance upon foreigners would appear still farther diminished. In former periods, when the restrictions on the export of wool did not exist, or were not so severe as they now were, the proportion of the manufacture sold in foreign markets were greater than at present. At the end of the sixteenth century, when only the value of 8 millions was manufactured, 2 millions was exported. In the year 1345 the export of wool and woollens amounted in value to 737,000l nearly the half of what was exported three centuries afterwards. In fact, the alarm of ruin to our manufactures from a repeal of the wool laws would appear chimerical, when we considered that no monopoly of the raw material, and no peculiar facilities of procuring it, much affected the success of the manufacturer. Our silk-manufacture flourished, and yet the raw material paid duties that yielded 777,000l to the revenue of the country. No manufacture had succeeded so astonishingly as that of cotton, and yet the raw material employed was brought from a foreign country, and paid upon its importation, duties which amounted to 600,000l. per annum. This manufacture not only laboured under this disadvantage, but was opposed at its establishment by the jealousies and rivalship of the woollen trade, yet in 1814 the export of cotton cloth alone amounted in value to 18 millons. Seeing, then, that our silk-manufactures flourished, not only without favour, but under duties; seeing that the cotton-manufactures did the same; seeing that a monopoly of the home market would be enjoyed—what would ruin the woollen manufacturer, though the raw material which he employed were allowed to find its level without regulation or restriction?—Another objection to open the wool trade was, that if our wool were allowed to be exported to foregin countries, where the price of labour was so much lower than here, it might be manufactured there so cheaply as to exclude the products of our industry from the markets to which they were usually carried. To this an answer could easily be found. The cheapness of labour alone did not encourage manufactures, as might be seen in Spain and in Ireland, where labour was cheaper than in this country, and where there existed nevertheless little manufacturing industry. This country was the first manufacturing state in the world, not because labour was cheaper here than elsewhere, but because our persons and properties were secure—because we had a good government—because we possessed some peculiar natural advantages—because we had coals in abundance—because we had machinery and mechanical ingenuity—because, from our situation, we were not liable to the devastations of war which interrupt the progress of all improvement in countries exposed to its fury—and, above all, because we had a vast accumulation of capital, in which no other people, could compete with us, and which would not seek employment under laws that yielded a more uncertain protection.—The next objection to an open trade in wool which he had heard was, that there was something peculiar in the quality of English wool that the same article in no other country possessed, and that, while we retained our monopoly of it, we should likewise have a monopoly of the woollen trade of the world. Here the hon. gentleman read two extracts from different pamphlets, which stated that foreigners could not manufacture good cloth without a mixture of English wool, and that the possession of this peculiar kind of it gave us something like the monopoly that the Dutch enjoyed of the spice trade. The hon. gentleman ridiculed this opinion, both as it respected long combing-wool, as it was called, and short wool. By withholding this species of wool from foreigners, we could not compel them to take our manufactures, but we might teach them to do without both the raw material and the manufactured article. We had already lost ground in woollens. The greatest part of our exports went to the United States and to Portugal. Spain and France went for nothing. Germany still was our customer to a considerable extent; but Russia was entirely shut against us, and Sweden and Denmark consumed but little. We had not, then, a monopoly of the woollen trade: and if we had not, it was surely impolitic to continue restraints, under the idea of guarding it, by the abolition of which our agricultural interests would be promoted. The legislature was bound to act in the spirit of evenhanded justice between party and party. Before it was induced to continue the law as it now stood, the manufacturers should be called upon to show that they found for the agriculturists a market for wool in its mnnufactured state equal to that of which the latter were deprived for their raw material. The House would be told of the danger of our woollens being undersold in the American market, but he entreated them to observe how small a portion the export of woollen goods to America constituted of our whole manufactured produce. Our hold over the American market depended on other circumstances, and arose from different causes. The Americans traded generally on very long credit, which we were peculiarly enabled to give, from our superior and accumulated capital. With regard to the general tendency and progress of this branch of our manufactures his opinion was, that, notwithstanding all the fostering care of the legislature, it was already upon the decline, and was likely so to continue. That the manufacturing classes might fall into lamentable errors in judging of their own real interests had been pretty well shown in the opposition made by those engaged in the woollen manufacture against the introduction of calicoes. It was an important truth which could not be too often impressed, that, whether between individuals or nations, the interests of one could be promoted without advantage to those of the other. The prosperity of one class of men, as of one country, never failed to communicate itself to the rest of the world, and to add to the wealth and resources of all.—To recur to the main point of his argument, he begged to remind them, should America follow the example of most of the nations of Europe in at length excluding our manufactured woollens, how imperiously necessary it would then become to allow a free export to the raw material. In the report of the committee on this subject, it appeared by the evidence of of a very large woollen manufacturer Yorkshire, Mr. Pym Levins, that he made cloths for the American market only, in the manufacture of which he used nothing but foreign wool. Thus the agriculturist was pressed by a monopoly on each side; he could buy only of the home manufacturer, who could make use of an article of foreign growth and he could sell his own produce only to the same manufacturer. With these views on the subject, he could not but consider the law as founded on a dark and uneven policy; and that it had become highly expedient to allow the exportation of wool under certain regulations, until it should arrive at a fixed price in the home market. One great branch of the present argument he had purposely abstained from, because it appeared to him to demand a discussion on its own separate merits—he meant the application of his principles to the state of Ireland. He should only say therefore at present, that if his doctrine was just in its relation to the circumstances of this country, it was still more necessary to those of Ireland [Hear, hear!]. He should conclude by moving the following resolution: " That it is expedient to permit the exportation of wool from all parts of the united kingdom, under such regulations as may afford protection to the manufacturer."

