presented a Petition from the Letterpress Printers of the metropolis, signed by 1,100 of that body, praying for a reduction of the duties on Newspaper stamps and advertisements, and for the removal of all restrictions on the free circulation of periodical literature. The petitioners stated, and he entirely subscribed to their statement, that owing to the high duties on stamps and advertisements, the circulation of newspapers and periodical writings, and, of course, the diffusion of knowledge, were much impeded; and that, if those duties were lessened, the Revenue would be increased from the great increase of advertisements and newspapers, while the public generally, and the numerous body of men connected with the periodical press, would be much benefitted. The petitioners attributed the decay of some newspapers to the heavy taxes, and they mentioned four papers—The British Press—The Traveller—The Representative, and The Morning Journal, which without any neglect in the management of them, but solely by the heavy duties had been suppressed within a few years. In consequence of the low duties in France and America, both on newspapers and advertisements, the circulation of newspapers and number of advertisements were far greater, not only positively, but relatively to their enterprise, intelligence, and wealth, in those countries than in Great Britain. It was true there was one paper—The Times, a journal which paid the astonishing sum of 70,000l. per annum to the Revenue; but no argument could be derived from that great exception to the present unfavourable state of the daily press, save one, founded on the argument that its circulation would be still more extensive, and the number of its advertisements still greater, but for the high rate of duties on newspaper stamps and advertisements. He trusted Ministers would direct their attention to the subject, which was one, he thought, of national importance to the interests of literature and freedom.

supported the petition. He hoped to be allowed to take the present opportunity of noticing a misstatement which had appeared in the Irish newspapers with respect to what had fallen from him in that House. He would be the last man to complain of newspaper comments upon his conduct, for he considered the conduct of public men to be public property. But if the conduct of any Member of Parliament had been represented in newspapers to be directly the contrary to that which, in point of fact, it was, it then became his duty towards his constituents to take a public opportunity of setting himself right. The misrepresentation of which he complained was contained in two Irish newspapers, where it was stated, that on a late occasion the member for Limerick had declared, before the Parliament of England, that the Catholics of Ireland were unworthy of confidence. Every person who recollected what had fallen from him on the occasion alluded to, must at once admit that that was the most foul misrepresentation ever uttered. What he had said was, that the concerns of the Irish Protestant Church had better be taken up and inquired into by members of that Church than by members of any other communion. He was not disposed to enter into newspaper controversies; but if he had said or done any thing that was wrong, let him be charged with it in the House of Commons, where he should have an opportunity of meeting his accuser.

gave his most cordial support to the petition presented by the noble Lord. The more the press was encouraged, the greater, he was convinced, would be the benefit conferred on the public. The hon. Member, alluding to the notice of motion he had given with respect to providing accommodation for Reporters, expressed his regret that he had not had the good fortune to introduce that measure in the present Session. He, however, considered the subject of so much importance, that if he had the honour of a seat in a future Session of Parliament, he would not fail to submit it to the consideration of the House. It was not, he said, the fault of the Reporters that misstatements went forth to the public of the proceedings in that House; hon. Members were themselves to blame, who refused to give proper accommodation to the Reporters. It was the opinion of Burke, and other eminent men, that in order to secure the confidence of the constituents of that House, it was most desirable that every thing which occurred in it should be fully known by the public.

approved of the manner in which the noble Lord had brought the present subject before the House. Nothing, he thought, could more properly occupy the attention of the House than the means of spreading political intelligence among the people. There were many persons in the kingdom, with incomes from 200l. to 300l. a year, and whose education enabled them to form as just an opinion on political events as any man in that House, who were precluded from learning what occurred in Parliament because they could not bear the expense of taking in newspapers. He was quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in more prosperous times, be induced to consider the proposition suggested in the petition before the House. A small reduction of the newspaper stamp duty, and the advertisement duty, would have the effect of doubling the circulation of newspapers, and increasing the revenue of the country.

rose, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member for Limerick, to bear testimony to the singular accuracy with which the hon. Member had recollected what he said on the occasion alluded to in the Irish newspaper. Every body who knew the hon. Member knew that he was incapable of using the language attributed to him. The mis-statement had occurred in consequence of the clumsy manner in which the reports of the proceedings in that House were taken. It would be better, he thought, to have a responsible body of reporters. By the present system no one was responsible, and therefore every person was at liberty to misrepresent what occurred in the House.

gave his support to the petition. The hon. member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton) had said it was desirable that reports of the proceedings in the House should go forth accurately to the public; and the hon. member for Limerick (Mr. S. Rice) had given a fair specimen of the accurate manner in which the reports were at present made. But his case was only one out of a hundred; and what would become of the time of the House if every person aggrieved were to take the same means of correcting misrepresentations as the hon. Member had done? The House had, however, a remedy for the evil in its own hands. What was more simple than for the House to have Reporters of its own, sworn to report correctly what passed in that House, or not to report at all? With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Lincoln (Col. Sibthorp), who wished Reporters to be allowed greater accommodation, he begged to say, that before hon. Members would consent to give up the key of the Gallery, he hoped they would make sure that the guns should not be turned against themselves. Before they capitulated, he should be glad to know the terms of capitulation. He had no sort of doubt of the power of Reporters to report with accuracy. Indeed, it was matter of wonder the correctness with which reports were sometimes given. That they were persons of education needed no further proof than the extraordinary readiness with which quotations were taken down, where so ever they came from. But, he asked, what law compelled them to report at all? They were not obliged to notice any subject, or report the speech of any individual, that they did not like. Moreover, the House ought to consider what might possibly happen, and not only what did happen. How did the House know what became of the reports after leaving the Reporters' hands? He believed that, as far as the Reporters were concerned, they ex- ercised the power they possessed fairly. But the time might come when reports might undergo manufacture,—when one word or one sentence might be substituted for another, to suit the views of newspaper proprietors. Those were all possible cases, and he did not wish the House to rely on any thing with too great security. Only let the House suppose, which might happen, that some great capitalist thought proper to get the monopoly of the principal newspapers. What was more easy than for him to tell the persons who managed those concerns,—"I will not have such and such speeches reported?" Every body knew that the two hon. members for Callington were opposed on many subjects. Now suppose some capitalist, in possession of the principal newspapers, and having some purpose to serve, were to say—"I cannot afford space for the speeches of more than one member for Callington; and I would rather have the speech of the hon. Member, Mr. Baring, than that of the other hon. Member, Mr. Attwood." The consequence would be, that the speeches of one of the hon. members for Callington would be reported at full length, while those of the other would be exceedingly curtailed. Only let the House consider whither such abuses might lead. Considering the liberty which the reporters possessed of only reporting what they pleased, the only wonder was, that they reported so fairly as they did. What was to prevent the Government getting possession of the principal newspapers? That was a thing it might do very dexterously. It might be done in such a way that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) could say he knew nothing at all about the matter. There were always certain persons ready to do jobs for the Government, who never appeared. Supposing such to be the case, how easily it might happen for the speeches of Ministers to be reported accurately, and for those of the persons opposed to them to be suppressed. He was most decidedly of opinion that the House ought to have Reporters of its own, sworn to give a full detail of what happened there. That, to be sure, would be rather grievous to the newspaper proprietors; but he did not think it so great a grievance as that which arose out of the present system.

assured the hon. Member who spoke last, that he had no power to direct that the speeches of Ministers should be reported, and that the speeches of persons opposed to them should be suppressed. He must say that the reports of the proceedings of that House were given with singular correctness upon the whole, and, what was still higher praise, with great impartiality. He very much doubted the policy of that arrangement which the hon. Gentleman had suggested, that every word uttered in that House, and the exact terms of every sentence should be faithfully and accurately reported. On the whole, he did not think there was any reason to complain of the manner in which the speeches in that House were reported. Indeed, he considered that a very wise and useful discretion was employed in lopping off some of the superfluities which were uttered. Besides, the arrangements suggested by the hon. Gentleman would lead to Reporters being paid at the public expense. He was of opinion that hon. Members—and he included himself in the remark—would gain nothing by having every word spoken in the House reported. That would neither be advantageous to the public, nor very creditable to themselves.

Petition brought up.

, in moving that it be printed, said, he should bring the subject of the stamp-duties practically before the House in the next Session, if it should not be taken up by any other person.

said, it did not appear that the duty on advertisements was so great as to prevent advertisements being sent to newspapers; for he very often found that in a most respectable paper, when printed of twice the usual size, one half was devoted to advertisements. He, however, thought it desirable to reduce the stamp-duty on newspapers, and he thought that the revenue would be increased thereby.

thought a reduced duty would yield more revenue. He objected to the stamp-duty, because it had the effect of keeping men in ignorance. It was a most mischievous tax. He also recommended the removal of the tax on the manufacture of paper.

said, he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) was satisfied with the present system of reporting, as his speeches were always reported verbatim—

called the hon. Member to order. The House was not discussing any question about reporting.

said, the noble Lord was very fond of calling to order. The noble Lord might have a design in that, as he wished, perhaps, to get his speeches reported.

here called the hon. Member to order. He stated, that though it was perfectly true that the House, when any question was brought before it, did not confine itself strictly to the discussion of that particular subject, yet it did appear to him extremely disorderly to make a deviation so great as to anticipate the discussion on a motion, of which notice had been given, to enlarge on a subject, except upon a distinct notice, which ran very closely on the privileges of the House; and moreover, to comment on the conduct of any hon. Member, and impute motives to him for having called another person to order.

begged to state, in reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Davenport), who seemed to think that he was pleased at having his speeches fully reported, that he was very glad that his speeches were not always reported verbatim.

wished to correct a misapprehension into which the hon. member for Clare had fallen. He had not complained of the reports of his speech—they were all correct—but he had complained of the false comment which was made on it.

The Petition to be printed.

