rose and said, that feeling a sincere interest for the welfare of the population affected by the present bill, he should trouble the House with a few remarks upon it. He would not, he said, follow the example of the Learned counsel, who had just been heard at the bar of the House, by going into the question of the merits of the bill upon the principles of political economy; not only because he felt himself unequal to the task, but because a different question now presented itself; namely, whether the petitioners against the measure should be allowed to prove their case by evidence before the measure was carried further? It was indeed objected to the petitioners, that the bill did not rest upon disputed facts, but rested on admitted principles of political economy; but, when the matter under investigation was one on which the petitioners felt that their very subsistence depended, it was rather hard to say to these poor people, that they should lose their bread by principles of political economy. They knew nothing of those principles; but if they did, they might submit to the House, that it had itself not been over consistent in its observance of those principles. The laws, as they now stood, had been framed during the last reign, and, no doubt, upon what were then deemed "the soundest principles;" and it seemed strange to the petitioners, when they were told, that the "soundest principles" now called for their repeal. The petitioners also begged humbly to represent, that they had seen the greatest fluctuations, as to what the "soundest principles of political economy" were. And indeed the House must know, that certain principles of political economy were acted upon some fifty years ago, and which were then undoubted, until Adam Smith gained great credit by overturning them; and recently they had heard his hon. friend, the member for Portarlington (Mr. Ricardo), combat the doctrines of Adam Smith in many particulars, with a clearness and force which had certainly persuaded him (Mr. F. Buxton) of his hon. friend's correctness. The petitioners, therefore, were certainly entitled to ask, what security there was, that some future system of political economy would not overturn the system of his hon. friend, which had overturned the system of Adam Smith, who, in his day, had overturned the system of those who had gone before him? What was right, he could not pretend to say. On the one hand, he saw united together, men who maintained, by general reasoning of great cogency, that the very petitioners would be benefitted by the repeal: on the other hand, he saw the petitioners who ought to know something of their own interest, positively declaring, that the repeal would be their ruin. Between them he would not pretend to decide; but would move that the question be referred to a committee. The petitioners had as yet never been heard at all; and they respectfully submitted to the House, that if allowed to produce evidence, they should be enabled to establish a case sufficient to show, that the existing laws ought to be allowed to remain. Some facts, however, which bore on the measure before the House had been elicited by a committee which sat on a subject connected with the present; namely, the petitions of the Coventry silk-weavers in 1817. No working weavers, but some master manufacturers were then examined. The town-clerk of Coventry was asked the amount of the poor-rates in that city—Answer, 19s. in the pound. The treasurer of Spital-fields was asked the amount of the poor-rates there—Answer, 6s. in the pound. The Spital-fields weavers therefore might justly say, "You tell us the acts under which our trade is established makes us paupers. What is the fact? Our poor-rates are only one-third as much as those of the independent weavers of Coventry." Again, it was inquired by the committee, what was the ordinary amount of a silk-weaver's earnings per week at Coventry?—Answer, from 5s. 6d. to 10s. per week. What was the ordinary amount of a silk-weaver's earnings per week in Spital-fields?—Answer, from 14 to 15s. per week [Hear]. The Spital-fields weaver might therefore say, "You tell us the tendency of free competition is, to raise our wages. What is the fact? Our wages are double those of the silk-weavers at Coventry." And yet it was asserted, that the bill which would deprive them of those earnings and place them on a scale with the Coventry weavers, would be a benefit to them! He also begged of the House to consider, what, if the petitioners were correct, would be the moral effect of this measure. It would tend to pauperise the working population of Spital-fields. It was proved before the committee in 1818, that the weavers of Coventry received, half their support from their employers, and the other half from the parish. In Spital-fields, the workmen were paid entirely by their masters, and were therefore relieved from the moral deterioration which the system of paying wages out of the poor-rates produced. The low wages of Coventry had produced the system of what was called half-pay apprenticeships, which, as was well known, had, given rise to the most frightful profligacy and vice among the young persons thus employed. Now, nothing of this kind was to be seen in the population of Spital-fields, than which a more moral and industrious manufacturing population did not exist among the working classes. So convinced were the committee of 1818, of the evils attending the system adopted in Coventry, that they actually recommended the extension of the Spital-fields act to that place, as the only remedy that could be devised. This was the opinion of the committee of that House, even without hearing the Spital-fields weavers; for they had, as yet, never been heard at all. It was a maxim of the Roman law, that he who decided without hearing both parties, was wrong even when he was right; for he did a wrong to the parties, even when he was correct as to the facts. Upon these grounds, he should, without giving any opinion on the merits or demerits of the bill, move, "That it be re-committed, for the purpose of being referred to a select committee."