thought the speech of the hon. gentelman contained a good deal of information, but that it was chiefly derived from books written under different circumstances of the country, and inapplicable to its present situation. It appeared to him to be a curious argument, that because the woollen manufacture was on the decline, measures should be taken to allow the export, coupled with duties on the importation of wool. He was not disposed to favour the manufacturing above other classes; but when he reflected that this was the staple manufacture of the country, and considered also how unavailing had been all the recommendations of the committee appointed to inquire into the best means of regulating the corn market, he was convinced that there was good reason for inducing the House to avoid all interference with such subjects. The hon. gentleman did not appear always to bear in mind that the quantity of wool grown in this country must depend on the demand for sheep. The noble lord said, he knew no means so effectual for bringing the foreign manufacturer into close competition with ourselves as by allowing him the use of this article.

alluded to the assertion made by the hon. mover of the resolution, that the price of wool bore no proportion to that of all other articles, which assertion he had attempted to prove by a comparison of modern prices with what was the price of the tod in the reign of Edward 3rd. This argument, however, the hon. member proved to be unfounded, as the weight of the tod in the reign of Edward 3rd differed extremely from what it was in that period at which the comparison had been made. He made a statement of what were the prices from 1781 to 1815, to show the progressive and rapid rise in wool. From 1781 to 1785, wool was sold at 6¾d. per lb.; from 1785 to 1795, it was 10½ from 1795 to 1806, it was 15½ and from 1806 to 1815, it was 18d. What other article could show so great and rapid an increase of price? In fact, English wool was at present higher than ever. There never was a period at which the growers of wool could come forward with less ground to ask relief than at the present moment. In this feeling he should oppose the resolution altogether.

said, that from the best consideration he could give this subject, so far was he from thinking that there was any danger to be apprehended from the adoption of the proposition contained in the resolution before the House, that he thought, with the qualification by which it was accompanied, no course could be taken more likely to produce permanent advantage to the wool trade. His noble colleague, with whom he was sorry to differ on this occasion, had asked, with what grace the export of wool could be demanded at a period when its price was so great? It was also asked, would you destroy the woollen manufacture of the country? He was the last man that would wish to put to hazard this important branch of the industry of the country; nevertheless, he did not believe, if the exportation of wool was permitted under the arrangements proposed, that any danger whatever would arise to our manufactures. France, notwithstanding she permitted the exportation of her fine wools, was, nevertheless, able to undersell the English manufacturer. The accumulation of capital and the security of property were the advantages which this country enjoyed in a manufacturing point of view. The prosperity of the woollen trade was not at all owing to any idle commercial regulations. He had hoped that the system of commercial restriction was exploded; and he was persuaded that if the nations of Europe would unite to do away with those laws by which commerce was fettered, the general wealth would be much increased. He was satisfied that by allowing the exportation of wool, the price would be diminished to the home manufacturers instead of being increased. This was the principle assented to by the best writers on political economy, and those who had read Adam Smith's work, so often quoted and praised, but so seldom followed, would find there recommended the identical proposition of the hon. gentleman. The present restrictive laws, which some persons called the palladium of British commerce, were enacted in barbarous and ignorant times, and demanded revision. Persuaded as he was that in the hon. gentleman's proposition there was nothing that could injure the woollen trade, but that it would ultimately do good to trade in general, he must, notwithstanding the obloquy which it might draw upon him from some quarters, give his cordial assent to it.

rose, not to give an opinion on the subject, but to suggest to the House whether, considering the magnitude of the question and the variety of interests which it embraced, and considering that it could not be determined during the present session, it would not be expedient to postpone its further consideration? He did not think parliament in a condition at present to proceed upon it. He recommended therefore to the hon. gentleman to allow of the postponement of his proposition, without prejudice to its being taken up at a future period. On these grounds, and without stating any opinion on the subject, he would move that the committee be postponed.

said, that, considering the well known distresses of the agricultural interest, it was the duty of persons so high in his majesty's government as the noble lord to have formed some opinion on subjects so interesting as the present. He had heard that there were very unpleasant reports in town from the Isle of Ely, of the lower classes, yielding to their sufferings, having committed the greatest excesses and violence. If the farmers in that part of the country had got a protection to their rape-seed, there was a chance of money being advanced to them on their crops, and of their thus being enabled to give employment to their labourers. He was anxious to know whether ministers meant to act on the report of the committee on rape-seed.

replied, that he was not even aware that the committee had reported on rape-seed, and therefore could give no opinion on the subject. He was not conscious of having neglected the agricultural question, and gentlemen must recollect that steps had been already taken on branches of it that were not complicated and mixed up with the subject of manufactures. But the proceedings of the House had already produced an expectation that no change would be made in the wool laws during the present session, and this alone was a sufficient reason for not pushing the matter now. Besides, the prices of wool never were higher, and therefore to state the distresses of agriculture as at all arising from them, was travelling too far from the point.