rose to submit a Motion to the House relative to the 4½ per cents. He hoped, however, that the House would allow him on the present occasion, perhaps the last that would be offered him, to express his opinion on the course which Ministers had pursued. Departing from the usual and established practice of the House,—that of passing the Estimates separately, and taking the sense of the House on each grant of money,—he understood that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move a considerable vote of credit, which, in point of fact, if agreed to, was a mark of unlimited confidence in his Majesty's Ministers. In the early part of the Session he was not disinclined to place unlimited confidence in the Administration, but in the progress of the Session it had forfeited the favour of those who were disposed, at first, to give it support. The Administration had been "weighed in the balance, and found wanting." It was not an Administration which, in his humble judgment, was competent to conduct the business of the state with credit to themselves, or with benefit to the country; it was an Administration from which, as it appeared to him, the public opinion was rapidly receding, and he could not but express his regret that his Majesty should have consented to place his confidence in such an Administration, at the moment that the people of this country had begun to view it with distrust. He must on this occasion enter his protest against the vote of credit which was called for, because he could not place confidence in the Government, and he must further protest against such a departure from the usual mode of voting the Estimates. The question, as it appeared to him, which here presented itself, was, whether there was in this instance any good reason for a departure from the established rule with regard to the voting of the public money by Parliament. For his part, he was perfectly unable to divine any reason of a public nature, or connected with the public interests, which called for, or justified such a deviation from the ancient, the wholesome, and the constitutional practice of that House. If he might be permitted to give his opinion as to the real reason which induced His Majesty's Ministers to ask for such a vote, he would say that it was because they were anxious to escape from the difficulties by which they were at present surrounded; that they were anxious to put an end to the great council of the nation, because they were unable to manage the House of Commons, and because the only alternative left to them was to get rid of it altogether. That was, in his opinion, the real reason which induced Ministers to ask for a vote of credit now. There were no circumstances of a public nature which justified the House in going along with them in that course; but upon this point he should not dwell at greater length, as he did not wish to weaken the effect of what had fallen from several of his hon. friends the other evening upon this subject, and in whose sentiments he perfectly concurred. There was another matter, to which, with the leave of the House, he would just briefly advert. He wished to glance at the great question of the Regency, which, more than any other question that could be mooted, was pregnant with danger in proportion to the delay of it. In every State in which it was necessary to constitute a Regency, two great dangers were always to be guarded against—that of usurpation on the one hand, and the struggle of present factions on the other; and history clearly established the fact, if it were not deducible from the dictates of common sense, that just in proportion as such a settlement was speedily effected, in the same proportion were the dangers which were incident to such a question lessened and avoided; and that, on the contrary, just in proportion as its settlement was suspended, were those dangers increased, and the risk to the State rendered more critical and more imminent. At no period could it be more incumbent upon Parliament—at no period was it more their bounden duty, with a view to avert the possibility of future danger, to approach speedily, and at once, the arrangement of this important question, and the present moment was one peculiarly fitted for its final and satisfactory settlement. They could come to the discussion of it now coolly and dispassionately, with unbiassed minds, and unfettered judgments. The new Sovereign was seated upon the Throne, and every thing combined to enable them to arrive at a calm, deliberate, and impartial decision upon such an important subject. But if they put it off—if they now improperly postponed it to a future period—the Throne might in the mean time become vacant, instead of being, as it now was, full. Rival claimants might start up to assert their pretensions to the office, public dissensions might in consequence ensue, and innumerable difficulties arise, to impede the due and deliberate exercise of their judgment on the subject. Were he to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite through the space of history over which it had pleased him to wander, he then might shew—and he was convinced he should be able to shew—that it was contrary, to all precedent, and to the principles of the Constitution, heedlessly to defer the consideration of questions of such vital interest. To prove, indeed, that it was the duty of the existing Parliament to proceed at once to the settlement of this question, he should refer to the very preamble of that Act of William which had been so artfully quoted the other evening by the right, hon. Gentleman, and which continued the existence of Parliament beyond the limits of the life of the Sovereign. From that preamble it would be seen, that the Act in question was specially destined by our ancestors to meet an emergency of this kind. The Commons were the trustees for the people, and as such they were bound to meet the emergency, and to proceed at once to provide for the inheritance. It was with that view, and for that purpose, as it appeared to him, that that Act had been framed by their ancestors. But there was another point which strengthened this view of the subject. If they did not proceed to provide for the inheritance now, and if, in the mean time, a second demise of the Crown should occur (which, that it might be long averted, he joined the right hon. Baronet in sincerely praying), if in that event the new Parliament had not been assembled, and had not met for the despatch of business, this present Parliament, which was now condemned, and said by his Majesty's Ministers to be incompetent to discuss this question,—this very Parliament would be called together to settle it and that settlement, it was plain, would not then be effected in the same cool and deliberate manner as it might be effected upon the present occasion, with their gracious Monarch on the Throne,—the guardian of the succession, and the father of his people. It was for these reasons that he (Sir J. Graham) protested against dissolving the present Parliament after obtaining a vote of credit, and thus suspending the established usage and functions of Parliament, which were, to look with a close and jealous eye into every portion of the public expenditure, and to examine narrowly and thoroughly every vote for the public money which should come before them. With regard to the settlement of the Civil List, it had been acknowledged by the right hon. Baronet—and indeed it was impossible to deny the fact—that since the Revolution, the practice had been, that upon a demise of the Crown, the settlement of the Civil List was uniformly made by the existing Parliament previous to its dissolution. The only example of the opposite practice was to be found in the instance of the accession of his late Majesty on the demise of his royal father; and Lord Londonderry, upon that occasion, after acknowledging that it was a departure from the usual practice of Parliament, expressly stated that it could not be drawn into a precedent, because it was recommended upon special grounds; and these were, that although there was a change in the style, title, and dignity, yet that there was not any change in the person exercising the sovereign authority. And here he must say—and it was in vain to dissemble—that the Civil List was one of those questions in which the people and the Crown had not precisely the same interests. The Crown must naturally desire to obtain as large a revenue as it possibly could, consistent with the means and with the burthens of the people. The people, on the contrary, must be anxious to bestow upon the Crown as small a revenue as was consistent with the decent dignity of a limited Monarchy; he said the decent dignity of a limited Monarchy, which was widely different from the ostentatious glare of military Despotism. Now it was undeniable that the Crown exercised an influence in that House; and what was the counterpoise to that influence? The popular influence, which was exercised when the Members again came before their constituents, and appeared, in the words of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Knaresborough, to render up an account of their stewardship, and declare how they had voted, and for what reasons they had voted, upon the great and nicely-balanced questions that had come before them. He thought accordingly, that the people should not be deprived of that salutary control. It was a novelty to attempt to deprive them of it; and it was not to be expected that the Members of a new House would be actuated by the same strong motives to deserve the public favour as men who were soon about to meet those whom they had been returned to represent. He, therefore, for one, could not countenance this novelty, and he hoped the people would avail themselves of another control which was yet allowed to them; and that was, to come to a clear understanding with their Representatives upon this subject. In saying this, however, he begged not to be misunderstood. He hoped the settlement would not be a niggardly one—but a fair, just, and liberal settlement—such as became the dignity of the King of England, and the character of his people. He trusted, too, that it would be a settlement in commutation of all the hereditary possessions of the Crown, Crown-lands, Droits of Admiralty, Droits of the Crown, Hereditary Revenues, and the surplus from the four-and-a-half per cent duties. And now to approach more immediately the subject on which he had risen. He would say that it was the manner in which this fund had been managed for the last two years that had induced him to turn his attention towards it. The Government had seemed anxious to throw a great mystery over those small branches of the hereditary revenue. And if he succeeded in making out his case, he earnestly hoped and trusted that the people would not, on the approaching occasion, overlook the fact, or support any candidate who would not pledge himself to vote for a Civil List upon an economical scale. But touching the four-and-a-half per cent duties, it might be necessary for him to enter into some details. He should not, however, trouble the House by again going over ground, which had been so often trodden. He should not waste the time by showing how these four-and-a-half per cent duties had been originally granted to Charles 2nd by the colonial legislature, in consideration of his abandoning his feudal privileges;—consenting to commute the tenures into tenures by common soccage—and to support the military establishments. Neither should he trouble them by showing how these duties had been misapplied by that Monarch and his successor, James 2nd; or how they had been granted to King William, as part of his privy purse; or how, in the reign of Queen Anne, a remonstrance had been addressed from the colonists to that House; or how, in consequence, an Address was voted by the House of Commons to her Majesty, praying that those funds might be restored to their original destination. Nor would he trespass upon the House even to show how they were, during the subsequent part of Queen Anne's reign, and that of the two first Georges, actually restored to their original destination; or how, by the Civil List Act of George 3rd, they were held to be part of the small revenues of the Crown, and thus came to be thenceforward considered as such. Now, it was not necessary for his argument to contend that they were not so, and did not fall within the limits of the Royal prerogative; but the question would still remain whether, if there be a right in the Crown, arising from usage, to import the sugars, on which these duties were paid, free of all charge at the Custom House, the absence of usage for 165 years, up to 1828, was not a waiver of the prerogative? Taking for granted, however, that the prerogative was clear, what would the House say upon the subject? Would it say that it was a justifiable exercise of authority, upon the part of the law-advisers of the Crown, to recommend the revival of that right? He would, as bearing upon the question, quote the opinion of a Crown lawyer, delivered at a period when the doctrine of prerogative was high, and much higher than at present. Sir Heneage Finch said, "The King hath a prerogative in all things not injurious to the subject; but in all respects the King's prerogative stretcheth not to do any wrong." But here he might be asked to explain what he meant by prerogative; and although nothing was more difficult than a definition he believed he could bring forward, one from a great man, and the first logical authority which the country ever produced, from whom, as from the fountain-head, they could draw all the principles which governed the Revolution; it was scarcely necessary for him to add, the individual he alluded to was Locke, who said, "Many things there are which the law can by no means provide for, and these must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that hath the executive power, to be ordered by him as the public good and advantage shall require. This power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative." Locke did not stop there, but went on to say—"And this power, whilst employed for the benefit of the community, and suitably to the trust and ends of the Government, is undoubted prerogative, and never is questioned; for the people are far from examining prerogative, whilst it is in any tolerable degree employed for the use it was meant—that is, for the good of the people, and not manifestly against it; but if there comes to be a question between the executive power and the people, about a thing claimed as a prerogative, the tendency of the exercise of such prerogative to the good or hurt of the people will easily decide the question. The end of Government being the good of the community, whatsoever alterations are made in it tending to that end cannot be an encroachment in anybody, since nobody in Government can have a right tending to any other end; those only are encroachments which prejudice or hinder the public good. Those who say otherwise speak as if the Prince had a distinct and separate interest from the good of the community, and was not made for it; the root and source from which spring almost all the evils and disorders which happen in kingly governments. And if that be so, the people under his government are not a society of rational creatures, entered into a community for their mutual good; they are not such as have set rulers over themselves to guard and promote that good; but are to be looked on as a herd of inferior creatures, under the dominion of a master who works them for his own pleasure or profit. If men were so void of reason and brutish as to enter into society upon such terms, prerogative might indeed be, what some men would have it, an arbitrary power to do things hurtful to the people." That was Mr. Locke's definition of prerogative; and he laid it down that it must be exercised for the good and advantage, and not to the detriment of the people. He meant to apply that test to the exercise of the prerogative in this case—or rather to some other cases. The House must not forget that his Majesty was possessed of great domains in Hanover. Now suppose his Majesty were to fancy to grow vast quantities of corn upon these domains, and to import it, as was his right, duty free into this country—he put it to the country gentlemen what would be the effect produced upon their interests, and upon the nation generally, by such a course; or what would be the opinion universally entertained of the exercise of such a right? Again, the King is by right of conquest Sovereign and liege Lord of the many of our foreign possessions; but what would be the effect if he should fancy to import tobacco, which is subject to a tax of 950 per cent. duty free, from Demerara, or any other of our colonies? Would not such an exercise of prerogative be productive of injurious effects to his subjects? That was the point of view in which they should regard the species of prerogative that had been exercised in this instance. He saw, however, the right hon. Gentleman was getting impatient, as if he feared he (Sir J. Graham) was about to violate the compact he had entered into. It was his intention to keep faith. When he brought this subject, on a former occasion, before the House, the right hon. Baronet acknowledged that a remedy was required in reference to one branch of this subject, and that it should be met by a bill. He then understood that a bill for the purpose would be brought in, and passed this Session. However, since that time, he had heard no mention of the introduction of any such bill. He had, in the first place, waited for the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the measures he proposed to carry forward that Session; but in this there was no mention of the Bill now indeed laid upon the Table. Besides, he must observe that he had heard nothing of that Bill, and until he had given notice last night of his present motion, he saw nothing respecting the matter upon the paper. He was sure, that the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that such an arrangement as he alluded to had been made, and it did not appear that it had been adhered to on the part of his Majesty's Ministers. Notwithstanding all this, however, he would have waited patiently, but that, since the arrangement had been made, a most important fact had come to his knowledge, which made the former part of the case sink into insignificance; and now he begged to call the attention of the House to that fact, which formed the very essence and gravamen of his charges against the Ministry. He should just, however, call their attention to the extraordinary manner in which the facts respecting these matters came originally before the House. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had moved for a Return of all the Small Revenues of the Crown, severally enumerating them, and including the four-and-a-half per cents. A Return was brought in, with a note appended, that, in consequence of an opinion given by the Attorney General, no duty had been received on sugars not subject by the Act to duty, and being at the disposal of his Majesty. Now let them see, in the first instance, what was the question put to the Attorney General. It was, "Whether (as it has been held that no property of his Majesty is, unless specially subject to duty, liable to the payment of it) the sugars granted to the King in kind, and not specially subjected by any Act to Custom Duty, being also subject to his Majesty's disposal, and now applicable to public objects, pointed out by Parliament in the Act 6 Geo. 4th, cap. 88 (namely, the payment of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Establishment in the West Indies) are liable to the payment of any Custom Duty?" Now the words of the Act of 6 Geo. 4th, cap. 88, were—"And whereas it is expedient that the charge to be created by the salaries or pensions which may from time to time be payable, under the authority of this Act, to the Bishops, Archdeacons, Ministers, and Catechists, appointed or to be appointed by his Majesty as aforesaid, should be charged upon the duties of four-and-a-half per centum, payable to his Majesty in the West Indies, whenever the said duties, after payment of the prior charges thereof, shall afford the means of defraying the whole or any part of such salaries or pensions: Be it, therefore, enacted, that the said salaries and pensions shall become and be a charge upon the duties of four-and-a-half per centum next in priority after the salaries of the Governors, Lieutenant-governors, and other public officers, payable out of those duties after the determination of any other charges now existing thereupon; and that any and every surplus which shall at any time arise out of the produce of those duties, after defraying all such other charges now existing thereupon, or by reason of the cessation of any of those charges, shall go and be applied in the first instance to defray the charges of the salaries and pensions to be granted under the authority of this Act accordingly." But the Attorney General answered, he saw no reason why these sugars should be liable to the payment of any duty. He said—"We are of opinion that the property in the sugars in question being in his Majesty, the same are not liable to the payment of any Custom Duty." But then how did the Government act? Did they proceed not to levy the duties? Nothing like it. On the contrary, they did levy the duties; and this he should make quite clear to the House. Sugar might be sold in one of two ways—by the short price, in which case the purchaser paid the value of the sugar only; or by the long price, which included the duty of the Customs; and in this case the Government sold the sugars at the long price, or levied the duties on them, so that the produce fell under the Appropriation Act. Therefore it was clearly the duty of Ministers, having so done, to pay the same into the Consolidated Fund, in obedience to the Act. This was the course they ought to have taken, for there was a special appropriation under the Act, the 10th of Geo. 4th. cap. 85, which contains the following clauses:—"And be it further enacted, that all mo- neys coming into the said Exchequer by one other Act of this Session of Parliament, entitled 'An Act for continuing to his Majesty, for one year, certain duties on Sugar imported into the United Kingdom, for the service of the year 1829,' shall be further appropriated, and are hereby appropriated, and shall be issued and applied for and towards the several uses and purposes hereafter expressed." This Appropriation Act went on to say—"And it is hereby enacted, that the said aids and supplies provided as aforesaid, shall not be issued and applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatever, other than the uses and purposes before mentioned, or for the other payments directed to be satisfied there out, by any Act or Acts, or any particular Clause or Clauses for that purpose, contained in any other Act or Acts of this Session of Parliament."