said, that he might admit the whole of the facts stated by the lion, gentleman, and also by the learned counsel at the bar, and yet oppose the amendment. It was said, that the bill would have the effect of increasing the poor-rates, by throwing the weavers upon them for part of their subsistence. Now, if the poor-rates had not been increased much in Spital-fields, it should be recollected, that the weavers there, in periods of distress, had received very considerable assistance from the public purse. But he was prepared to contend, that, if the present regulations were continued, instead of rendering the weavers partly dependent on the poor-rates, they would make them entirely so, by depriving them of all employment. It could not be denied, that if there existed a competition in any part of the country, by which the work could be done for half the price paid in London, the effect would be to deprive the masters in London of all business, and of course the workmen of employment. They would therefore be in a worse situation than the weavers, in the country; for, undoubtedly, the business would be transferred to that part of the country where it could be done cheapest. This had been already the case in several branches of the trade, in which competition had been raised in other parts of the country. As soon as it was known that such competition existed, a dispute arose between the masters and the journeymen; it was then referred to the magistrates who would not interfere, but suffered the book of rates to continue according to the regulations of the act. The consequence generally was, that the particular branch of business in which the competition arose, was lost to the metropolis, and transferred to that place where it could be done cheaper. And so it would, ultimately be with the entire of the silk trade, if the present regulations were allowed to remain. He contended, that if regulations fixing the rate of wages higher in the metropolis than in other parts of the country, were allowed to continue, the result would be, the introduction of evils to the workmen themselves which no poor-laws could remedy. If the rate were to be fixed in London, why not extend it all over the country? But, for such a general extension, he was satisfied no person would contend. Under these circumstances, he would, object to going into a committee; since the facts likely to be proved in it would not affect the principle of the bill.

said, he would, not go into an inquiry into the principle of the bill, but he thought there were some facts connected with it, upon which the House ought to have information before it proceeded further. He would admit, that it was an unwise principle to regulate the price of labour; but parliament had regulated the price of bread and other articles; and if one such regulation was to be done away with, so ought all. If the Spital-fields acts ought to be repealed, many others ought to be repealed also. On all accounts, if it were only to obtain the peaceable assent of the artisans in the metropolis, who were by no means the unthinking uneducated people the right hon, gentleman imagined them to be, he implored him to allow the whole matter to he again brought under consideration in the ensuing session.

wished the measure to be postponed till next session. It had been his fortune to command, for a number of years, a regiment of militia, which was chiefly supplied with recruits from Spital-fields. Now, several of the men who had served under him had requested him to say a few words in their behalf. He had, therefore, great pleasure in stating, that, as far as his knowledge of them extended, a more honest, respectable, and well-conducted set of men did not exist.

complained of the manner in which it was attempted to hurry this bill through the House. He had not had time to road over the evidence which had formerly been collected upon this subject, neither, he believed, had the right hon. gentleman. He trusted that he would allow the bill to be fully deliberated in a committee next year.

was of opinion, that the repeal of the Spital-fields acts would be beneficial to the weavers and artisans generally. Still he thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be advisable to allow the bill to go to a committee above stairs.

said, that if he could persuade himself that any fresh information could be afforded upon this subject, he would have no objection to go into the committee. But, what information could they get by such a proceeding, which they were not already in possession of? He was convinced that it would only be a waste of time to take the evidence of the weavers themselves; and, as to the evidence of the master manufacturers, the House had it already, and one and all of them called for the repeal of these impolitic acts. With regard to the argument raised upon the statement that the wavers had never applied to the poor-rates for relief, he should merely observe, that the evidence attached to the report on the poor-laws distinctly proved that statement to have no foundation in fact. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman opposite, that these acts had not promoted the manufacture's Spital-fields.