said, that his only objection to the proposal for postponing the resolution was lest an impression should go abroad that the question would be renewed—an impression that would be calculated materially to injure the trade and the markets.

complained that the course now pursued had no other tendency but to keep the country in total uncertainty. Parliament, it seemed, was to do nothing but discuss questions of this sort from day to day, while the ministers, instead of taking a manly and decided part, stood aloof from all responsibility in managing the internal concerns of the country. It was high time to put an end to these questions; for, while they were agitated, the prices of all kinds of subsistence were undergoing perpetual fluctuation; corn was up one day, and fell the next; and the House, by prolonging this kind of mock discussion which must end in nothing, were only favouring speculation of every kind. The best way was to set the present question at once at rest, and let the people carry on their operations in peace and quiet. He thought that no case had been made out to justify an interference with the ancient laws on wool. The arguments for a free trade in wool, however just in themselves, came with a very bad grace from the agriculturists, who bad placed the country in an unnatural and artificial state by their corn laws.

rose, not to say one word on the present topic, but to suggest that some resonable time should be allowed for enabling him to bring forward his motion, which stood for to-night, and for which he was promised the precedence. He recommended that the previous question should be moved.

said, it was indifferent to him whether the farther consideration of his resolution were postponed or the question put upon it at once.

expressed his conviction that the country would applaud the conduct of ministers, in rather calmly and patiently attending to discussion and deliberation before they decided, than in coming to any hasty decision upon a question of such moment.

declared, with all his regard for the farmers, the most decided objection to the principle of this motion.

proposed an amendment, directly negativing the motion, which amendment, he however, afterwards withdrew.

observed, that the report of the agricultural committee upon this subject had been fourteen days upon the table, and yet ministers appeared to be totally unacquainted with it.

declared that he had never seen this report.

The question was put, and the resolution was negatived without a division. The House then resumed, the report was brought up, and leave asked for the committee to sit again upon this day se'nnight.

having brought up the report of the bill for the better regulation of the Civil List,

rose to call the attention of the House to the important subject of the present bill; though, after having so often spoken upon it, it would ill become him to occupy much of their time on the present occasion. Every gentleman must be aware that applications had been made to that House, year after year, for means to cover the deficiences of the civil list, and that various plans had been fallen upon to regulate and limit its expenses, but that all of them had proved unsuccessful. The present bill professed to be a remedy for these constantly recurring excesses, and it was proper to inquire what that remedy was. It professed to separate the ordinary expenses of the civil list from those which were less immediately connected with the splendour of the Crown, and to throw the latter partly on the consolidated fund, and partly to leave them to be provided for by votes of that House. The sums which the bill appropriated to the ordinary civil list expenditure amounted in all to 1,083,727l It was so constructed, that this in future was to be what was called the civil list establishment; not that the charges were diminished, but that the extraordinary expenses should be thrown upon other funds, and upon the votes of parliament. Now the sum to be provided for by parliament in this latter way amounted to 255,000l This was the statement of a committee, not of that House, but one appointed by the noble lord, and which committee made an exceeding of the extraordinaries over the ordinary civil list of the sum he had mentioned. The whole therefore, of the annual charge for these purposes would amount to 1,338,000l, of which parliament must must make good 255,000l This therefore, was a most important bill, and it would well become the House, before they assented to it, to consider whether means might not be fallen upon to pare down the excesses of the civil list, before they resorted to other resources. Upon the subject of paring down the civil list he had nothing else to say. He had repeatedly directed the attention of the House to that most important measure, but they had always refused to appoint a committee. They hoped that, in time, they would find the result of this determination satisfactory; but, for his part, he knew pretty well what would happen. If they chose, however, wilfully to shut their eyes against all inquiry—if they were determined not to be informed on the subject—it did not become him to press it any longer. An estimate had been laid upon the table, and they were now called upon to adopt it, and to make provisions accordingly.