As soon as he had ascertained that the duty was levied, it became necessary for him to seek some information respecting the amount. With a view to ascertain what that surplus was, he had moved for a return on the subject, and he found from that return that the gross nett proceeds of the fund for the year ending the 5th of January, 1830, amounted to 61,059l. 16s. 2d.; that the total charge was, during that period, including the colonial salaries and the pensions to the Husband fund, 42,805l. 3s. 4d. and that the nett surplus amounted to 18,254l. 12s. 10d. In the year ending the 5th of January, 1829, the gross proceeds amounted to 66,992l 15s. 1d. and the charge being estimated at the same amount as in 1830, it left a nett surplus of 24,187l. 11s. 9d. This surplus, added to the surplus in 1830, left a nett surplus for those two years of 42,442l. 4s. 7d. unaccounted for. He, on getting this return, imagined that surplus was applied to the support of the Ecclesiastical establishment in the West-Indies, and he was the more convinced of the correctness of that opinion, when he perceived that the charge for that establishment almost exactly tallied with the amount of this surplus. He did not imagine that there had been the least irregularity in the appropriation of that surplus, and he was led irresistibly to this conclusion by the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question put to him upon the subject by a noble friend of his in another place. The words used by his Grace were these—at least he took them in that form from what he presumed would be considered an authentic source, "There can be no doubt that it is a constitutional principle, that the property of the Crown is not liable to pay duties on importation into this country. I do not contend that it is always prudent to put that principle in practice; but I do mean to contend, that it is not imprudent to put it in practice in this case; because there are peculiar circumstances attached to it, which are not likely to be found in any other. I contend that these funds (under 6th Geo. 4th) are taken out of the hands of the Crown, are applied under the control and super-intendance of Parliament, and can never be abused for any purpose whatever." After this he certainly thought it unnecessary to make more inquiries, especially as the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to meet him upon the constitutional principle; but a rumour having reached him that this surplus was not applied to the expenses of the West-India Church Establishment, and having found that, on an average from the year 1820 to 1828, there was a surplus of 17,000l. ayear on the charge for pensions, over the payment, and that, therefore, there was a large arrear due to the pensioners, a question was naturally raised in his mind whether great interest had not been made, to have this arrear discharged out of the fund which had been raised by that legerdemain to which he alluded. On this he moved for a return, to show the amount paid in salaries, and the funds provided; and he was sure the House would be astonished, as he had been, when he read to them the last paragraph. It stated, that the amount paid for salaries on the Church Establishment was 20,000l. per annum, and that this was paid from the Consolidated Fund till such time as the state of the four-and-a-half per-cent. surplus was such as to admit of their being defrayed from it, in whole or in part. Not a shilling had been paid into the Exchequer; and there was now upwards of 42,000l. raised in that mysterious way, for which Government would have to account. The Members were no doubt cloyed and disgusted with the Sugar Question, but he trusted they would remember what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said about the high quality of the sugars imported from the old colonies. Taking, then, the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, they must conclude that all the sugars imported in payment of the four-and-a-half per-cents would go to the re- finer, and there would thus be a drawback upon the whole of it; and if so, the loss to the country would be doubled; it would amount to upwards of 84,000l. But taking it at the average rate of sugars imported from the old colonies, and saying that one-fourth went to the refiner, there would be a loss of 18,000l., which, being added to the 42,000l. remaining unaccounted for, would thus make a total loss of 60,000l. If this, however, had been the only part of the case, he might have been disposed to overlook it; but there had been two or three instances lately of interference upon the part of the Treasury, which was unconstitutional and dangerous in the highest degree. In the year 1817 a grant of 15,000l. had been made to the City of Londonderry, for the purpose of building a bridge, and this sum was to be repaid by annual instalments before the year 1837; but in 1821 a Minute of the Treasury was issued, suspending the payment sine die, and not a single farthing of this loan, though its repayment was provided for by Act of Parliament, had ever been paid. Now here was a suspending power usurped by the Treasury, of the most dangerous kind. There was another transaction well worthy of consideration. The whole money voted for the repairs of Windsor Castle was expended in July; and in anticipation of a vote, not then submitted to the House, and when submitted not agreed to, 70,000l. of debt was incurred. Here was a case of supercession of the functions of the House of Commons. And lastly, in the present instance, there was a direct violation of an appropriation embodied by the three estates in a solemn Statute. It was accordingly high time to come to some understanding. The most wholesome and the greatest privilege of the House of Commons he had always understood and considered to consist in the power of watching over and controlling the public expenditure; and so long as it existed in full force, so long, and no longer, might the freedom of the people be secured. He was not, consequently, disposed to rest satisfied with a measure which was merely prospective. In the year 1805, Mr. Pitt, in the plenitude of his power, was glad to take a bill of Indemnity from that side of the House, when he had simply supplied, in a case of urgent necessity, 60,000l. to make good a loan, and save the public credit. The loan had fallen to a discount, and the contractor was unable to make good his contract without aid, and Mr. Pitt was consequently compelled to supply this money, which the House had voted for another purpose. And yet, in this case, Mr. Pitt was not only satisfied, but glad to take a bill of Indemnity. He did not mean to impute corrupt motives to the present Ministry; but he conceived their conduct should not be suffered to pass by unnoticed or unremarked by some expression of the feeling of the House; for he was one of those who believed that all the privileges of the House, strongly enforced, were the best bulwarks of the liberties of the people; and he considered that the best support they could afford those privileges, and the best manner in which they could secure this permanency, was by bold resolutions of their own. Such was the opinion of their ancestors; and he would refer the House to a Resolution passed on the 15th of May, 1711, which he thought applied to the present case, for it declared that to employ money for purposes for which it was not voted, was a misapplication of the public money. That such a misapplication of the public funds had taken place in this instance had been, he thought, satisfactorily proved. There was also in 1727, a Protest on the Journals of the Lords, couched in energetic and constitutional language, and directed against the Bill of Aids, which might be well consulted as a precedent. Now, he was one of those who did not think that such Resolutions as he had alluded to consisted of the mere pompous sound of words. He thought they inculcated principles which ought to be dear in the estimation of the House, and he was convinced the liberties of the people would not long survive if they neglected to maintain that high tone. He had now, as succinctly and explicitly as he could, opened the case respecting this surplus money that was unaccounted for, and would conclude with the Resolution which he begged to read to the House. The hon. Member then moved the following Resolution, as an Amendment on the original Motion;—"That the Sugars, the produce of the Four and a Half per cent Duty, levied in the Islands of Barbadoes, Antigua, Montserrat, Nevis, Tortola, and St. Christopher, have for a great number of years been sold in the like manner as all duty-paying sugars from the British plantations are usually sold in this country, namely, at the long price, in which is included the duty of Customs payable on sugar; and that there has been no difference in this mode of sale since the date of the Treasury Minute of the 15th of April, 1828. That the said sugars have been uniformly entitled to the drawback or bounty payable by law on duty-paid sugars, and that there has been no difference in this respect since the date aforesaid. That the drawback or bounty on any such sugars exported since the date aforesaid, has been paid out of the revenue of the Customs, into which no duty has been paid on ac count of such sugars. That the nett proceeds of all monies received on account of his Majesty's revenue of Customs ought by law to be paid into his Majesty's Exchequer, to the account of the Consolidated Fund. That these duties virtually levied on the purchasers of the said sugars since the 25th of March, 1828, have not been paid into his Majesty's revenue of Customs, and have been appropriated without the cognizance or consent of Parliament. That this House, having called for an ac count of the appropriation of the nett proceeds of the four and a half per cent duty, for the year ending 5th of January, 1830, an account was furnished, by which it appears that the pensions paid by the Husband in that year amounted to 20,890l. 1s.4d.; that the salaries and other charges amounted to 1,502l. 5s. 11d.; that the salaries and pensions paid at the Exchequer amounted to 20,412l. 16s. 1d. making a total of 42,805l. 3s.d.; and it further appears, that the nett proceeds of the said duties for the same year were 61,059l. 16s. 2d., leaving a balance of 18,254l. 12s. 10d. not accounted for by the said return. That the nett proceeds of the said duties for the year ending 5th January, 1829, were 66,992l. 15s. 1d. That no part of the surplus arising from the nett proceeds of the said duties for the years ending 5th January, 1829 and 1830, after paying the pensions, salaries, and charges thereupon for the said years respectively, has been appropriated to the payment of the Ecclesiastical Establishments in the West Indies; and that no account has been rendered to Parliament of the manner in which such surplus has been applied. That to exempt from duty any article of merchandize imported for the Crown, but not intended for the use of the Sovereign, is an extension of the King's prerogative of dangerous example, and that to levy the parliamentary duties payable upon such article when sold for home con- sumption, and to appropriate the amount thereof without the knowledge and consent of Parliament is an unconstitutional violation of the undoubted privileges of this House."