was of opinion; that inquiry was, never more called for. What was asked for was merely inquiry. And, ought the House to refuse it merely because some persons talked largely about the principle of political economy? The hon. gentleman then entered into some details to show the disturbances that had prevailed at Coventry and in Spital-fields, before these acts for the protection of the workmen were passed. Distress, confusion, and discontent, might be the result if these acts were repealed. The trade of Coventry would be removed to London, and it would be easy for a few dissolute men to breed disorders in the metropolis. Whether there were not some regulations in these statutes which required all oration he would not decide, but if so, that was an additional motive for sending the whole subject to a committee.

was as anxious for inquiry as any member, in cases where it was at all necessary; but, admitting all that the opponents of this bill stated they could prove, it would not change his opinion. If these acts were indeed so beneficial, they ought to be adopted all over the country, and applied to every branch of manufacture; but the question was, whether labour should or should not be free? The quantity of work must depend upon the extent of demand; and if the demand was great, the number of persons employed would be in proportion. If these acts were repealed, no doubt the number of weavers employed in London: would be greater than at present. They might not, indeed, receive such high wages; but it was improper that those wages should be artificially kept up by the interference of a magistrate. If a manufacturer was obliged to use a certain quantity of labour, he ought to obtain it at a fair price. It had been said, that the weavers of Spital-fields received very little from the poor-rates. True, And why? Because there was so little to be distributed among them. Very little could be raised in the parish; and sometimes, when great distress prevailed, resort had actually been had to government, for large sums for the relief of the poor. An hon. member for Bristol had talked about political economy; but the words "political economy" had, of late, become terms of ridicule and reproach. They were used as a substitute for an argument, and had been so used by the hon. member for Weymouth. Upon every view which he could take of the subject, the bill would be beneficial both to the manufacturers and the workmen?

supported the bill. He thought that ministers deserved the highest praise whenever they had the manliness to break through any of the absurd regulations which fettered our commerce.

said, he did not wish to give a silent vote upon this question, lest the grounds of that vote should be misunderstood. He approved highly of the principle which went to the repeal of the acts—acts which, he was most willing to allow, were framed upon no sound principles, and the continuance of which he felt convinced would do no good, either to the workmen or their employers. But he would have the House to consider that these acts, erroneous and mischievous as they were, had been acted upon for halt a century. When this had been the case—when the people who were most deeply interested, and who had for so long a time adopted and regulated themselves, not by their own error, but by the error of the House itself; when they came to pray that those errors should be continued, or at least inquired into, it would be but fair to hear them. To go into the inquiry, therefore, would be a point of policy, for he did not think that that inquiry would be fatal to the measure; and he would recommend it just for the purpose of carrying that measure into effect in such a way as to secure the hearty approval of all parties. If the measure were to be hurried in the meantime, and without inquiry, that would not, he feared, be the case. When a large class of persons had prejudices—he would call them prejudices, and admit that they were not well-founded—had come to the bar of the House, and not only been heard by their counsel, but had prayed to give in evidence, he was of opinion that it was neither justice to them nor to the question itself, to dismiss them with half an hour's speech at the bar, without allowing them the proof they had offered. The effect would be, to send them away disappointed, and to confirm them in those prejudices which a full and careful inquiry might have removed.

thought that the inquiry should be gone into, even though it should delay the measure till next session.

, though friendly to the principle of the bill, thought it ought not to pass unless accompanied by the repeal of the combination and emigration acts.

would vote for the committee as he did not think that a delay beyond a week would occur.

observed, that from the arguments advanced by the various advocates for the committee, it was evident that it would be impossible to finish its inquiry that session. The mere appointment of the committee would operate with respect to the bill as an adjournment, sine die; and that was a course which he could not agree to. It had been said that his right hon. friend, in submitting the present bill, had founded it on principles of political science, and not on any practical effects as to the manufacture in Spital-fields, How, he could a sure the House, that in the repeated communications which his right hon. friend had with the master manufacturers, he had grounded his arguments for the repeal of these acts on facts alone. With respect to the argument founded on the absence of distress amongst the Spital-fields manufacturers, he held in his hand a resolution of the benevolent committee of that district, which stated the extent of the distress at one time to be so great, that 24,000 workmen were unemployed, and taking their families at the rate of two each loom, the calculation made the number of sufferers 48,000.