The noble lord opposite had stated, that the first object of the bill was, to simplify the civil list; but in what manner was this to be done? It was by the appointment of an entirely new officer, and this gentleman was to control every thing. The departments of the master of the horse, the lord chamberlain, and lord steward, were to be subject to his revision. But the most extraordinary circumstance was that this new officer was to have a salary of 1,500l a year for his trouble, and this at a time when the country was calling upon the House to make every possible retrenchment. But what was this gentleman to do? He was only to do that for which many others were already paid. It was singular, indeed, that the noble lord should wish to remove from the Crown all odium with regard to the expenditure of the household, and yet think proper to recommend the appointment of an officer never heard of before. The whole of this department was limited to the lord chamberlain, the lord steward, and the master of the horse; and the House should bear in their mind, that three very respectable gentlemen already superintended the duties of these offices. At the head of the lord chamberlain's department was Mr. Marsh, at that of the lord steward's Mr. Brent, and at that of the master of the horse Mr. Parker. Now, all these gentlemen, he supposed, were to have sinecures, or else the new officer was to be a sinecurist. The noble lord might say—but that would be no answer to him—that the 1,500l was to be paid by the savings of the civil list. If any savings, however trifling, could be effected, the public ought to receive the benefit. It was well known, however, in what manner the noble lord and his colleagues endeavoured to practise economy; they contrived to save at one end, and then expended at the other. The only fair way of providing for the salary of this gentleman would be to take 500l a year from each of the three persons who already conducted the business of this department. He supposed, however, that the treasury had found themselves unable to cope with these officers; ministers were not able to face them, and had no control over them. But what benefit would the public derive from this new officer? The House would know nothing of him, except his annual application for 1,500l For his part, he objected altogether to this manner of new-modelling the civil list; and the result of his opinion was, that it would be more convenient for the public service that a liberal sum should be appropriated for the civil list, to which the Crown should be bound to confine itself, or to assign some very substantial reason for coming to parliament. In former periods, the Crown had been considered as the fountain of grace and beneficence; but, from the manner in which the civil list had been conducted for many years past, it was deprived of the power of encouraging merit, of rewarding genius, and of protecting the arts and sciences. The Crown was the source from which all meritorious persons used to receive their reward; but at present it really appeared to be nothing but a burthen on the public and this the noble lord called consulting the honour and dignity of the Crown. This was a branch of the subject that deserved the most serious consideration of the House; but he would not occupy their time by enlarging upon it, as he trusted an hon. gentleman whom he then saw in his place, would more particular direct their attention to it. He was convinced that the expenditure of the civil list could only be examined by a committee. The aggregrate amount was stated in the estimate, but it was constituted of various charges, and the House should be apprized of all the details of the application. He was quite sure that the present mode of arrangement was not the sort of business that would attract the notice of parliament, so as to induce them to enter into it as they should do; they were to vote a sum of money in the nature of a vote of credit; and then, in the next year, they would have an account how it had been expended. He hoped however, that this system would not be suffered to continue, and that some gentleman would vote for an estimate of the civil list to be laid upon the table within so many days after the commencement of every session.

He wished then to come to the main part of the question; namely, to see what could be saved to the public. The bill recited all the different acts that had been passed on this subject during the present reign; and then went on to state, that the ordinary revenues of the civil list had for many years past been found inadequate to defray the charges thereon, and the deficiency had been made good by the application of the funds arising from the droits of the Crown, or other extraordinary resources, or by special grants of parliament. Now, this assumed that there was a deficiency in the ordinary revenues of the civil list which parliament had always acknowledged, and, in consequence, had found it necessary to supply; but his object was, to endeavour to persuade the House to agree with him, that parliament ought not to be called upon to make good any deficiency, until it had been shown that all the resources of the Crown had been exhausted. He denied that the Crown had any right to come to that House until it had availed itself of all its own assets; and, considering the past generosity of parliament, and, above all, the present distressed situation of the country, he should not have thought that any set of ministers would have called upon the public to supply the deficiency, unless no other resources could be found. This bill, however, would leave all the droits of the Crown, and other extraordinary revenues, at the disposal of the Crown, and enable it to call upon parliament to make good the exceeding of the civil list. It had been argued that the Crown had a vested right in these droits; but the House should remember, that his Majesty had undertaken, early in his reign, for 800,000l per annum to defray all the charges of the civil list. His majesty now found that he could do no such thing; but before he had a right to call upon us for 10l we were entitled to say, give me up the 7l. in your possession: you are unable to pay your debts; but if I am to take them upon me, give me up your assets [Hear, hear!]. This was a new bargain with the public, and they ought not to be called upon to make any payment till the Crown had availed itself of all its resources. He only prayed of the House to consider what was the real state of things at this moment with respect to the droits of the admiralty. By a treasury minute then upon the table, they would find an order for defraying the exceeding of the civil list amounting to 277,000l The same paper stated, that a Mr. Troutback having died without heirs, the king was entitled to his property, and, 80,000l went to the Crown. Now, if there had been no debt, and the Crown had not applied to parliament to discharge it, the House would never have heard one word of Mr. Troutback, or his 80,000l [Hear, hear!]. This one case, however, was enough to prove that the Crown was in the receipt of very considerable sums of which many hon. gentlemen had no idea. The lords of the treasury then went on to state, that the residue of the 277,000l should be made good out of the droits of the admiralty. After this, 7,000l remained to be paid. But in what manner had this exceeding been created? 20,000l had been given to the Prince Regent for new furniture, and 50,000l for making additional buildings to the pavillion. The right hon. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that of the 277,000l no larger a sum was available for the purpose than 30,000l Now, deduct that from the 50,000l and there would remain 20,000l of arrear to be made good by somebody. But this was not all. It appeared by the accounts of the civil list then before the House, that, in the quarter ending on the 5th of April last, subsequent to the period when he left off with the balance of 20,000l, which there was no means of paying, there was a deficiency of 148,000l Add this to the 20,000l, and then there remained 168,000l to be made good by the public. Of this great deficiency, 70,000l might have been saved, if ministers had not accommodated the Prince by drawing on the droits of the admiralry.