would not follow the hon. Baronet into the extraneous topics which he had introduced into the present discussion. The present was not, in his mind, the occasion for discussing the Regency Question or that of the Civil List; nor did he see well how the hon. Baronet could connect with the topics he had introduced the subject of Londonderry Bridge, or the expense of the repairs of Windsor-castle, of which he might have learned something up-stairs. He had said, when he first began to address the House, that in the former discussion of the question there was an universal admission on the part of the hon. Members, that the exempting the King's sugars from the duty paid on other sugars was perfectly legal. The hon. member for Cumberland did not question the legality of that exemption at present; on the contrary, he admitted that the King's sugars were not subject to duty. That point had been discussed on a former occasion in the House, and all the lawyers in the House, without exception, admitted the legality of exempting the sugars, being the property of the King, from duty. Whatever other imputation, therefore, might rest upon those who advised the admission of the King's sugars duty free, this imputation clearly could not rest upon them, that they had been guilty of a violation of the law. On the former discussion it had been admitted by the advisers of the Crown, that though the Crown was in the undoubted possession of the prerogative to admit any commodities intended for its use free of duty, it was a prerogative which ought to be exercised with some restraint; and the humble individual who then had the honour of addressing them, had said, that upon a future occasion he would himself bring in a bill to take away this prerogative in certain cases. The hon. member for Cumberland had told the House that he had not seen any intimation given, by the Government of its intention to fulfil the pledge which he had offered to Parliament. He could not help feeling that the hon. Baronet, in making such a declaration, was a little too hard upon his Majesty's Ministers. The hon. member for Cumberland had mentioned the subject pri- vately to him some time ago, and had asked him when he intended to submit to the House his promised measure. He had told the hon. Member he was ready to bring it forward at any moment; but he had likewise added, that it was so short, that he thought it better to make it part of a bill which the Government intended to introduce, for the amendment of the law of Customs, than to make it a substantive bill of itself. Was there, he would ask the House, in that intimation, any thing which could justify the hon. Baronet in supposing that it was not his intention to carry into execution the assurance which he had given? Was it not rather an intimation that the subject had been fully considered by the Government, which was ready to submit it to the consideration of the House? Nay, he would ask further, had not his subsequent conduct fortified the idea which the language he had used to the hon. member for Cumberland ought originally to have excited? No sooner was it ascertained, by the occurrence of events with which all of them were unfortunately acquainted, that the duration of Parliament was not likely to be much further prolonged, and that the Customs' Amendment Bill, which was likely to excite considerable discussion, must on that account be abandoned; no sooner, he said, were those circumstances known to him, than he took the very first opportunity of giving notice that he would bring in, as a substantive bill, that measure which he had intended to propose as a clause in the Customs' Amendment bill. If Gentlemen would merely take the trouble of referring to the Orders of the Day, they would see that that bill stood for discussion this very evening. So far, then, was the hon. member for Cumberland from having any justification for charging him with an abandonment of his pledge, that there was every ground for him—first, in the private communication which had passed between them, and next, in the notice of motion which stood among the Orders of the Day—to suppose that he was prepared to redeem it; and before the House separated that night, redeem it he certainly should. The real points in dispute between the hon. member for Cumberland and himself lay in a very narrow compass. The first point, as he had already told the House, was simply this—was it justifiable to direct, that all the King's sugars, im- ported from the West-Indies, should be exempted from duty? And the next point was, had the proceeds of those sugars, or at least the surplus of them, been correctly applied, under the provisions of the Act of Parliament to the payment of the expense of the Ecclesiastical Establishments in those colonies? With respect to the first point, namely, the propriety of exempting the King's sugars from Custom-duty,—it had been already disposed of in a previous discussion, and would be set at rest for ever by the measure which he was prepared to introduce that evening. He could not, however, quit that subject without adverting to one topic which the hon. Baronet had introduced as an aggravation of the misconduct of Government. "You," said the hon. Baronet, addressing the Ministers, "have taken duty-free sugars from the West-Indies of the finest quality, which are the more desirable for the refiner—you have sold those sugars at the long price to the purchasers, and the purchasers have re-shipped them for exportation; you have thus not only lost to the revenue of Customs the whole duty which you did not pay on the sugar, though you charged it to the purchaser, but you have also lost to it the whole amount of drawback which is payable upon exportation." Now, if the hon. Baronet had been acquainted with all the circumstances of the case in which these sugars stood, he would not have given the authority which he had done to the statement which he had made. The hon. Baronet must know that the duty collected upon them was so many pounds of sugar upon every hundred pounds; in short, that it was a duty in kind; and that, as such was the case, it was likely that the parties would not select for the Crown their very best sugars. In order that the hon. Baronet might be convinced that what was likely to take place had actually taken place in this instance, he would refer to the price which these sugars had produced in the market. The hon. Baronet had before him the gross amount of the proceeds obtained by the sale of these sugars; and if he would take the trouble to make the calculation, he would find that the sale price of these sugars, free from duty, was 24s. per cwt., being 1s. under the average price of the present moment. Instead, therefore, of these sugars being of so fine a quality, it turned out that they were of a subordinate description; and he would undertake to say, generally speaking, that the 4½-per-cent sugars did not equal the other sugars which came to this market. So much, then, for the first point of the hon. Baronet's argument. He came now to the second point,—namely, to the correct application of the surplus of the proceeds of these sugars to the Ecclesiastical Establishments in the West-Indies. He took it that upon this point the hon. Baronet had fallen into an error by comparing two accounts that had been made up to two different and distinct periods. In the year 1828, the sugars produced 66,000l., and all the pensions charged upon them amounted to 42,000l.; therefore, in that year, there was a surplus of 20,000l. odd. The hon. Baronet, however, had taken the accounts as made up to the 5th of January, whereas they were generally made up to the 5th of July. It was, therefore, impossible that two accounts made up to two such distinct periods, could give the House any insight into the real condition of the case. The circumstances of the case were simply these,—and he could assure the House that he had not the slightest wish to conceal them,—for there was really nothing which required concealment. The proceeds of the sugars of the year 1828 were not received till the 5th of July, 1829. At that time there was a surplus of 7,200l. in favour of the 4½-percent duties. It was intended that it should be applied to the purposes stated in the Act; but it was not. It remained in the Bank of England, and was retained to meet any claims which might become due upon it before the proceeds came to hand. The proceeds of the sugars of this year were not yet realized; they were as yet only matter of estimate, and therefore, until the accounts were closed, on the 5th of July next, the balance could neither be paid into the Bank, nor be made available to the payment of the Ecclesiastical officers. So far from there being no intention to apply this surplus to the payment of the Bishops in the West-Indies, the original Minute, which sanctioned the payment of them from other funds, expressly stated that this surplus was to be reserved, in order that it might be applied, when it had accrued to a sufficient amount, to the purposes specified in the Act of the 6th of George 4th, c. 88. He assured the House that when the balance due on the 5th of July was paid in, it would be handed over to the Consolidated Fund, so that, in point of fact, the present practice was tantamount to paying the Bishops out of these very funds. He repeated, that in the first year there had been a balance of 7,200l., which had been reserved for the purposes which he had already stated, and added, that on the 5th of July this year there would be a much larger balance, which would also be applied, as he had already explained, to the Consolidated Fund. He could not, therefore, bring himself to believe that the House would be of opinion that there was anything in the conduct of Government upon this matter which deserved the severe censure which the Resolutions of the hon. Baronet were calculated to cast upon it. He should, therefore, for the reasons which he had already stated, give them his opposition if the hon. Baronet should persist in pressing them upon the House.

thought, that the House and the country were deeply indebted to his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, for the mode in which he had followed up this question from its commencement to its close. From the statement which had just been made to the House, he had no doubt that it was through inadvertence that the right hon. Baronet, in mentioning the course to be pursued with public business, had omitted to make any mention of what he intended to do with the bill which he had pledged the Government to introduce upon this subject. The question now before the House reduced itself to this:—were Ministers prepared to redeem the pledge which they had given upon a former occasion? For his own part, he must say, that it was his opinion, after the explanation which had just been afforded to the House, they were not in a condition to affirm the last of his hon. friend's Resolutions.

said, that there could be no doubt that the Crown, by its prerogative, could admit sugars, being its property into the country free from all duty. So clear was the prerogative upon the point, so well known to every man who had the least acquaintance with the commercial and fiscal laws of the kingdom, that he considered that those who had submitted a case upon the point to the law-officers of the Crown had been guilty of an absurd act of supererogation. The only question was, as to the expediency of exercising that prerogatitive, which was admitted to exist by every man who had at all turned his attention to the subject. He then proceeded to state the reasons which would have induced him to protest against the expediency of exercising that prerogative, and to show that the Consolidated Fund was 50,000l. worse than it would have been had the surplus of these sugar duties been applied conformably to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The receipts for these duties in two years had been 128,000l., and the charge upon them during that time had been 84,000l., so that there was a difference of nearly 50,000l. which did not appear to be accounted for in any return laid before Parliament. It was, therefore, only natural for the hon. Baronet, the member for Cumberland, to suppose, in the first instance, that this sum had been applied to the payment of the Ecclesiastical establishments in the West-Indies. It now turned out that it had not been so applied, and it appeared to him that after all that had been said, there was still room for some explanation respecting the application of those balances. Had they been applied to meet the charges on them within the year, or to pay off former arrears? Whilst there was any doubt on such points, the hon. member for Cumberland was perfectly justified in bringing forward his present Resolutions. He was of opinion, that after the 5th of July, when the accounts would be made up, the House ought to have presented to it an account of the nett surplus of these duties for the last three years. A large sum of money had been lost to the Consolidated Fund by the mode of dealing with these duties; and he, therefore was of opinion that there ought to remain on the Journals of the House a record of the opinion of the House, that the repetition of such conduct ought to be avoided.

The question which is now under the consideration of the House lies within a very narrow compass. If there be any doubt as to the appropriation of these funds, let any individual move for any returns, I care not of what nature, which he conceives likely to throw light upon it, and I will gladly second his motion for their production. I say that there has been no misappropriation of them. But at the same time I admit that it is only right that Parliament should be put into possession of every official guarantee that there has been no misappropriation. My right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, says, that the proceeds of these duties for two years have been 128,000l. My right hon. friend is wrong: they will amount to that sum, but the sugars are sold, as he well knows, at a long credit, and as yet no part of the purchase money for those sold this year has been received; so that, from my right hon. friend's 128,000l. 61,000l. must for the present be deducted. If there be any doubt upon that point, let any man, I repeat, call for the official guarantees, which will remove it, and I will immediately grant them, if it be in my power. There is no ground for the censure which the hon. Baronet's resolutions cast upon Ministers, for, in point of fact, no new charge had been fixed upon these funds. They are already regulated by law, and the proceeds of these sugars, with the remission of duty, will, pro tanto, go to the Consolidated Fund in case of a surplus.

, in consequence of an observation of Mr. Huskisson, the purport of which was not understood, interposed to explain. The Act of Parliament stated that the surplus of these funds should go to defray the expense of the Ecclesiastical Establishments, which was before defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. The Treasury Minute authorized the payment of that expense from the Consolidated Fund, directing the proceeds of the four-and-a-half per cents to be paid to that fund: so that, in point of fact, the Ecclesiastical Establishments are ultimately paid out of the proceeds of the four and-a-half per cents.