said, he was disposed to vote for the committee, not for the sake of obtaining further information, for he wanted none—not against the bill before the House, for he was friendly to it; but simply on the principle of conciliation towards those who, under a misconception of its effects, thought their interests were injuriously affected by it. He would accede the committee in condescension to the feelings of that large class of persons. But, if he thought its appointment would have the effect of postponing the bill till next session, he would not vote for it; because he was convinced the result of such a momentary attainment of their object would only continue the existing irritation, and renew future opposition to a measure which he felt ought to be carried into effect. Should a committee be granted, he trusted that by a wise selection of its members, and by framing the-instructions so as to limit the object of inquiry, the House would guard against such a result.

rose and said, that according to a notice he had given, he should object to any further supply being granted, until the House had decided upon a grievance which he was now about to submit to them. That grievance was the duty of four and a half per cent which was levied exclusively upon all the commodities of the Leeward Islands. Upon former occasions when he had brought this subject before the House, he had done so upon the ground only of the misapplication of this fund. He had shown on those occasions, that this fund had been created by laws of the colonies which were still unrepealed, and for public specified colonial purposes, and yet that, in defiance of such laws, this fund was now pretty nearly absorbed in pensions amongst the higher orders of persons in this country; and he had sought the restitution of the fund to the original purposes for which it was created. Events, however^ had happened in the present session which induced him to take a new course upon this subject. He held in his hand five petitions which had been presented during this session, from the Colonial Assemblies of each of the Leeward Islands, Barbadoes, Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat, and which, with the permission of the House, he would read, condensing the substance as much as he could [Here the hon. member read the petitions]. He would ask the House, if stronger pictures of misery could be drawn, than those in their petitions? And he called upon them to observe, that this impost of 4½ hogsheads in the hundred out of all their sugar, with the same proportion out of all their, rum, and all other commodities of the Islands was particularly stated in each petition, as a great additional aggravation of their misery, because it was levied exclusively upon their Islands, whilst Jamaica and the other old islands and all the new settlements in America, such as Demerara and others were entirely free from it. Could any thing be more unjust than this partial tribute, in addition to all other their contributions to the parent state, and when we recollect too how this tribute on sugar and rum were disposed of in pensions to persons of rank in this country, he really could not think how such persons could sleep in their beds, after reading or hearing the petitions which he bad that night read to the House. Under all the circumstances, then, of the oppressive nature of this tax, and above all, of its partiality and present application, instead of moving that it should be applied in the manner prescribed by the act creating it, he would induce the House, if he could, to pronounce an opinion, that the tax or tribute ought to be abolished altogether. In doing this, no one knew better than he did the difficulties he had to contend with. The petitioners of Antigua, when they say they fling themselves upon the "magnanimity" of parliament, could never have imagined, poor people, that they were prefering their petitions to their own pensioners. The majority of those Islands state in their petitions, that they have made their complaints to the king's government repeatedly, but all without effect. Why, they are not aware, perhaps, that the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) the manager for the king's government in that House, had himself taken a pension of 500l. per annum out of the sum for certain branches of his family about twenty years ago, and who has enjoyed it ever since. That the right hon. President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Huskisson) had selected the same sum for a jointure upon his lady, in the event of her surviving him; and that the oldest privy councillor of his majesty in that House (sir Charles Long) had enjoyed a pension of l,500l. per annum out of this fund for upwards of twenty years, and thus realising about 30,000l. sterling out of the sugars and rum of these devoted colonies. Under such circumstances, the king's minister, either in that House or out of it, were not the most obvious tribunal for these unhappy Islanders to appeal to. Not but what, in other parts of their conduct, these same ministers afforded proof enough, that the miseries of the colonies were perfectly well known to them. When the competition between the West-India colonies and our possessions in the East Indies were the subject of discussion, then the king's government were full of compassion for the West-India colonies; then they insisted that the distress of the latter was, so great, from the depreciation of its produce and expense of cultivation, that they, put a duty of 15s. a cwt. upon East-India sugar as a matter of favour and justice to the West Indies. Thus making the public consumer pay this additional duty for his East-India sugar, but entirely overlooking the relief to be afforded by the abolition of their own pensions upon the Leeward-Island produce. There was another notable proof that the government were well instructed in the ruin of these Leeward-Islands, for the fact was, the depreciation in the value of colonial produce had become so great, and the pensioners upon the Leeward-Island fund had become so crowded, that the duty of 4½ per cent raised out of the produce of all the Leeward Islands was no longer sufficient to pay these pensioners the full amount of their pensions, and accordingly it appeared by a return to that House of the application of the of the Admiralty, and which he then held in his hand, the Leeward-Island pensioners had had the modesty to help themselves to no less a sum than 13,000l. out of these droits, in order to make up for the deficiency in the other fund. And here he must be permitted to doubt the, legality, as well as decency and justice, of the latter proceeding. The charge of the Leeward-Island pensioners was a charge in kind; they were pensions on sugar and rum; the pensioners those that fund themselves; they were like Shylock and his bond; and they had no right when that fund became depreciated in value, to help themselves out of any other, for the purpose of making up the difference. But there was no such artist as your pensioner. He always knew how and when to turn himself. What a contrast was exhibited in the present case between the skill of these unhappy Leeward Island planters, and their own pensioners. There was another class of pensioners upon this fund, to whom it was his duty to advert; and in doing so, it was his wish and intention to show every mark of respect that was due to the rank of the parties; but it was the rank of these pensioners, which, in fact, made great part of his case, because it constituted the great difficulty of removing them. The petitioners, for instance, tell