The House would have no security against a repetition of such transactions, if they did not by act of parliament take the appropriation of those funds into their own hands. Ministers would wilfully and wantonly throw them away, unless parliament interfered, and said at once, we will not make good the exceeding of the civil list until all the resources of the Crown have been exhausted [Hear, hear!]. The statement which he had then made did not depend on any information of his, nor was it liable to be controverted: it was all on the table of the House. Here, then, was a burthen of 70,000l cast upon the public, because the droits of the admiralty had been applied in a way in which they ought not to have been applied. On this April quarter there was only one other observation to make and that was, that the expenditure of the civil list had exceeded, to an enormous amount, the estimate of the noble lord: and he would then ask, whether any man could doubt that this expenditure would go on increasing from time to time? He knew the answer that would be given. Whenever there had been an excess in the expenses of the civil list, it had been always called an extraordinary expenditure; but then the House should remember that this exceeding had been annual. There was the mischief of the precedent. He did not know who the persons were that the noble lord had examined on this estimate, or whether they were capable of affording information; it was probable, indeed, that he had not given himself much trouble on the occasion. The new inquisitor was empowered to send for books, papers, and records, and to examine persons on oath; but the Commons were not allowed to examine any persons. Why was this power vested in this officer? Why were the House of Commons the only persons to be excluded from inquiry? Colonel Stephenson, of the board of works, had power to send for persons, and to examine them on oath, but the representatives of the people, the guardians of the public purse, must not pretend to an equal authority! Why was this power given to the inquisitor, which could not be entrusted to the House of Commons? It was given because it was found impossible to go on with the civil list, if a power like this was not vested somewhere. But why the House of Commons were to be the only body excluded, he could not see. The whole argument used here was, that the dignity of the Crown could not bear to have its transactions inquired into. Now, however, it seemed that the dignity of the Crown could bear to have its whole expenditure inquired into by a person possessing 1,500l a year, for being a mere spy on the kitchen. It was said that Mr. Burke wanted to examine the turnspit; but this new inquisitor was to examine him and every body else. The object of the bill, however, was only to entrap parliament: they were first called upon to give their concurrence to it, and then with great gravity they were told that there was an estimate upon the table. He certainly objected to the whole tenour of the bill: but if he could not effect the whole of his object, he would be contented with doing what he could. The noble lord would remember that he (Mr. Tierney) did not come to the Crown, but the Crown came to him in forma pauperis, and said, it could no longer go on without his assistance. Let the Crown, therefore, show him first what resources it had of its own, and then draw on him, and he would assist it liberally [Hear, hear!]. He should say no more, that he might not weaken what he had said by over much explaining. He should in the first place move, that after the words in the preamble, " And whereas the ordinary revenues of the civil list have, for many years past, been found inadequate to defray the charges thereon, and the deficiency has been made good by the application of the funds arising from the droits of the Crown, or other extraordinary resources, or by special grants of parliament,"—instead of the words, " And whereas it is highly expedient that the ordinary revenues of his majesty's civil list should be made adequate to the ordinary charges thereon; and that several of the charges which have heretofore been borne upon the civil list revenues should in future be made a charge upon and be defrayed out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain or otherwise provided for, there should be inserted the words, " And whereas it is highly expedient that the expenditure of the civil list should not exceed the revenues of the same, and that the several remaining charges which have heretofore been borne on the civil list expenditure, or have been made good by applications of the droits of the Crown, should in future be made a charge on the consolidated fund of Great Britain: or that the amount of such expenditure not provided for by parliament, if a sum exceeding the revenue arising from the droits of the Crown or other resources, should every year be submitted to parliament."