, in continuation, said, that such was his understanding, and such, he believed, was the understanding of the House. With regard to the other part of the question which the hon. Baronet had raised that evening, he thought that he (Sir R. Peel) had a right to complain. It was now a fortnight since his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had prepared a bill in consequence of the pledge which he (Sir R. Peel) had given publicly to the House, that a legal enactment should be introduced, restoring the former practice with respect to these sugars. That bill would be submitted to their consideration in the course of the present evening. He thought that the circumstances which had occurred in the interval since his right hon. friend had first mentioned this bill to him, would account for the delay which had taken place with regard to its introduction. When he read to the House, on a former evening, a list of the measures which he thought it necessary to abandon for the present Session, and also a list of those which he thought it advisable to carry through the House, the reason why he did not include that bill in the latter list was, that he had drawn up both lists from the Orders, and that that bill had not then been inserted in them. He would remind the hon. member for Cumberland of the private communication which took place between them on the 4th of June last, when he told the hon. Member that it was the intention of Ministers to bring in a bill to restore the former practice, and levy the usual duties on all goods imported for the Crown. After such a communication, he did not expect to find the conduct of Ministers made the subject of a hostile motion by the hon. Baronet, who ought to have previously ascertained, by a private communication with him, whether Ministers were inclined to redeem the pledge which they had given, or not. He should most willingly have given the hon. Baronet an answer in the affirmative if he had condescended to ask for it. It was placing Ministers in a very unfavourable situation, if, after they had, in private communications, afforded hon. Gentlemen every information in their power, they were still to be made the objects of hostile motions. It would be better for them not to hold private communication than to be liable, after they had granted all the information in their power, to the attacks of hon. Members, who persevered in complaints after the ground-work of them was removed. It appeared to him that the hon. Baronet had in this instance departed from that courtesy which he usually displayed. He trusted, however, that after the explanation which had been given by his right hon. friend near him, no hon. Member would join the hon. Baronet, should the hon. Baronet persevere, which he hoped he would not, in doing an act of injustice for the mere purpose of inflicting a personal censure on the members of Government.

said, that as he wished to stand fair, not only in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, but also in that of the House, and of the country at large, he must beg leave to intrude for a short time upon their notice, whilst he defended him- self from the charge of having departed from his usual courtesy. He had been singularly unfortunate if he had failed in making the right hon. Baronet understand, that since the private communication between them, new facts had come to his knowledge, which altered the whole view which he had previously taken of this case. Owing to a return, which he had moved for in consequence of certain private information which he had received subsequently to that communication, various facts had been disclosed to him of the greatest importance. He would not weary the House by a repetition of them, as he had already detailed them at great length. The right hon. Baronet had himself fixed the date of the private communication between them to the 4th of June, and the account of pensions, for which he had moved, was not ordered by the House to be printed till the 21st of June. Till that time, therefore, it was clear that he could not have been in possession of the facts which had induced him to bring forward these Resolutions. One word as to the introduction of the right hon. Baronet's bill. The right honorable Baronet had stated, both publicly in the House and privately in a communication to himself, that it was his intention to make that bill a substantive bill. In a subsequent communication which he had had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had learned that there was a change in the intention of Ministers, and that they intended to deal with the promised bill by introducing it as a clause in the Customs' Amendment bill. Though the right hon. Gentleman said that there was now a notice on the Order Book for the introduction of this bill as a substantive measure, he (Sir J. Graham) could not know of it, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's notice had been given subsequently to his own.

I give the hon. Baronet my word of honour that I saw the bill in question in a prepared state a fortnight ago. There was a point in it on which I myself entertained some doubt, and I showed it, in consequence, to my hon. and learned friend the Attorney General.

Allow me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was not a change in the intention of Government subsequently to the preparation of this bill?

"Certainly there was," The right hon. Gentleman then repeated his former statement respecting the intentions of Government.

recommended his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, as the constitutional question involved in his Resolutions would be settled by the bill, to withdraw them altogether.

defended the legal opinion which he had given respecting the right inherent in the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative, to import goods into the country duty free.

Sir J. Graham consented to withdraw his motion, which was accordingly withdrawn.

On the Question being put, that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

said, that as this was the first step which the House was called upon to take, in furtherance of the course proposed to be pursued by Ministers, of abandoning almost the whole of the business before the House, and of omitting to do what could not be left undone without the risk of great danger to the State, he felt that he should not perform his duty, unless on the present occasion he entered his strong protest against the proceeding. By the motion which would shortly be proposed, the House would be called upon to sanction a dissolution of Parliament, not only before discussing the questions of the Civil List and a Regency, but under circumstances which would render nugatory almost all the labour of the present Session. Nearly all the results of constant attendance and great exertion during the last five months would be wholly lost. He was not satisfied, by anything which had been said on a former evening, that the opinions he then expressed were at all erroneous. Although he did not intend to give the House the trouble of dividing on the present occasion, he felt it impossible not to enter his solemn protest against the course pursued by his Majesty's Ministers.

The House resolved itself into a

rose to move for a grant of a sum of money on account of the demands on the Civil List, and also on account of the Estimates before the House, with respect to which the House had not yet come to any decision. With respect to the first branch of the subject, he would propose a measure analogous to one which was adopted on the occasion of the demise of George 3rd, when a sum was taken on account, to enable his then Majesty to make certain payments which were usually provided for out of the Consolidated Fund and Civil List. The sum which he proposed to take now was the same which was granted on the occasion to which he had alluded,—namely, 200,000l. With respect to the Estimates, he intended to take a certain sum on account for the whole of them, with only one exception. This exception was the vote relative to the disembodied Militia, which being the foundation of a measure introduced into the House, and having been sanctioned by a committee of the House, ought not, he thought, to be subjected to any reduction. With respect to the other votes for the public service, the House must be aware that at the present period a considerable portion of the money demanded from Parilament had necessarily been already expended. He therefore proposed to provide for the demands of the public service three months beyond the time originally fixed by the Estimates. By taking this course he should not preclude the most ample discussion on any particular item upon the re-assembling of Parliament, when the votes would be separately brought under the consideration of the House, and could be discussed with greater advantage than at the present moment. Although it was his intention to move for one general sum on account of the Estimates, he thought it right to guard against the possible appropriation of sums, in tended for one service, to another, by introducing a clause into the Appropriation Act, specifying the purposes for which the money was voted. By the course which he proposed to pursue, there would be no possibility of divesting Parliament of the opportunity of discussing each item separately. Having stated the principle on which he proposed to proceed, in order to expedite the public business, and to avoid unnecessary discussion, he would conclude with putting the Resolution into the hands of the Chairman. He then moved—"That there be granted to his Majesty the sum of 200,000l., towards satisfying such Annuities, Pensions, and other charges, as would have been payable out of the Consolidated Fund and Civil List, in case the demise of his late Majesty had not taken place before the 10th of October, 1830."

The question having been put,

stated his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the noble mover, and from the hon. and learned Seconder of the Amendment, on a former night, particularly regarding the propriety of discussing the Civil List previous to the dissolution of Parliament. The reasons they had urged were unanswerable, and they had clearly shown that the question of the Civil List could never be discussed so advantageously for the public as at the present moment. Taking it for granted that the House had resolved that the course proposed by Ministers should be followed, he had no hesitation in admitting that the plan of taking money upon account was most likely to secure hereafter a fair consideration of the remaining Estimates. Many of them were important, and the charges in some, in his opinion, highly objectionable; but the mode suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was calculated to secure to them a more advantageous discussion than if they were now brought forward before the House; on there-assembling of Parliament, Members would be better disposed to attend, and to join in the debate, than could be expected of them under present circumstances. After communicating with various individuals upon the subject, he was convinced that it would be hopeless to attempt to secure to such matters a fair and impartial hearing. He begged it to be clearly understood, that he did not concur in the vote from confidence in Ministers, and that he should be perfectly consistent if, in the next Parliament, should he have the good fortune to enjoy a seat in it, he resisted the votes for what he was now, under the circumstances, willing to grant—money on account. When he recollected that it was the prerogative of the King to dismiss Parliament when he pleased, and that it had already been determined by two majorities, though not considerable, that what was recommended was the fit course to be pursued, he could not expect, even if he wished it now, to bring on a discussion of the remaining estimates. He certainly highly disapproved of many of the decisions to which the House had come regarding the public expenditure, but he struck the balance of good and evil, by placing on the other side of the sheet the grant of Catholic Emancipation and relief to the Dissenters. If the noble Duke were to remain at the head of the Government, he hoped that a new Parliament would meet, with a determination to exact from Ministers the effectual reductions which the state of the country demanded; and he should take as a test of the disposition of those Ministers the amount of Civil List they required. He trusted, before the House separated, it would order such Returns to be made as would give the fullest information on the subject, and that the Reports of 1812 and 1815 would be duly weighed and examined. He also trusted that a statement would be produced of the expenditure of the Civil List, from 1790 to 1796, and for the years 1815 and 1816, in order that a just comparison might be made. He was willing, in settling the Civil List, to provide liberally for the maintenance of his Majesty; he wished to withhold nothing that was necessary for the comfort, and even for the splendour of the Crown, but he would prevent all needless extravagance. From the character of his present Majesty, the country had a right to expect that he would not call upon it for more than was necessary for the due support of the Royal dignity. Whenever the time for inquiry into this subject might come, it was absolutely necessary to get rid of the prevailing complexity of accounts: nevertheless, as they at present existed, they afforded some useful information, and a return, for which he had moved at the opening of the last reign, shewed that during the reign of George 3rd, no less than 12,705,461l. had come into the possession of the Crown from the Droits of Admiralty, the 4½ per-cent duties, the Scotch revenue, and other sources beyond the control or cognizance of Parliament. Every shilling of this enormous sum ought to have been placed in the public purse. In particular he objected to the impolicy of the system pursued with regard to the Scotch revenue, under which favouritism and corruption had been long encouraged. He referred to what had been said on a former night respecting the freeing of the Civil List from the anomalies at present existing in it; for instance, he could not conceive why the Speaker of the House of Commons should be paid, partly out of that fund, and partly out of some other. The same remark would apply to the salaries of the Judges. The diplomatic service was not the least expensive establishment connected with the Civil List, and he hoped that in future it would be placed directly under the control of Parliament. He entreated attention to another item—the Pension List. There was no branch of the public service so strongly and so justly disapproved of by the public as the enormous amount of the Pension List. When they saw 95,000l. of the English Civil List, 50,000l. of the Irish Civil List, and 25,000l. of the Scotch Civil List, taken from the control of Parliament, it was reasonable that they should be dissatisfied. He saw no reason why all distinction between the Civil Lists of the three kingdoms should not be done away with, and confined solely to the King's household, while all the expenses relating to Scotland and Ireland ought to be simplified, and annually laid before the House of Commons. If, on the meeting of a new Parliament, Ministers should not be found disposed to retrench all unnecessary expenditure, notwithstanding the reluctance they had shown of late years to interfere, he hoped that the Representatives of the people, in obedience to the wishes of their constituents, would compel the servants of the Crown to pursue a more economical course, and to adopt measures suitable to the present condition of the country. To one point he especially entreated the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) to attend. No abuses had been so great as those connected with the 4½ per-cent duties; upwards of 6,500,000l. had been received since the establishment of those duties. He never could understand why the House had voted against the motion he had brought forward, for an account of the English Pension List. Perhaps what he was saying might not be well timed; but if he lost this opportunity of stating his opinion, as soon as the Supplies were voted, there would be but little chance that he should find another. He maintained, that the House ought not to grant the Civil List until the 4½-per-cents, and other funds, were taken from the power of the Crown, and placed under the control of the House of Commons. A new Parliament ought also to set at rest the question of Droits of Admiralty; for it was a strange regulation, that the Sovereign, who had the right to declare war, should be entitled to a share of the plunder; although it was not for a moment to be supposed that such a motive had any influence, it was liable to suspicion. Besides, it was impossible not to perceive, that the collection of the Droits was sometimes attended with serious hardships. When the Danish war broke out, the Danish property in this country was seized, and the English property in Denmark was also seized, and it might have been supposed that the Danish property would have been made available to compensate the losses of the English: but no such thing; it was appropriated to the Crown, and the House had heard the sufferers at their bar last night, claiming by petitions some redress for the ruin that was brought on them by this country declaring war against Denmark in 1807. In his opinion, then, the 4 ½ per-cent duties, and the Droits of Admiralty, should be taken out of the control of the Monarch. He also complained that the King could raise what money he pleased in Gibraltar by way of taxes, and apply it to his own use, whilst this country defrayed the expenses of that garrison. In conclusion he exhorted Ministers to act upon the principle of retrenchment, and then, he said, they need be under no apprehension as to the result of divisions in that House.

said, that under existing circumstances, he would offer no opposition to the vote before the House; but he gave notice that if he should have a seat in the House next Session, he would propose to refer the civil contingencies to a committee up-stairs. He trusted that Ministers would not forget the declaration which Mr. Pitt made, when he proposed to increase the Civil List. Mr. Pitt said, he did not wish to increase the revenues possessed by the Crown, but only to meet the increased expenses of the time, occasioned by the depreciation of money. In arranging the new Civil List, Government should fix it rather upon the scale of expense existing at the commencement of the reign of George 3rd, than at the commencement of the reign of his successor.