us that they have applied for redress to his Majesty, as well as to his ministers, and as we know, with the same success. Why, they were not aware, perhaps, that his majesty had granted a pension of l,000l. per annum out to this fund to his sister the princess of Hesse Homberg, and another to the same amount, to his sister the duchess of Gloucester. Now, he must say, without meaning the least personal disrespect to any of those illustrious parties, that when he recollected the great parliamentary provision which had been made by the nation for those princesses, and the enormous civil list enjoyed by his majesty, he must be permitted to think, that any act of bounty from his majesty to his royal sisters, ought to have flowed from his own privy purse: and then these devoted planters of the Leeward Islands should have been spared the honour of contributing pensions to these illustrious ladies. Again, there were five pensions of 500l. a piece to the five Miss Fitzclarences, and be must observe, a second time, that after all the nation had done for the duke of Clarence, it was his opinion, that that illustrious person ought to provide for the maintenance of his own children, instead of leaving them to be supported exclusively by the Leeward Islands. Having stated all the facts which he conceived to be necessary on this occasion, he asked the House, if they would, or would not take such a case into their consideration: and if they refused so to do, he these trusted, that at all events, we should hear no more jokes from the right hon. gentle man (Mr. Canning) upon the subject of parliamentary reform. It would be impossible for him ever, again to take the field with his "Red Lion," or King of Bohemia." The cause and ground of his attachment to that House, composed as it now was, would be too obvious, and in short, after refusing to listen to such a case as this, that House might continue indeed to preserve the name of the representatives of the people, but all their world would pronounce it to be no other than a private and interested corporation, providing for and supporting, its own members or their families, by every means within their reach, at home or abroad, belonging to these kingdoms. After observing, that he had preferred bringing forward the present question as a grievance before the business of supply, to bringing it on as a separate order, that course having been constantly pursued in the days of our ancestors, and the question of supply being truly the proper introduction to the mention of grievances of every description, the hon. member sat down by moving, by way of amendment, the following Resolutions, in which he had endeavoured, he said, to embody the petitions of the persons in whose behalf he proceeded:— That it appears to this House, by petitions presented to it this session, from the Colonial Assemblies of each of the Leeward Islands, that the planters and proprietors in those colonies are, from various causes, reduced to a situation of distress and misery, which, if not relieved, must shortly terminate in their utter ruin. "That in the Petition from the Island of Barbadoes, the Petitioners state, 'that were they to go into a detail of their distresses, they could furnish ample and melancholy proofs thereof in ruined families and individuals, multiplied sales of estates, and the straitened and unhappy condition of all who are solely dependent upon West-Indian resources, and that fluctuating as the prosperity of those Colonies has Undoubtedly been, yet the present calamitous depression is beyond all former precedent, arid much greater than on those occasions when parliament did not hesitate to investigate the circumstances which produced the evil:' "That in the Petition from the Island Antigua the Petitioners state, 'that they are reduced to such an extremity of distress, that actuated by the uncontrollable impulse of self-preservation, they can no longer refrain from throwing themselves on the wisdom, liberality, and enlightened feeling of this House, and they pray for such relief as to such magnanimous councils may seem expedient and proper: "That, in the petition from the island of Montserrat, the petitioners state, that, unable any longer to contend with their difficulties, or to ward off, unassisted, the ruin with which they are threatened, they feel themselves under the imperious necessity of appealing to this House, to take into its consideration the miserable condition of that once flourishing, but now declining, colony that they have, with the utmost concern, received intelligence of the unavailing representations made by their friends and connections in the mother country to his majesty's ministers; and, whilst they express their regret on the rejection of the proposed modes of relief, beg to refer the House to them, as the only efficient means of rescuing from inevitable destruction that valuable part of his majesty's dominions:' "That in the petition from the island of Nevis, the petitioners state, 'that the period has at length arrived when a silent submission to the unprecedented distresses which now overwhelm that unfortunate colony would become a crime in any class of subjects enjoying the rights and privileges of the British constitution; and that as a respectful appeal to this House is still open to them, they eagerly avail themselves of this last effort for the preservation of all that is most dear to them in this world; that the petitioners have not failed to submit to his majesty's ministers a statement of the grievances under which they labour, but that disappointment has been their only reward for every such representation, and they have now only to implore the benevolent interposition of this House:" "That in the petition from the island of St. Christopher's, the petitioners state, 'that the distress to which that colony is reduced hath reached that extreme point when silence is impossible, and when a respectful representation to this House is become the ultimate means of self-preservation, that the progressive steps by which this desolation has overwhelmed them, have from time to time been laid at the foot of the throne of our gracious monarch, and been made known to his majesty's government, and that the interference of this House can alone extricate the petitioners from the most severe pressure of the difficulties which beset them. "That it appears to this House, that one grievance amongst others complained of in each of the foregoing petition is the tribute or duty which is exacted from these islands of four hogsheads and a half out of every hundred hogsheads of their sugar, with the same proportion from their rum, and all other productions of the islands, and that such tribute or duty being exacted exclusively from these devoted islands (as they are termed by the petitioners from St. Christopher's whilst all the other colonies, old as well as new, are free from it, is most partial and oppressive: "That is further appears to this House, that this partial and oppressive tribute from the sugar and rum of the leeward islands is converted, for the most part, into pensions for persons of the higher orders in the mother country, including even members of the royal family, ministers of the Crown, members of both Houses of Parliament, their families or connections, and that under the present deplorable, condition of the Leeward islands, the further exaction of this tribute from them is a scandal upon the mother country; and an intolerable grievance upon these colonies, which this House, appealed to as it has been, is alike bound, in honour and justice, to see removed forthwith."