said, he must certainly lament that the right hon. gentleman was not always consistent on this subject. They now found that he was inclined to give a fixed revenue to the Crown, which he acknowledged had not been his opinion on other occasions, and certainly no opinion could be more untenable. A state of war, and the peculiar situation of the continent during the last 25 years, had made fluctuations in the civil list of from 200,000l to 400,000l The right hon. gentleman was in general sufficiently attentive to the public expenditure, but now he seemed to have so great a distaste even for every thing that came from the committee, that he objected to the appointment of an officer to regulate the expenditure of the civil list. He did not think, however, that the reasonings of the right hon. gentleman would make any impression on the House, when the committee gave it as their deliberate opinion, that a person should be appointed to audit the accounts. The treasury, they said, could not expect the purposes of economy to be effected by any other mode. With respect to the salary, he did hope that arrangements had been made, in consequence of the recommendation of the committee, which would enable the civil list to pay it without any additional burthen to the public. He had formerly stated, that measures had been taken to make retrenchments, until the whole expenditure of the civil list should be reduced to a certain amount; and he had now the satisfaction to inform the House, that the Prince Regent had been graciously pleased to give directions, that such vacancies as should occur in several departments of the household should not be filled up. There were thirty two such places in the lord Chamberlain's department, amounting to between three and four thousand pounds a year, and several in the lord steward's, amounting to nearly 6,000l. a year; so that a reduction of expense had been ordered, as soon as the offices should fall in. Not less than sixty such offices might be considered as suppressed in the royal household: and, therefore, the principle of future economy had been strictly complied with. The right hon. gentleman thought that the estimate was falsified by the April quarter; but he should be able completely to satisfy the House, that the April quarter was by no means to be taken as a criterion of the future expenditure of the civil list. Having thus far troubled the House on this branch of the question, he should now come to the substance of the right hon. gentleman's proposal, and submit to the House his views of the subject. He was not quite clear that he had thoroughly comprehended the right hon. gentleman; but if he was not mistaken, the proposal he had made would give the Crown more power than the present measure. His proposal might be reduced to two heads; first, as to withdrawing the disposition of the droits from the Crown; and secondly, as to the mode in which that was to be effected. Now, as to tying up the droits, if such a regulation were attempted, it would arrest the whole progress of the executive. The right hon. gentleman had mixed up the question of the arrangement of the civil list with that which regarded the disposal of the droits; but parliament could not be justified in making any arrangement with the Crown incompatible with the due regulation of public affairs. When the Crown, at the commencement of this reign, made a bargain with the public at the first arrangement of the civil list, it gave up many sources of revenue, but never the droits arising out of the prerogative. If it had done so, what would have been its situation in all matters of prize-money? It could not in such cases have granted prizes to the navy and army without coming to parliament. In all cases of droits it was always a question of liberality with the Crown what portion should go to the captors. The Crown had always regulated matters of booty, and therefore the House would see that the whole executive must be at a stand still, if the droits were surrendered up; and that they would be taking away that fund which was the great encouragement of naval and military services. It never could be the wish of parliament to deprive the Crown of this privilege. The House would not suppose from his reasoning that he wished to contend, that when it was called on to provide for any exceeding in the civil list, no account was first to be rendered of the state of the casual revenue of the Crown; he was prepared to admit, that on such occasions ministers must be ready with an exact account; but the question between the right hon. gentleman and himself was not a question of principle, but one of execution. No minister had ever refused an account of the state of those funds; nor did the present bill at all go to discharge them of that responsibility. If it could be done without disturbing the executive functions, nothing could be better than that the Crown should give up those casual revenues on the regular supply being made; but this was not the proposal, and therefore it was an unanswerable argument for him, that if the Crown were called on for this revenue, an equivalent must be given. The House would always call for an account of the state of the droits before they voted any supply for the exceedings of the civil list. The present bill, therefore, gave a much greater control over the revenue of the Crown than had ever before been exercised, for it presented two occasions on which the House would inquire into the state of that revenue; first, when the usual inquiry was made by anticipation, and next, when they came to vote a supply. Did the right hon. gentleman contend that the whole power of parliament was confined on that bill, or was he (lord C.), calling on the House for any pledge? His majesty's ministers must always come to parliament, and show the state of the casual revenue, and what proportion could be withdrawn from it; but that fund was not of a nature that the balance could be assigned on any particular day. There were large sums belonging to foreign powers—to American, Turkish, Danish, and other claimants. The only mode therefore, in which the right hon. gentleman's object could be attained, was by the old mode which had always been adopted. A great deal of prejudice had been unjustly thrown on the administration of the droits, and they had been represented as a fund out of which ministers might supply any waste or extravagance. He contended for no such right, and admitted that ministers were as responsible for these sums as for any other. It was perfectly consonant to our constitution that large sums should from time to time be committed to the disposal of the Crown; but there was nothing in the whole history of the droits to show any abuse—to excite the jealousy of parliament, or the reproaches of the right hon. gentleman. The following, however, had been the application of this fund since the accession of his present majesty; (he said nothing of what had been distributed in prizes, but spoke only of the residue):—in aid of public services there had been expended 2,822,000l;towards the civil list 1,334,000l; the grants to the royal family amounted, up to 1815, to 192,000l only, of which 100,000l were granted during the Grenville administration. The whole imputation rested within these limits. He would contend, therefore, that there was no ground for reproach; that the disposition of this fund was necessary to the executive government; and that without it the whole course of our jurisprudence would be paralyzed. As to the particular application of the droits in the present instance, the reproach which had been levelled against it was not merited, and the sums must have been found somewhere, for the palaces were in such a state as to be scarcely habitable. The right hon. gentleman had complained of extravagant sums spent in furniture: that was also a mistake; the money was principally laid out in fitting up the interior of the pavillion at Brighton; his royal highness the Prince Regent had taken large sums for this purpose out of his privy purse. He was the only sovereign in Europe living in a house erected by himself; and this was upon the whole an economical arrangement, that his royal highness should have a house of his own, rather than plunge the country into expense for new palaces. He (lord C.) had shown, therefore, that there were no grounds for the jealousy of parliament. If parliament had been called on to grant new sums, they might have imposed new conditions; but at present it would be absurd in the extreme to cripple the executive in the manner proposed, when the present measure would bring the revenue in question much more under the control of parliament than ever it had been. There was not therefore the slightest shadow of reason for the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, not even on the principle that the droits were applicable to this kind of expenditure.

> explained, that he did not suggest the taking altogether the droits of admiralty into the hands of parliament; he had referred to the words which had been used in a former part of the bill, " Whereas the ordinary revenues of the civil list have for many years past been found inadequate to defray the charges thereon, and the deficiency has been made good by the application of the funds arising from the droits of the Crown, &c" He had then proposed that by authority of parliament, these funds should hereafter be made available in the same way as heretofore—after satisfying all captors and suitors. He must have been out of his wits, if he had proposed to overturn the jurisprudence of the country by a disregard of these claims; and if his meaning was not sufficiently expressed in his amendment, he would alter it,