Resolution agreed to.

complained of the number of incongruous items mixed up in this Resolution. To some he might not be prepared to agree, but it was extremely difficult to make his observations intelligible. He had, however, many objections to make to this vote. In the first place, the committee which sat above stairs upon the subject of Irish affairs recommended that all the miscel- laneous estimates for Ireland should be brought forward upon the responsibility of the Treasury in this country, as a matter of national expenditure, and not as a matter of Irish policy, by and upon the responsibility alone of the Irish Secretary—that was a recommendation at once approved and neglected. It was not from any want of confidence in the noble Lord opposite that he made that observation, but from a knowledge of the difficulties by which any one holding his situation was surrounded—the spirit of Irish jobbing met him every where. The moment the Irish Secretary arrived at the Castle, he was surrounded by all the pensioners, placemen, and sinecurists who had an interest in maintaining these estimates at an elevated point, and in prevailing upon the Government to abandon the recommendations of the committee. For that reason then, as well as for others not less cogent, he wished rather to see the matter in the hands of public functionaries at this side of the water, than at the other; and for proof that he was not making this observation on insufficient grounds, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen who sat at each side of his noble friend, both of whom had been Secretaries in Ireland. It had often been urged by hon. Members representing places in England, that Ireland was an expense to this country. Now the true mode of getting rid of, or at least diminishing that expense, would be to reduce the estimates for establishments in that country; and he therefore appealed for support to the English Members whom he saw around him. Of this they might rest assured, that if they yielded to the advice which recommended them to leave those establishments to expire of their own accord, they would never live to witness that expiration. Nothing could be more gross or unblushing than the frauds practised respecting a particular class of establishments in Ireland—he meant the Charter Schools; there the romance of renewed youth appeared to be brought into real life and actual practice; for in those places children were found to grow younger and younger every year; the same parties which, in a certain year, had one age placed opposite to their names in returns, in the succeeding year were found to be younger by a year and some months. For the remedy of this, and other evils of a like character, in those establishments, he would suggest the appointment of a Board of Commissioners to institute a strict inquiry into the nature and extent of the existing abuses. He saw that his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was opposed to that suggestion; but he begged to assure him, and the House, that nothing could be further from his intention than to recommend the appointment of a paid Board. The next subject to which he should call their attention was one of much importance—that of education in Ireland. Year after year he had made suggestions on that subject, and always-without effect; for, year after year, the Government, in each instance in which he had pressed the subject upon its consideration, asked for time to mature and arrange their plans: at one time there was a new Government, at another a new Secretary, and at another, a new plan in agitation; and so they went on, from year to year, promising much, and doing little; in fact, doing nothing, but voting public money. On every occasion Government said it would either adopt the recommendations that came from that side of the House, or bring forward some plan of its own, or ask for no more of the public money; but the House must be fully aware that matters appeared to be as far from improvement as ever. The education that was given was an education not calculated to inspire kindness or brotherly love, but very opposite dispositions; it was a system, too, by which education was given to those who had little need of it, and denied to many by whom the want of it was severely felt. He was sure that most of the hon. Members who heard him would admit that the grants for public education in Ireland ought to be withdrawn altogether, or else Government ought to devise some plan which should—not give satisfaction to all men, for that would be impracticable and visionary—but should meet the wishes and expectations of the just, wise, and impartial men of every class, and, above all things, prevent the public money from being given to particular classes—from being used to excite those party feelings which the great measure of last year would, if properly followed up, tend to allay. Some decisive plan ought, indisputably, to be adopted, and with some slight modifications, he thought a better would probably not be devised than that recommended in the report of the committee of which he was chairman. The hon Gentleman then proceeded to notice the amount paid to Irish Newspapers for proclamations. He said it was a vote as injurious to the character of the Press, as the proposal respecting Irish Newspaper Stamp-duties would be sure to prove injurious to their circulation. He next objected to the expense of maintaining what was called the Irish-office in London—it was a source of expense and delay, without any corresponding advantage; it was defended only on the ground of its being made available for the purpose of securing a supply of the various papers that might be moved for in Parliament: yet what was the fact? There was no source from which parliamentary information was derived after so much delay as from the Irish-office. The expenses attendant upon the publication of ancient records was also another ground of complaint; it was extremely desirable that the ancient history of the country should receive all practicable illustration, but he thought that object was not forwarded in a manner creditable to the commissioners, by the publication of extracts from the Memoirs of Captain Rock, and a pamphlet attributed to a right hon. Member of that House, entitled," A View of Ireland, Past and Present." There was another channel into which the public money was, as he conceived, most improperly directed; he alluded to the grants for public works; those sums, he thought, ought not to be voted away in large masses, but should rather be so granted as to develope the means and resources of the country, producing good, not evil. The best way, in his opinion, of making such grants was, as loans payable out of the County-rates. In illustration of the beneficial effect of such loans, he adverted to the gradual increase of the Customs and Excise in those parts of Ireland where they had been granted, and where, by the increased prosperity of the districts, they yielded a four-fold return. The reform of Juries was another point upon which nothing had been done, or was likely to be done, in the present Session; the same was true of Sheriffs, and especially of Sheriffs in corporate towns. The mode of appointing Sheriffs in the City of Dublin was a disgrace to the country. He was aware that nothing would be done respecting these subjects, or respecting the Subletting Act, or the Arms Act, and a variety of others. Neither was the affair of Sir Jonah Barrington proceeded in. After an Address had been agreed to, praying his removal, the whole matter was abandoned, and he was yet left in the full discharge of judicial functions and authority. The hon. Gentleman concluded by complaining, in strong terms, of the jobbing and abuse which marked the whole system of the Irish Government.

, after thanking the hon. Gentleman opposite for the spirit and tone which characterised his observations, replied, respecting the necessity of having the Irish Estimates proceed from the Treasury here, that they were always submitted to his right hon. friends, and brought forward with their approbation. He admitted the perplexity to which Irish Secretaries were exposed, and expressed his sense of obligation to his hon. friend for the sympathy which he felt with the pain which those difficulties occasioned. The suggestion respecting the appointment of Commissioners of Inquiry was not without its value, and should receive the best consideration, though it might be attended with some serious difficulties. With respect to the Charter-schools, and other establishments, he had only to say, that the reductions since 1827 had amounted to 80,950l. On the subject of Irish education he must observe, that general satisfaction could not be given by any system which did not satisfy the great religious bodies into which the country was divided—and that, he feared, would be extremely difficult, not to say impossible. Respecting the objection taken to the sum voted for Proclamations, he had only to say, that so little had he meddled in any matters connected with the Press, that though he could not undertake to say what might have been the amount of influence formerly exercised by the Irish Government over the Press, he could safely say, that at present it exercised no influence whatever.

said, he should consider himself wanting to his duty, if he did not profit by the present opportunity to make a few observations on a subject which he felt it was necessary to press on the attention of the House. At a crisis like the present, when Members were about to be reduced to the station of private individuals, and sent back to their constituents, to answer for the trust which had been reposed in them as representatives of the opinions of others, he perceived that there existed a general apathy in the House, and a disinclination to enter into minute details whilst their minds were engrossed with the personal considerations which the approaching event had suggested. He feared that the attempt which he was then about to make would be unavailing; indeed, for the reason already mentioned, he was almost hopeless of success. Nevertheless, he would beg that they might consider well upon the course which they had it in contemplation to pursue. There were many estimates before them on which respectively a great diversity of opinion was known to prevail, yet they were all lumped together, and the House was called upon to vote on all of them at once in the aggregate. The expenses of Windsor Castle were included amongst many others, as were also those of the Rideau canal, in Canada, on both of which there was considerable difference of opinion. With respect to the Rideau canal, it was in itself a subject that deserved an exclusive deliberation, and an hon. Member (Mr. Stanley) whose local experience and personal observation, aided by his own acute understanding, entitled him to particular deference and attention, had already, about five weeks ago, given a notice of motion with respect to it, which had not yet been discussed. On the expenses of Windsor Castle there was also a material difference of opinion, which had been more than once loudly declared, or, he might rather say, there was a general concurrence against the vote. In fact, so plainly had the feeling of the House been expressed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at one period, in the absence of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, had withdrawn the vote, and consented to let it go to a committee above stairs. Of that committee he was not himself a member, nor had he been present at many of their sittings. Neither did he know whether they had even yet made their report, but he did attend for a short time, while they were receiving the evidence of an intelligent and well-informed architect, and from the little he had heard, he would assert, without hesitation or fear of contradiction, that the report of that committee, if it were in conformity with the evidence submitted to them, so far from removing the doubts entertained already by the House, would only render them more averse from the vote than they had ever been before; yet were they now called upon, to assent to a lumping vote of the gross sum of 1,100,000l. including amongst its items the expense of the Rideau Canal, and of Windsor Castle. They were told that by acceding to this vote, they would not commit themselves to any distinct pledge: and, certainly, by the words of their answer to the King's gracious Message they could not so commit themselves, for they had merely rendered a cordial acceptance to a Royal courtesy. But he would ask, how was it possible to commit himself more, or how could he possibly contrive to commit his constituents further, than by acceding to a lumping vote such as that now proposed? What more could he do in the way of committing both himself and them, than thus to transfer an enormous sum of money out of their pockets to the disposal of Ministers? If that was not committing himself, he wished to know what was? They might hereafter protest against the expenses which would be only the regular consequence of their vote of to-night; they might fondly exclaim that they altogether disapproved of the estimates for both Canal and Castle, but the answer would be at hand—"You voted for both, you gave money for both; that money has been expended in conformity with your vote, and it is now idle to affect disapprobation." They should pause, he conjured them to pause, before they adopted the course which they now intended to pursue. All that he had heard, seen, or read, within the last few days only tended to increase his anxiety for the weighty, the awful responsibility which attached to them at the present perilous juncture, and he hoped they would acquit themselves of it as became the representatives of a free, powerful, and enlightened people. Be it yet remembered, whatever might happen to the country, whatever might befal the highest political interests of the state, whatever might be the risk to which the succession would be exposed,—be it remembered that blame could not justly be imputed to Parliament; for this step had been taken by the official advisers of the Crown, and that with them, therefore, rested the chief responsibility. But would they, however, stand wholly absolved from reproach, would not they be held morally responsible for what never could have happened, had they not been guilty of a dereliction of their duty? They, before whom had been laid, by the courtesy of the Crown, a gracious Message, which gave them an option in their own dissolution, how could they hope to be held guiltless? How, he repeated, could they be considered exempt from culpability, if they voted in the affirmative on the present proposition, which would enable Government to proceed to a dissolution without having taken measures for the security of the nation, the stability of the Monarchy, and the maintenance of the Constitution? Let them consider further, that the onus of the responsibility had been shifted as far as possible from Ministers themselves to the Legislature, by the expedient to which they had had recourse. Now, while the monarchy was insecure, and the most important interests of the nation might be pronounced in jeopardy, he could not enter into miserable discussions about 2d. or 3d.; it was indifferent to him whether the Irish Secretary's office was at Whitehall or at any other part of Westminster, although it was to debate upon topics such as these, that their attention had been drawn away from the momentous subject which should have superseded every other consideration. The constitution of the country was about to be placed in peril, and the peace of the whole empire) for to that it might come at last) would be ultimately involved in the great question to which he had adverted. This was the view that he had taken of the present posture of affairs, and his opinions, as already stated on Wednesday last, had been rooted and confirmed by the succeeding interval of reflection. He hoped that some other hon. Member, whose avocations and opportunities allowed of his taking up this virtually important subject, would take what he had said, as a respectful warning of the danger which it was the imperative duty of the Legislature to avert, and give them an opportunity to discuss it adequately, not incidentally, as they had done the other night, and raise it up for consideration by itself, apart from the Civil List, or any other contingent topic of debate. They should warn the Crown against the advice which had unhappily been tendered to it, and even if unsuccessful in the effort, they would at least enjoy the satisfaction of having acquitted their own minds of the responsibility, and console themselves by reflecting that, happen what might, the fault would not be theirs.