said, that the question consisted of two parts. The first affected the right of the Crown to this particular branch of revenue; the second affected the right of the Crown to appropriate it in any manner which might be deemed suitable by his majesty's government. These topics had been frequently discussed within the walls of that House, and on each occasion both of these rights had been affirmed. He admitted, that the present state of the West-India islands was such as to make the House desirous of affording to that interest all practicable relief; yet it was also clear, that, when the tenure of the fund was considered, no argument could be derived from the manner in which if was applied, as' a ground for its abolition. With respect to the right of the Crown to dispose of this fund, it had never been denied, and when Mr. Burke introduced his measure of financial reform, he still left it at the disposal of the Crown. The hon. gentleman had specified instances of the manner in which this fund had been disposed of and in which he supposed some indiscretion to have been practised. As to what had been stated with respect to his own connexion with the fund, he was ready to admit the fidelity of the hon. gentleman. It was true that, many years ago, he had held an office, on retiring from which, by constant and uniform practice, he became entitled to a pension of 1,200l. a year. It was true that he had retired from that office with the fullest claim to this pension. It was true that he had declined, the pension, choosing to wave his particular right, and commute it for a pension of half the amount to persons who had direct claims upon his protection. [Hear, hear]. He remembered, also, with great satisfaction that, at the time, that choice was considered as a considerable sacrifice on his part. Having said thus much for himself, he had little to add upon the general question. Certainly, it was open to parliament to deliberate upon particular instances in the disposal of this fund, if a case of indiscreation were made out. The hon. gentleman had exerted that right in a manner of which be would not complain. He had gone into instances, and complexions of instances, which he thought fit subjects for the observation of parliament. The hon. gentleman well knew that if he (Mr. Canning) chose, he could have taunted him with the names of persons in the same situation who were connected with parties highly respected by the hon. gentleman. But that mode was too invidious a one for him to follow. The House had a right a examine into supposed abuses as to the application of this and of any other branch of the revenue. But he must say, that the hon. gentleman did not seem to him to have made out any case which was likely to bring upon it a vote of censure from the House.