said, the consequence of the bill, unless the amendment were adopted would be, that parliament would have to make good the deficiencies which would be incurred on the responsibility of ministers, just as they had done heretofore. The noble lord had adopted a style of argument which he was in the habit of adopting, by alluding to the opinions of his right hon. friend as to the settlement of the civil list on a former occasion: but those opinions had no reference to the present question. The noble lord had asked them why they would interfere with the prerogative of the Crown? He would answer that notwithstanding what the noble lord had said, he (Mr. P.), was convinced that a great part of the sums at the disposal of the Crown had been spent in a reprehensible manner. It was not consistent with their duty that they should relieve the Crown of a charge of 255,000l a year, without security against the improvidence of ministers, and keeping in their own hands the application of these extraordinary funds. The noble lord said, he agreed in principle with the amendment; if this was the case, the noble lord might alter the amendment to suit his own fancy, provided this principle was granted—that parliament should get the control of this money. If this amendment was not adopted the money would be spent as the Crown chose; and when that was done, it would be said that the money was gone, and that parliament on that account could not refuse the annual grant, which was absolutely necessary for the public service, for bills to tradesmen, and for embassies; these services, it would be said, must be made good, and as to the expenditure of the sovereign, however extravagant, yet as the money had been spent, there was no remedy. It was monstrous to consider the sums which had been voted in aid of the civil list. He did not wish to speak harshly, but this was a subject on which to try the honour and integrity of the House. They should turn their consideration to the relief of the public, who wanted relief as much as the Crown, and more than the ministers. One member of the United Empire had been lately declared bankrupt in that House, and unable to pay a single shilling towards the public service. And even in this richer island from one end to the other the people were groaning under the intolerable load of taxes. And in this time of distress and misery, was it for the Commons to come forward to gratify the Crown and the ministry, to saddle the people with still greater burthens, to defray expenses which there were other legitimate means of meeting? If the House did this, they would draw down more disgrace upon their character than any House of Commons in England had ever been overwhelmed with [Hear, hear!].

contended, that the right hon. mover had founded all his argument on the assumption that we were going to relieve the ordinary revenue of the Crown of 255,000l., which it was very well able to bear, and that the casual revenue of the Crown should be taken under the control of parliament. But this, from the nature of the fund, was absolutely impossible. The right hon. gentleman had made out no case at all; for undoubtedly it was better to follow that course of proceeding which worked its own way, than any ambiguous words in an act of parliament. Unless the right hon. gentleman was prepared to argue that the House had relinquished its functions of supervision, he wondered he should propose such a measure. As to the alleged waste of the droits, it had appeared that a very considerable sum had been contributed from them to the public exigencies. Upon this subject he had been led to consult the Journals, and from thence he was enabled to state what was the expenditure in the 4th and 5th classes during the last eight years of the reign of George 2nd, and the first eight years of the reign of George 3rd. The House was aware that the sum now proposed under the 4th class was 234,000l; but in the year ending January 5, 1753, it was 276,000l, and the average of the eight years preceding 1760 was 234,000l Under the fourth class, the annual expenditure in the eight years before the accession of his present majesty was 110,331l During the eight first years of the reign of George 3rd, the average charge under the fourth class was 225,000l, and under the fifth class 106,000l It appeared, therefore, that the sum now proposed was less than had been expended fifty or sixty years ago, although the salaries, annuities, pensions, and other charges had been much augmented. What, then, was the object of the amendment? It was to disseminate through the country a gross misconception; for he would venture to assert that no notion was ever more mistaken, than that there had been a lavish or unnecessary expenditure in the civil list. The patronage of the Crown had also been diminished in the same, or in a greater proportion, by the abolition of offices, not amounting in number to less than sixty. He maintained that the bill for the regulation of the civil list was inexecutable, but that the greatest attention had been paid to economy, and no inquiry had been made in the House that had not been followed by an endeavour to reduce the expenditure. Some advantages formerly allowed to the younger branches of the royal family had been taken away, and the loss was to be made good out of the sum at present required. The regulations respecting foreign ambassadors had no less tended to diminish the sum which the people had been called upon to pay. He trusted that parliament would not attempt to interfere with the vested rights of the Crown, and he defied any member to prove the existence of a lavish expenditure. He did not object to inquiry, for he was convinced that the more the subject was investigated, the stronger would be the conviction of the country that there was no real ground for complaint.