said, he rose for the purpose of saying a few words in vindication of his vote. Ministers had said, that Parliament must be called together so early as October, inasmuch as the supplies would be insuffi- cient to enable them to go on longer; and he trusted that they would, in the mean time, suspend the works at Windsor Castle. It was impossible to discuss the Estimates then, but he hoped that they would be closely examined by the other Parliament. He should therefore vote for the proposed Estimate, because he was unwilling to harass Government, but should not hereafter consider himself pledged by his present vote.

said, that in considering the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he should treat of the two objections which he had made to this Estimate, but did not mean to treat of them in the order in which they had been suggested. His second objection, that it would prevent them from entering into the Regency Question, deserved a primary consideration, as it was by far the most important. The other related merely to the form of the vote. He held in his hand the second communication that had been sent by that House since the late accession to the Throne, in reply to a most gracious Message from his Majesty, [The right hon. Baronet here read the Address] which promised, in compliance with the Royal Message, to make temporary provision for the public service, and meet the immediate exigencies of the State without delay. Owing to the arrangement made on the occasion, an answer to such Address had not yet reached that House but the purport of their Resolution was of course immediately made known to his Majesty. How then, he asked, could they now think of doing what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed? How could they retract on Friday that to which they had assented on Wednesday? With what grace could they say that they had already changed their minds, and immediately press the Crown to recommend a Regency, by exercising the compulsory power which was given them by their control over the finances of the country. Would such a course, he put it to the candour of the House, be respectful to the Crown or satisfactory to the people? Consistency required, that they should refuse to adopt it, the whole House having been pledged by the act of the majority. At the same time it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a notice of motion on the subject if he thought proper. He doubted, nevertheless, whether any Member of the late minority would now recommend such a proceeding. As to the form of the vote, he thought that all those with whom the argument already mentioned had no weight must approve of it, as thus taking a general vote for a limited time was a sufficient guarantee that Parliament would be assembled early, and the objection against voting on account was obviated by the clause in the Appropriation Act, which required that each item of the Estimates should be distributed according to what was due to it, instead of allowing the surplus from one to make good the deficiencies of another. On the whole, therefore, he submitted it would appear that Government had resorted to the expedient best calculated to satisfy the scruples of the House, and least liable to objection.

begged it might be distinctly understood, that neither he, nor any of those Members who had voted against the Address, were responsible for whatever consequences might ensue from the Government passing over at present the most important business. He for one objected to the course which it was proposed to pursue, and he protested against being implicated in whatever consequences might follow. He thought that the protest of his hon. and learned friend did him great credit, and in that he should most cordially join.

agreed with his right hon, friend, that it would be inconsistent with the vote to which the House came on a former occasion not to vote the proposed supply, and he was glad to hear that there was no intention of precluding the House of Commons hereafter from a full examination of the manner in which it was disposed of. He wished, however, to say, that under the circumstances of the country, looking to the fearful contingencies which might arise,—in particular, looking at the situation in which the Monarchy would be placed if one of these contingencies should ensue, if the Parliament were to separate without making some provision—without adopting some measure against that alarming contingency, should it occur before the Parliament again met—looking at what he must call fearful contingencies, he hoped that some hon. Member, the noble Lord, or the hon. and learned Member, would, by proposing an Address to the Throne, or some other measure, take means to place before the Monarch the danger to which the country and the Monarchy would be exposed. He was taken completely by surprise when the Address was proposed; [hear] he said yes—taken by surprise—though he knew there were some Gentlemen who were satisfied with a cheer, and never required any other authority for their votes than the dictate of the Treasury, and who could never be taken by surprise; but he was, and after having since investigated the subject as far as his time would allow, he did think that it was imperative on Parliament to take these important questions into consideration. The House must take its share of the consequences, should any danger accrue to the public service, before those questions could be brought under discussion in October. The people, too, he believed, would be taken by surprise. With respect to the form of the vote he believed it was not usual to take a vote of credit for the whole sum. He wished to know to what branches of the public service the 1,100,000l. and in what proportions it was to be appropriated. He knew that a clause in the Appropriation Act would specify this, but that clause most Gentlemen would be unacquainted with, and a period of the Session had arrived when all the estimates ought to have been voted and applied. He had sat in that House for thirty-six years, and he never remembered business being so much delayed. He appealed to the hon. member for Dorsetshire, who had sat in the House longer than he had, if he ever remembered the business being so much in arrear as at present. This he attributed to the want of leisure and authority in the Ministers, and to the anomalous course they had pursued. The hon. member for Abingdon said, that we might discuss the Estimates in October, but he was afraid that when that time came there would be so many more important questions for discussion, that it would not be found feasible to discuss details. He would again remind the House that they were now about to appropriate what had not been applied for in a Committee of Supply.

would be very glad if there were any authority belonging to the Ministers to procure a refractory House of Commons to side with them. But it was not possible for Ministers to tell Members that they should not bring forward motions, and give notices of motions; the Members would do as they pleased, and he was afraid that he should not again see a tractable House of Commons. When his right hon. friend complained of the delay of business, he might perhaps, recollect that he was in the Ministry when the Army Estimates were debated for sixteen nights.

said, that it was because he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the propriety of discussing the Regency Question, whilst he thought that the House ought to enter into some deliberation upon financial matters, that he wished to make some observations on that occasion, and he was the more anxious to state his sentiments in consequence of the invitation which that learned Member had thrown out, and in which he had been followed by the right hon. member for Liverpool, both of whom seemed anxious to bring on a second discussion upon the subject of a provisional or permanent Regency. It was clear that if Parliament had continued to discuss the Estimates in the same temper in which it had considered those already passed, the House could not have been dissolved for the next two or three months, had it not been for the calamitous event which produced the Message from his present Majesty. Many Gentlemen had argued it as if it was in the power of the House on some future occasion, to meet again and to debate upon each separate item of expense with the same degree of care which had been observed, perhaps in some respects too minutely, during the early part of the present Session; but it should be remembered that Parliament was within a fortnight of its dissolution, and that however some Members might expect to be again returned by their constituents, as the representatives of the nation, there were chances that such might not be the case; and therefore duty ought to compel them to enter upon all subjects which affected the interests of the people. It was possible that they might not again have an opportunity of looking into the grounds upon which the votes of credit were called for by the Government. If report spoke truly, it was more than probable that the hon. member for Aberdeen, who, to the astonishment of the House, had held language that night wholly differing from anything that had proceeded from him on any other occasion, about the impropriety of wasting the time of the House by idle discussion, and the necessity of reserving themselves for future consider- ation, might not again be returned for the same place, and his constituents, those at least whom he now represented, would have a just ground for complaint, that he had neglected their interests—that he had adopted a new line of conduct, and advocated an incautious voting away of the public money. He had less hesitation in making this personal application of the argument to the hon. member for Aberdeen, because his conduct that evening might have had no inconsiderable influence on the determination of the House, and might have hindered that wholesome inquiry into the grounds on which the Government had been induced to propose the votes then under consideration. He felt the more suspicious, when he heard the right hon. Baronet compliment the hon. member for Aberdeen, and the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly) on their feelings of delicacy towards his Majesty's Government—feelings which, on the part of these hon. Members, were perfectly new: and therefore, perhaps, they were now to be appealed to by the Administration, as Gentlemen than whom there could not be greater authorities, upon all matters of finance, in the House. After all, this might be only an expression of grateful feeling on the part of the right hon. Baronet; he owed something to the hon. member for Aberdeen, in consequence of his conduct that evening, and he had repaid him to his own satisfaction, although, perchance, in language for which the hon. Member himself and the House were little prepared. As to delay, who was more responsible for it than the hon. Member? Who had occupied so much of the time of the House on every occasion? It was passing strange, that to night, when a large sweeping proposition of a financial nature was made by the Government, without details, the hon. member for Aberdeen should neglect the interests of his Aberdeen friends, and become prodigal of the public money. But he had done the Government a service, which acknowledged it with a profusion of gratitude. Henceforward, he was to be their great financial authority, and the House in future must look to his decision as their guide. He wished to say a very few words upon the great question of a Regency, which had been again brought forward by several hon. Gentlemen, though he wished to do so without committing himself in any way about persons or modes of arrangement, or saying anything that might excite an angry or an unpleasant feeling. No question of greater delicacy could have been propounded to the House, considering the present position of all parties concerned. It should be recollected that a very short time had elapsed since Providence had inflicted upon the country the blow which had produced the Message from the Crown, recommending the House to prepare for a dissolution: a few days only had passed since we had been deprived of one Sovereign, and his funeral ceremonies had not yet been performed. Was it then decent to press the matter of a Regency in a certain quarter, when it was obvious that within three months a new Parliament would be assembled, and another demise of the Crown, although within the verge of possibility, was far from being probable; to say nothing of what had already passed, of the vote of the House upon the subject, and of the Address that had already been presented to the Crown, an answer to which might be expected in a day or two at the furthest? It would, in his opinion, be indecorous to provoke another discussion, unless the House were recommended to do so, in a constitutional way, by the responsible Ministers of the Crown; and unless it knew that, in a certain quarter, there was an inclination to have the subject brought under deliberation. He agreed, therefore, with those who thought that it would not be proper at the present moment to take this question into further consideration; and thus far his views coincided with the argument of the right hon. Baronet; he was willing to admit that the Address which had been presented precluded the House from any continued debate upon this ground. At present the House had not merely to discuss, if it thought fit, the votes submitted to its decision, and the appropriation of the various sums which had been granted, including sums destined for objects entirely distinct one from the other; but as it was not merely the close of a Session, but the termination of the life of Parliament, during the existence of which many important measures had been passed, and some great problems in foreign policy were yet unsolved; he thought hon. Members would not perform their duty to their constituents, were they to avoid taking something like a summary view of the proceedings of the Administration upon certain great and leading questions; and considering that no more fitting occasion could offer itself than that, when so sweeping a vote was proposed, upon what might possibly be the last night of any serious discussion, during the last Session of the present Parliament, he meant to profit by that occasion to make a few remarks on some important subjects. He could not avoid again expressing what he had before said about a total want of confidence on his part in his Majesty's present Administration, whether he looked to their home policy—their commercial or foreign policy—or to the line of conduct that had been pursued by them in and out of Parliament, including this very question of a speedy and unnecessary dissolution. On all sides he saw great and serious cause for dissatisfaction, and he must express a hope that such changes might take place in the Cabinet as would hold out to the country the prospect of advantageous alterations in the conduct both of our foreign and domestic public affairs. So far from agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, that the House would be shewing a proper respect to its constituents in abstaining from any such discussion, he thought that, immediately before a dissolution of Parliament, when Members were about to be returned to their constituents, to render an account of their stewardship, that they would not perform their duty were they to be silent in cases which admitted of a most extended and ample discussion. If they turned to the foreign policy of the country, in which, be it observed, scarcely any explanation had been offered to the House or the country by the Administration, they would find that never was England in a more disgraceful position; more looked down upon by foreign powers, more distrusted by those who were supposed to have confided in her promises of assistance, than at the present moment. What was her situation with regard to the East of Europe? She entered into an alliance, whether justly or unjustly he did not then inquire, for the purpose of interfering in the internal concerns of a third Power. England had gone so far as to oblige Turkey to surrender a considerable part of her dominions; a Sovereign was nominated by England and her Allies, without consulting the inhabitants of these ceded districts; this Sovereign, for reasons best known to himself, and to the English Administration, had thought it right to abdicate the sceptre before he wielded it; and so far as regarded the future government of Greece, England was precisely in the same situation now as six or eight months ago. Parliament knew not to what an extent the ambitious designs of a great northern Power might have been counteracted by the interference of England,—it knew nothing of the relative situation of the different Powers of Europe, and the grand question of the balance of power in the civilized world was never more uncertain than at the present moment. In Portugal, the commerce of England was at a stand, and who the Sovereign of that country might be was uncertain. In short, to which side so ever the House looked, as far as the foreign connexions of the country were concerned, there was ample cause for apprehension, and for distrusting those who wielded the destinies of England. How many subjects were there on which it would be material that Parliament should be informed if the executive Government would condescend to give the information? Some weeks ago he asked the right hon. Baronet, if he had any objections to produce the papers connected with the negotiations which had taken place before the signature of the Protocol at St. Petersburgh, and the Treaty of the 6th of July, 1827. If the papers relative to those negotiations had been produced they would have explained the reasons by which the British Cabinet was actuated when it interfered between Russia and Turkey. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was, that the exhibition of such papers would be detrimental to the public service; and not being one of those who would promote inquiries into our foreign diplomacy, or indulge a curiosity which could not be gratified without mischief to pending negotiations, he had forborne to press for further elucidation. Gentlemen would recollect that those questions were not matters of ordinary importance; but he might be asked, what had that to do with the subject before the House? He replied", that the House was then deliberating upon the expenses of the nation; that a large fleet, on a war establishment, had been maintained for two years in the Mediterranean, in consequence of the mysterious transaction to which he was alluding; and it was not too much to expect from the House, that, before the conclusion of the Session, some attention should be paid by those who stood guard over the public purse and were bound to cherish the liberties of England. The balance of power was no idle term, at any rate the Administration of this country had deemed it of much importance, or it would not have interfered in the quarrels which had arisen between foreign nations, which had been supposed to endanger that balance. He feared that there was little in the present condition of Europe which could excite feelings of satisfaction on the part of those who hoped for the continuance of peace but much which would lead them to expect, that, before long, a great struggle would take place between the two parties in Europe who professed opposite opinions upon the subject of national liberty. A great trial was going on in France; the administration of that country, placed nearly in the same predicament as that of the British Government with regard to the Parliament, had advised the Sovereign to make an appeal to the people. Of the result of that appeal there could be little doubt. It was well known that the elections had generally fallen out unfavourable to the Polignac administration; and it must either succumb, or proceed to more violent measures than those which it had hitherto adopted. He could not suppose, unless all the members of that administration were insane, that they would recommend their Sovereign to persist in opposing the sentiments of the nation, or to make an attempt to subvert the liberties of France. He did not speak as a Liberal in the sense of those who, on the continent of Europe, had tried to light up the flames of civil war; but he did rejoice, that in France the supporters of absolute governments, the haters of civil and religious liberty, had met with a check which must tend eventually to put an end to their schemes, however, for a short season, they might endeavour to struggle against the rising energies of civilized Europe. It had been widely circulated that there was a most intimate connexion between the Administration of this country and the present government of France; it had been stated that the British Government had supported the Polignac administration against the wishes of the French people. The right hon. Baronet, at the beginning of this Session gave an assurance to the House, that the Duke of Wellington's Government had nothing to do with the ejection of the Martignac administration, and the appointment of that which was headed by the Prince Polignac. He should be glad to hear a renewal of an assurance that there was no communication between the two Cabinets, beyond that which might fairly exist between the executive governments of two countries well-disposed towards each other. He should also be glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet that, so far as he was aware, there was no intention on the part of the great Powers of Europe to interfere in the internal arrangements of France, should the elections in that country produce a result not altogether consonant to their feelings. One main ground of his opposition to the Duke of Wellington's Administration was, a fear, almost amounting to a conviction, that, for some time past, there had been a closer connexion between it and the despotic governments of Europe, having for its object to keep down the rising spirit of liberty in different countries, and more especially in France—a connexion more intimate than could be advantageous either to this country, to France, or to any other in which liberal institutions were maintained. Nothing, therefore, would give him greater satisfaction than to find that he was wrong in his suspicions; and that events should prove the correctness of the assurances given by the British Cabinet upon that point. He had touched as briefly as possible upon this great question of foreign policy: he had said nothing upon other subjects connected with the domestic government of this country; not that there was no ground of complaint upon that head—not that the distress in Ireland, which daily increased, and had goaded the people, in many parts of that country, to desperation, was not a subject-matter for debate; not that in England every interest had not suffered in consequence of the depreciation of property, that depreciation having been produced either by an alteration in the laws which regulated our commercial policy, or by that which he should always consider one of the most pernicious measures that ever blighted the prospects of a great country—he meant the Currency regulation, which prevented the energies of Great Britain from unfolding themselves, and cramped all classes instead of enabling them to meet their immense financial difficulties; it was not because upon this, and upon many other subjects, much might not be said, but because he was convinced that the time was at length arrived, when, from one end of the empire to the other, the people would rouse themselves and pour in petitions to Parliament, if Parliament should be assembled early in the Autumn, or addressed to the Throne, if the assembling of Parliament should be delayed until shortly before Christmas; or, what would be still more disadvantageous to the country than even the immediate dissolution of Parliament, should it not be assembled again till after Christmas. The petitions and addresses of the people would speak in language no longer to be misunderstood, and the Legislature would be obliged to apply itself seriously and resolutely to the consideration of the awful position of this country. With regard to the dissolution proposed by his Majesty's Government, he objected on principle to any communication being made to Parliament upon the subject. He objected to it as an attempt to shift the responsibility from the shoulders of those who ought to bear it—from the Ministers to the two Houses of the Legislature. All those votes then upon the Table, instead of being passed without discussion or examination, might have been examined and curtailed. The dissolution appeared to him unnecessary, so far as the interests of the country were concerned. No doubt there were reasons which his Majesty's servants might think imperative, for their thus making an appeal to the people—reasons which were manifest in the long debates, and the disinclination of the House of Commons to repose confidence in the Executive Government. There could not be a stronger proof of the impotency of the Duke of Wellington's Government than the fact that it had no influence in that House of Parliament: the divisions which had frequently occurred, proved that the Commons of England had no confidence in his Administration; and although many difficulties had existed in consequence of the dislocation of parties, the advantages resulting from which had been duly appreciated by the Government; and, although there had been no coalition between the three sections of the Opposition, it was an admitted fact, that, with the present House of Commons, the Administration could not carry on the business of the country. He repeated, that there had been no coalition between the three sections of Opposition, and had such a coalition taken place at the commencement of the Session, the Ministry could not have remained in place for six weeks. He was not sorry that the Members of Parliament were about to be returned to their constituents; it would be for them to approve or disapprove of their Representatives' conduct, and it would be for them to express their confidence or distrust of the Duke of Wellington's Administration.

said, the hon. Baronet had requested that he would repeat the statement which he had made in an early part of the Session, that the English Government were in no way connected with the appointment of the Prince de Polignac as the head of the Ministry in France. It really seemed scarcely necessary to repeat the denial of an assertion so absurd as that the Government of this country would attempt to force a minister upon such a country as France; but as it might prevent the continuance of any delusion on the subject, he had no hesitation in doing so.

, although he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the present sitting was not a fit opportunity for entering into the question of the Regency, yet he entirely concurred with the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, that it was a question which ought not to be left unsettled. It was said that it ought not to be agitated in a tumultuary Parliament; but, if they deferred it, and any unfortunate accident should occur, it would be agitated in a Parliament tenfold more tumultuous than the present. Being of opinion, with the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, that the question had certainly not received the grave consideration which was due to it, he gave notice that, unless it were taken up by better hands, he would on Monday move an Address to the Crown on the subject.

observed, that nothing could be more gratifying to him than that his suggestion should be taken up in such a quarter. As there was other business, however, fixed for Monday, he begged to recommend the hon. Gentleman to take Tuesday for his motion.

Mr. R. Grant acquiesced, and Tuesday accordingly was fixed for the purpose.

Resolution agreed to; as was also a Resolution for granting to his Majesty the sum of 270,690l for the purpose of defraying the charges of the Disembodied Militia of Great Britain and Ireland, the Pensions and Allowances of Out-pensioners, &c.

said, that he would venture to say that the Attorney-general was quite ignorant of what the effect of the Bill would be. He also complained that the Attorney-general would never state his reasons for any of the provisions of the Bill till it came to him, as the promoter of the measure, to have the last word; and then no one was at liberty to reply to the reasons the hon. and learned Gentleman had urged. If this Bill were carried into effect, the Scotch and Irish would have reason to fear that, whenever it might suit an Attorney-general of his Majesty, they would be treated in the same unceremonious way.

said, that this measure had been discussed over and over again, and it therefore could not be said that it was forced on the principality without discussion; on the contrary, the Attorney-general had frequently consented to the alteration of the measure to suit the views of other persons. The hon. Gentleman wanted a committee up stairs; but, alas and alack a day! they had not time for such a measure. He must say, that he looked to such a proposition as being brought forward merely for the purpose of delay.

said, that he had the strongest reasons, as a Welsh Representative, to see this question settled. The system now existing in Wales had in a manner been condemned by the vote of a large majority of that House; and he, therefore, thought it highly necessary that a more judicious system should be immediately established. He was justified in saying, with respect to Radnor, which county he had the honour of representing, that the inhabitants were quite willing to have the English system of law introduced, provided they did not lose their Assize.

The House went into a Committee.

wished to bring forward a motion for the reduction of the Judges' salaries.

said, that that was a very inconvenient time to enter upon the question.

said, that if he was out of order then, he would take the opportunity of the Report being brought up.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman's proposition was acceded to, it would give rise to the inconvenience of having different individuals in the same capacity at three different salaries. The present Judges were now receiving 5,500l. which of course could not be abridged; Government proposed to establish all future Judges at 5,000l. and the hon. Gentleman proposed a third vote of 4,500l. only. This certainly appeared to him to be an exceedingly inconvenient course.

Bill went through the Committee, the House resumed, and the Bill to be re-committed on Monday.