said, that the present mode of supplying the deficiency of the fund was an innovation on all preceding practice, and ought to be put a stop to. A part of the droits of the Admiralty had of late been made applicable to the demands on that fund, and he thought the whole of the pensions now defrayed by the West-India Island duties ought to be taken from those droits. He saw no reason why the colonies should not be freed from the tax in that way.

said, his hon. friend had, in the reference which he had made to the names of individuals, only performed a painful duty, which he felt himself bound to discharge, and which, without any invidiousness, he had carried into execution. He had stated a case with which he (Mr. B.) perfectly agreed. The Four and a Half per cent. duties had been formerly left to bear the burthens upon them as well as they could, but now another fund was drawn in, which was to make up the deficiencies. That was a strong argument for their abolition. A no- ther good ground seemed to be the peculiar circumstances of the times. When the West-India Islands were in a flourishing condition, the case was different. But they were now overwhelmed with unexampled distress, and his hon. friend had called upon the House to take the subject up in virtue of their petitions. The question therefore was hot taken up uncalled for. The petitions from the Islands, complained of the burthens imposed by those duties which were at all times inconvenient and heavy, but which were now utterly, unbearable, when the colonies were afflicted with the greatest calamity. From time to time, this subject had been pressed on their notice without success. Mr. Burke, in his History of the European Settlements in the West Indies, had denounced this tax as most burthensome. It was indeed a tax not upon income, but upon, gross produce. It was not regulated by circumstances, or modified according to the pressure of the times. It was as high when the crop was bad, and when the nett gains were nothing, or even when there was ah actual logs, as when the planter was in the most flourishing circumstances, Mr. Burke, by an extraordinary accident, had lived to receive himself a pension out of this very fund. He did not mention this as a bad instance of its application, for he thought that, if any political pension could be justified, it was that of a man who had lived all his life out of office, and whose exertions had been the means of a great saving to the country. He, however, after denouncing the tax, had certainly enjoyed a large pension out of it. The hon. and learned member then proceeded to state, that this tax had been attempted to be extended to the newly-ceded colonies. He cited the case of Hall and Campbell, in the King's Bench, by which it appeared that an effort was made to inflict the tax on Grenada, which was one of the newly-ceded colonies, and it was insisted on the part of the Island, that government had no right to tax them after having given them a constitution, without the consent of the constituted authorities under such a constitution. If any county of England, for instance Cornwall, the fertility of which was not remarkable, were surrounded by counties that paid no tithes, while that one was liable to the full payment of tithe, would it not be a monstrous and crying iniquity, that the one county should be singled out to bear the pressure of so heavy and oppressive a burthen?. Yet this was the situation of the Island whose case had been stated by his hon. friend, and with whose statement he perfectly agreed. He also concurred in what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, with respect to the application of the droits of the Admiralty, and entered into a narrative of his motions on the question of those droits in the years 1810,1812, 1820, on the first of which motions, the important concession was made by the then minister, Mr. Perceval, that although the droits of the Admiralty were not, in consequence of the compact entered into with the late king at his accession, liable to parliamentary control, yet they were, liable to parliamentary inspection, and accordingly annual accounts had been laid, on the table as a matter of course ever, since.

said, he took the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a transaction of an extraordinary nature, and which demanded inquiry. He alluded to the Expenses of the Coronation. An estimate of those expenses had been laid before the House, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that the amount would not exceed 100,000l. but the account now brought in was upwards of 238,000l. was the estimate, then, a fair or an honest one? Some of the items were disgraceful in the highest degree, and the House ought not to vote a shilling until an inquiry had been, instituted. The House had taken the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1820 as a correct one, but, it had been so extravagantly exceeded as to make the estimate appear a gross, delusion, and certainly as long as estimates were managed on that principle, they would be a mere farce. Another Strong ground of complaint was, that, the additional 138,000l. was supplied out of the French Indemnity Claims of 1815; and he should like to know what right government had to apply a single shilling of that money, which had not been appropriated to that purpose by a distinct vote of the House. Some of the item of the estimate were enormous. There was 111, 000l. for the furnishing and decoration of Westminster Abbey and Westminster Haft; Why, any minister, however weak, must know that was a most extravagant charge. Then there was 24,700l. to the master of the robes, for a robe for his Majesty. If his Majesty had been clothed in gold; it was scarcely possible that such a' sum could be expended. How could ministers reduce clerks with small establishments, and establish checks to minute details of expenditure, while they consented to so profuse an expenditure intone item alone? Then there was a charge for a diamond crown. He understood that that bauble had been got up by a jeweller in the year 1819, and that it had been kept on hire at an expense of 8,000l.or 9,000l. a year. Was it possible to conceive a greater waste of the public money? Then came 50,000l. to the surveyor-general of the works for fitting up Westminster Abbey and Hall. When the gaudy and tinsel-like manner in which they had been fitted up was remembered, it was evidently impossible that so much money could have been expended on them. A variety of items followed. One of them, although small in amount, might well have been spared. It was the sum of 3,000l. to sir George' Naylor, towards making public the ceremonial. Now really the account of the ceremony might have been left to be handed down by the historian. To apply a sum of the public money to such a purpose as wasteful as it was ostentatious. In the whole affair, his Majesty's government had acted 'with bad faith. They must perfectly well know, that, if they had originally proposed a grant of 238,000l. such a vote would never have been agreed to. Then came the consideration of the manner in which the 138,000l. that had not been voted, had been paid. In taking money for that purpose which had not been voted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had violated a resolution of that House; for any appropriation of the public money by his Majesty's government without a previous Appropriation-bill, was, if not a misdemeanor, a high disrespect towards the House; He would therefore move as an amendment. That, as the amount of 238,000l. for the expense of his Majesty's Coronation, as stated in an account late laid before Parliament, so greatly exceeds the estimate of 100,000l., submitted to this House in 1820, it is expedient, before granting any further Supply to his Majesty, to appoint a Select Committee, to inquire into the circumstances which have occasioned that excess of charge, and into the several items constituting that, charge, and also to inquire by what authority the sum, of 138,238l. has been applied to discharge the Coronation expenses without the previous sanction of this House."

said, that the hon. gentleman ought not to be surprised that the actual expense of the coronation had exceeded the estimate of 1820, when it was recollected, that that estimate was founded on the supposition that the ceremony was to take place in that year; and that a considerable prior expense had been incurred in consequence. When, however, his majesty was advised to postpone the ceremony until the next year, that expense was of course lost. It was clear, therefore, that 100,Q00l. would not cover the whole expenditure. With respect to the particular items of charge, as the hon. gentleman had given, him no notice, he was not prepared to explain them. But, as to the fund put of which the expenses had been defrayed, the hon. gentleman was under a mistake. The hon. gentleman supposed that they had been defrayed out of the surplus of. Contingency which had been paid by the French. Now, that surplus had never; been appropriated by any vote of the House. It was, therefore, evidently competent to the Crown to apply the money to the purposes of the coronation.

characterised the whole charge of the coronation as a most wicked expenditure of the public money.

said, he should vote against the amendment, as it did not appear that any public money had been mis-appropriated by the Crown.

hoped his hon. friend would persevere in his amendment. Under any circumstances, an inquiry by a committee into the authority by which, the appropriation was made could, not be injurious. With respect to the items Of the charges, some of them were scandalously enormous. The country ought not to be insulted by such an expenditure as 24,000l. merely for a robe for his majesty.

protested against the appropriation by the Crown of any portion of the public money without the previous sanction of that House.

supported the amend- ment. Adverting to the enormous fees which, on the demise of the Crown, resulted from the formal ire-appointment of individuals to places they already held, he trusted that a bill would speedily be brought in, to prevent such a practice in future.