said, that it would be impossible to follow the hon. gentleman through the details into which he had entered respecting the expenditure of the civil list in the last years of the late reign: it was sufficient to remark, that whatever the disbursement might be, it contributed to the splendour of the Crown, and to the honour of the country: and that the diminution of that splendour and dignity, for the gratification of individual caprices, was at least a false principle of economy, if indeed any saving were produced by it to the people. The hon. gentleman who last spoke had, as usual, said much about parsimony and efforts at retrenchment, but it was generally found that the result of those efforts was, that the nation had more to pay. It was not a little difficult to comprehend the assertion, that the civil list was not competent to the expenditure; and when parliament was required to make good the arrears, it was necessary first to consider how far the people were competent to supply the deficiency—how far they were able to support the burthens already oppressing them, with the addition to be made under the newly invented scheme of economical expenditure. It was a question of much doubt what legal right the Crown possessed to these droits, since, by Magna Charta, it was provided, that foreign merchants should have free ingress and egress, and that on the breaking out of a war, though they were attacked, they should enjoy the privilege of safety for themselves and their property. How, then, could it be legal for the sovereign to seize their shipping in our ports, on an unexpected declaration of war? Was it not holding out a premium to the Crown to commit acts of robbery and piracy upon the fleets of unoffending nations? The earliest attempt of the kind (fortunately unsuccessful) was in the time of Charles 2nd, who endeavoured to possess himself of the Smyrna fleet, but it had since become the accustomed practice. The sum thus obtained sometimes amounted to millions, and such an enormous unappropriated fund the Crown ought not to be allowed to possess without the control of parliament. The civil list act, which took away all the hereditary revenues of the King, on giving an equivalent, did not except these droits; and it was plain, from this and other circumstances, that the Crown had no legal right to them. The noble lord had admitted that the King held this money as the trustee of his people: for the benefit of his people, therefore, the king was bound to act, and the droits must be subject to the control of those who were the representatives of the people. The difference between the noble lord and the right hon. mover was this, that the latter wished for the interposition of the House for the purpose of directing in what way this money should be applied, while the former was anxious to be allowed to spend these immense sums in any way caprice might dictate, and then ministers threw themselves on what they called their responsibility. The noble lord had asserted that no proof had been given of any misapplication; that the money had been devoted to making provision for the younger branches of the royal family, and to other laudable purposes. Were the Prince Regent, the duke of York, or the duke of Clarence the younger branches; or were there not others—younger branches, their juniors, who, for political reasons, for some unaccountable dislike (for which reason, and for their merits, they had much risen in the confidence of the nation) were invidiously excluded from a due share in the benefit? By such means the princes of the blood, instead of being mighty and independent peers of parliament, were subjected to the will and pleasure of the minister of the day. If the Crown had a right to dispose of 200,000l, it had an equal right to distribute the whole four millions among its favourites. It was high time, therefore, that this subject should be put upon its proper footing, and that the droits of admiralty should be devoted to reimburse the losses of our own and foreign merchants on the breaking out of a war, and to reward those who were employed in the defence of the country, instead of being applied to the payment of all kinds of fantastical furniture. No money could have been more misapplied than that which was expended on the pavilion at Brighton—it ought to have contributed to the dignity of the nation, not merely to the luxury of the Prince. The excuse of the noble lord, that the furniture was the property of the people, was ridiculous and only proved that ministers were troubled with a few mental misgivings. The last speaker had talked of the suppression of sixty inferior places; but that was not the fit mode of evincing a spirit of economy. It was not in the dismissal of persons who held menial situations, who depended upon them for their support, nor in the diminution of that royal hospitality which in former times had added lustre to the throne, that true economy consisted, while all kinds of paltry extravagancies (paltry he meant only as to the objects, not as to the amount), by which the national character was degraded, were allowed and encouraged [Hear, hear!]. It would require a long habit of credence to official assertion, before the noble lord obtained belief for his statements in any place but the House of Commons [Hear, and a laugh!]. An audience elsewhere would be very much inclined to reply merely by laughing in the noble lord's face. It was not economy to put down a number of small places, and the next day to create a great place instead. As to the responsibility of ministers for non-obedience to the existing law, the hon. gentleman who spoke last had fairly avowed, that the act formerly passed for the regulation of the civil list could not be executed, and that ministers had not attempted to comply with its provisions. Was it to be endured that such language should be employed to those who had passed the bill, and had said it was fit that it should be executed? The consequence of setting that measure at nought had been, that new arrears were incurred; and at a time when every private individual was reducing his expenditure in proportion to his diminished income—at a time when the lower orders were in a state of the utmost want—parliament was to be told that the Crown was not to be confined in its expenditure, that arrears to any amount might be incurred, and that out of the pockets of the distressed people those arrears must be made good! The amendment of the right hon. member was most moderate, and calculated to meet the approbation of all men who were allowed to think for themselves. It required only, that the House should control prospectively, instead of retrospectively, upon the responsiblity of ministers. Great abuses had existed, and the correction of those abuses was the object of the proposition.

explained, that he had not said that the civil list bill could not be executed.

added, that the word employed by the right hon. member was, that it was inexecutable; and if it meant any thing, it was that the act could not be executed.

was very much surprised at the nature of the amendment moved by the right hon. gentleman opposite. It had often been his fortune to have conversations with him on the subject of the civil list, and certainly they generally differed very much in their sentiments with respect to it; But if there was any one principle with respect to it on which they agreed, it certainly was on the principle of the present bill. Indeed, the enactments of the bill now before the House provided exactly for the arrangements which the right hon. gentleman wished to be adopted. He was, therefore, very much at a loss to know from what motive the right hon. gentleman opposed the bill, unless it was from a spirit of opposition so inveterate, that as soon as the right hon. gentleman found those sentiments adopted which he himself at one time approved, he immediately abandoned them, and thought it necessary that he should oppose the measures of ministers at all events. The amendment he thought had been by no means supported by argument, and was quite unnecessary; as by the bill the control of parliament over the funds in question was complete.

in explanation, observed, that he could not suffer the question to go to a division, without correcting the misconception of the noble lord as to his object in his amendment. The noble lord seemed to think that he wished to deprive the Crown of all control over those droits. He meant no such thing. He wished, that after the rights of the captors had been secured, the droits should go to defray the expenses of the Crown in aid of the civil list revenue.

The House then divided, when the numbers were: