, in supporting the prayer of the petition, said, that nothing could be more unjust than that a tax should be imposed upon the Merchant Seamen to support a public national institution; he was far from wishing to advocate any measure which would have the effect of injuring the establishment of Greenwich Hospital in any way whatever, or of depriving any seaman suffering from the infirmities incident to old age, or from wounds gained in his Majesty's service, of a home in his old age, and a comfortable establishment in his infirmity; but he thought the country ought to support its own national institutions, and not throw a burthen of twenty thousand pounds a-year upon the shipping interest of the country; for such it really was. The tax was a partial one, and being raised from a few individuals for a national object, became an unjust one. He trusted that his Majesty's Government would early next Session remove this iniquitous tax.

expressed his conviction that there was no class more deserving of commiseration than that to which the petitioners belonged. The Merchant Seamen came home frequently destitute, and actually wanting the sixpences which were taken from these poor wretched men to support Greenwich Hospital. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) had hitherto opposed any alteration of the system, but he hoped that the hon. Baronet would see a new light on the subject next Session.

took a different view of the subject, because he should think himself criminal if he were to consent to Greenwich Hospital being deprived of that fund for its support; nor could he consider that the tax was so onerous as it had been described; because, when first put on, in the reign of William 3rd, it was at the same amount per month as at present, although the value of money was so much greater then than it was now. He also feared that, if the tax were removed, the seamen themselves would not be benefited by it, but that the advantage would go into the pockets of their employers. He should not be justified in giving up that income for Greenwich Hospital, either now or next Session, unless he were satisfied that the House would be inclined to make good the funds by other means; and under any circumstances, he would assert to the House, that every effort should be continued to reduce as much as possible the cost of the establishment.

had a petition to present on the same subject, and would take the opportunity of stating to the House his opinions upon it. When Greenwich Hospital was originally founded, it was intended for the reception of Merchant Seamen as well as others; but, in the reign of Queen Anne, it was found barely competent to the accommodation of the naval seamen, and it was then confined to them. In consequence of this, in the year 1747, the shipowners and merchants applied to Parliament, for an Act to establish separate Merchant Seamen's Hospitals, and, as a proof that the implied charge against the merchants and shipowners of taking advantage of the seamen was unjust, he would state, that the amounts from time to time levied under that Act, up to December, 1831, was 231,000l., and that the expenditure bad exceeded that income by 13,158l., the deficiency being made up by the merchants and shipowners. He had made inquiry at all the out-ports, as well as at the port of London, and (excepting Swansea, Bristol, and Whitehaven, from whence no returns had been received) he found that the receipts last year, from the 6d. per month levied exclusively for the Merchant Seamen's Hospital, amounted to 8,504l., and the disbursements to 10,350l. From this deficiency, pensions, in particular cases, which used to be 8l. per annum, were reduced to 4l., and the widows, orphans, and other claimants were not assisted as they would be if aU the money raised from Merchant Seamen were appropriated to the distressed and disabled of their class, and to their unprovided widows and orphans.

read extracts from the original Act, in support of the statement of the hon. member for London. He saw no reason why 24,000l. a-year should not come out of the general revenue of the country on the same principle that his Majesty's Government applied to this House to pay one-fourth the expense of the metropolitan police out of the revenue of the country. It was clear the Merchant Seamen of England would derive the whole benefit of the remission of sixpence per month. They all felt the great advantage of the sixpence per month being contributed to the other fund, which was an excellent society, and they all prayed that that sixpence per month might be transferred from Greenwich Hospital to the Merchant Seamen's fund. He, for one—and he believed there were a great many other hon. Members in the House who would do the same—would stand by his Majesty's Ministers, and support them in the next Session of Parliament, if they would come down and charge that 24,000l. a-year which was now contributed towards Greenwich Hospital by the merchant seamen, on the general resources of the country.

rose to bring forward a Motion, of which he had given notice, affecting the seat of the hon. member for Cambridge. In entering on this task, which he felt to be somewhat of an invidious and personal nature, he could assure the hon. Member, that he did it with great regret; but having moved for the papers, the contents of which seemed to make out a strong case, he should feel that he was justly subjecting himself to blame if he shrunk from the duty which the perusal of those papers seemed to impose upon him. He should do that duty fairly, and without exaggeration; and if in the course of what he was about to say he should state anything that was offensive to the feelings of the hon. Member, he begged the hon. Member to believe, that he did not intend it to be so. For that hon. Member he felt the greatest respect; and though their political feelings differed, nay, were wide as the poles asunder, he should be sorry to see him lose his seat, or even be put to the expense of a new election. He should now state what was the law upon this subject. The House were aware, that two Sessions ago, the whole system of the practice of bankruptcy had been altered, and new officers of every kind appointed. A variety of different officers constituted the several branches of the Court The Bill thus prepared, came down to that House from the House of Lords, and the House of Commons being always watchful of their proper privileges, and anxious to provide against any increase in the influence of the Crown, introduced a clause which, in his opinion, vacated the seat of the hon. Member. That clause was to this effect:—"That no Judge, Commissioner, Registrar, or Deputy Registrar, Secretary of Bankrupts, or official Assignee, or other officer to be appointed by virtue of this Act, shall, during their respective continuance in such offices, be capable of being elected, or of sitting as a Member of the House of Commons". That this clause had been introduced solely with the view he had mentioned Gentlemen would readily conceive, when he told them that it was introduced by the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, who at that time had a seat in that House. Now let them look at another clause, and see what the appointment was which the hon. Member had accepted. In the 14th clause (1 and 2 William 4th, c. 56), it was enacted, "that the Judges who go the several circuits of England and Wales, may be directed by the Lord Chancellor to return to him the name of such number as he shall think fit, to require, of Barristers, Solicitors, and Attorneys, practising in the counties to the said circuits belonging, &c. to act as Commissioners of Bankrupt, according to the districts or places for which such person shall be so returned." Then came the material proviso,—"Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor at any time to remove any person from the lists to be so returned for such cause as to him shall seem fit." He contended that the hon. Member was "an officer" under the terms of this Act, and, therefore, incapable of sitting and voting in the House of Commons. He had moved for returns of the Commissioners appointed for the Cambridge district, and from those returns he found, that the Lord Chancellor had directed his Secretary to write the following letter to the hon. Member. It was of the date of March, 1833:—

SIR.—I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to inform you, that you have been returned to him by the Judges as a fit person to be named as a Quorum Commissioner in Fiats in Bankruptcy, for a district comprising Cambridge and twenty miles around it. It is his Lord- ship's wish that you should be informed, that if this recommendation be adopted, it will be expected of you that you shall not act as Counsel under any Commission or Fiat in Bankruptcy in that district, and that your attention shall be given, although not exclusively, yet principally, to the duties of this appointment, so that there may be no unnecessary adjournments or delays in consequence of other engagements of the Commissioners. You will be good enough to inform me whether you are willing to accept the appointment with this understanding, and in that case a list will be formed, containing your name, to be acted upon with as little delay as possible,

I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant,

WM. VIZARD.

To this letter the following answer was returned by Mr. Pryme:

Cambridge, March 27, 1833.

SIR, I am honoured with your letter, informing me that the Judges of the Norfolk Summer Circuit, have recommended me to the Lord Chancellor as a Quorum Commissioner of Bankrupt at Cambridge, and twenty miles round. I am willing to accept the appointment if his Lordship should honour me with it. The usual number of Commissions or Fiats is so small, that they cannot form the pincipal occupation of a member of the legal profession; but I engage that no other professional business shall interfere to occasion any unnecessary delay in holding the meetings under a Fiat of Bankruptcy. I also engage not to act as Counsel under any Commission or Fiat within the district.

I am. Sir, your obedient Servant,

GEO. PRYME.

To Wm. Vizard, Esq.

Absence from Cambridge prevented me from answering the letter immediately.

He held in his hand a letter from an attorney practising in that county, in which he made an application to the Bankruptcy-Office, requesting, that in a Commission in which he was interested, the name of the hon. Member might not be inserted. The answer which was received, was, that he must have Mr. Pryme, and that the request could on no account be complied with. Need he offer further or more satisfactory proof that the hon. Member had bona fide accepted the office? The attorney communicated to the hon. and learned Member the day on which the first meeting was expected to take place, and what was the answer returned? That he could not possibly attend, having urgent occasion to be elsewhere at that particular time. He never once repudiated the office, or declared that he had never accepted it; all that he said was, that just at that time he could not attend to the Motion in question. It was clear, then, that he had virtually and sincerely accepted the office. He also held in his hand the affidavit of a person named Adcook, filed in the Court of Review, in which he stated that Messrs. Pryme and Hunt were working a Commission of Bankrupt at St. Ives, and could not then attend for the purposes of the other Commission referred to in the affidavit; but never once had the hon. Member repudiated his connexion with the office in question, and in possession of which he remained from the mouth of April until the 6th of July. From the return of Mr. Vizard, it appeared that he declared, upon certain occasions, that he "would not act." If these words had any meaning, it was that the hon. Member might have acted if he thought proper, but that he willed not to act—that he was fully qualified and entitled to act, but that he did not choose to do so. It might be alleged that inasmuch as the hon. Member had not performed any duties, he had not done that which vacated his seat as a Member of that House. Now, so far from that being the state of the law as applicable to the subject, he was prepared to show, that it was not the performance of duties, but the mere acceptance of office which had the effect of vacating the seat of a Member. The principle of the law was, that all Members who had placed themselves under the influence of the Crown, should be sent back to their constituents; and he need not argue that that influence was as complete on the acceptance of office as at any other period. But there were other grounds upon which it must be considered that the hon. Member had done wrong in attempting to retain his seat after the acceptance of office. It was most justly looked upon as one of those situations which were incompatible with a seat in Parliament. It could not but be in their recollections, that an Act had been introduced for the purpose of preventing a Master in Chancery from sitting in the House of Commons, it being held that a Master in Chancery could not be in Dublin, and attending his duties in Parliament at the same time. The hon. Baronet referred to the 61st page of the second volume of Hatsell, for the purpose of showing that the mere acceptance of office, constituted an act which vacated the seat in that House. During the Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, a case occurred, in which it was held, certainly, that though a man had kissed hands upon an appointment, it did not amount to a vacation of the seat, because he bad done so under the impres- sion that the place he accepted was in Scotland, whereas he expected to have had an appointment in England. The rule, however, was clear, that the mere acceptance of office caused a vacation of the seat, when the acceptance was bona fide. Here was a case of a Member three months in office, before he offered his resignation. He hoped the time would never arrive, when the Members of that House would feel themselves at liberty to hold office and their seats at the same time, merely on the ground that they had withdrawn before the blot was hit. He concluded by moving for a new Writ for the University of Cambridge, in the room of George Pryme, Esq.; who, since his election, had been appointed to the office of a Commissioner, under the new Bankrupt Act.

said, that as this was a matter involving his seat in that House, he might be excused if he felt anxious to make a brief statement of how the matter stood, and he assured them that he should render it as brief as possible. The hon. and learned Member referred, in the first place, to the 1st and 2nd of William 4th, for the purpose of showing that none but the officers of the Bankrupt Court in London could be considered as holding situations under the Crown. The Commissioners of Bankrupt were officers appointed at as early a period as the reign of James 1st; but the circumstances of their appointment had since been frequently modified—even as recently as the 6th of George 4th a material change had been made. He would contend, and he expected with the utmost confidence, that he should succeed in making it clear to the House, that his case did not come under the description of one who had taken office under the Crown. He had not been appointed a Commissioner, but had been directed by a fiat to act under the Commissioners. The Commissioners were, certainly, appointed under the Great Seal, but it was under a fiat that persons acted in the country. By law it was required, that no person practising as a Barrister should be appointed a Commissioner, whereas, it was required, that persons acting under fiats, should at the time be practising barristers or attorneys in the county to which the fiat was directed. For these reasons, as well as for many others, he contended, that the word Commissioner, according to the Act, applied only to the London Commissioners, who were really Commissioners appointed under the Great Seal, and that it did not apply to those persons acting in the country, and under no Commission. Besides, there was another argument that he might use, if further argument were necessary—namely, that the London Commissioners received a fixed yearly salary, whilst those acting in the country received no salary, but simply a fee paid out of the bankrupt's estate. From the small number of fiats issued, a situation such as that he was charged with holding would not be worth any man's acceptance, if he were to be obliged to give up all his time to it. Supposing it accepted by any Member of that House, it could not affect his attendance to his duties there and he believed, that he could not be accused of neglecting those duties, since he questioned whether there was any hon. Member who, since the commencement of the Session, had been in attendance a greater number of hours than he. The first communication he had with the Lord Chancellor was on the 28th of July, The statement in the letter read by the hon. Baronet, was not correct. He never saw Mr. Adcock on the subject, and any statement asserting that he had, must likewise be incorrect. In a week after the first communication, he wrote to the Lord Chancellor, to the effect, that understanding his name had been inserted in the list of Commissioners of Bankrupty for Cambridge, he expressed his doubts whether a question might not be raised as to such an appointment; but in doing so, he also stated, that it was his own impression, that the Act only referred to London Commissioners. At the same time he begged to decline the office, and con eluded by offering his thanks to the Lord Chancellor for his kind intentions towards him. He now hoped, that he had satisfied the House, that the office was not one that came under the provisions of the Act. And besides, what ought to set the matter completely at rest, he never acted under any Commission—never was called upon—and never received any fee whatsoever. It was quite clear, that nothing in the Act could affect the writing of the first letter, and he was sure, that whatever might be the political opinions of any party, however, they might be opposed to his—if he knew that party had been incautious in writing any letter that might be construed against him, still if the party did not act under the appointment, he repeated he was quite sure that he would never bring forward such a Motion as that now before the House.

, after alluding to the importance of the Motion, which was not to expel a Member from his seat in that House, but which declared the seat vacant, since it was for the issuing of a new writ—said, that the hon. Baronet had not told the House on what point he considered the seat of his hon. and learned friend vacant; nor did he tell them exactly what species of office his hon. and learned friend had been appointed to. It was very doubtful if the Act looked on country Commissioners in the same light as it did on the London Commissioners. For his own part, he thought he could make out that they were not Commissioners under the Act. He could show that the oath in the 7th clause of the Act, which was to be taken by the London Commissioners, and by the Judges, was different from that which was to be taken by those who were to act as Commissioners in the country. Now, those whom the Act excluded from a seat in that House, were the persons who took the oath defined in the 7th clause. Even supposing his hon. and learned friend had accepted the appointment, he was not, therefore, a Commissioner under the Act. But his hon. and learned friend had not accepted the appointment—was never summoned—never took the oath—and never acted as a Commissioner. There was not the slightest pretence for saying that his hon. and learned friend had forfeited his seat in Parliament.

thought, that after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, the proper course would be for the hon. Baronet not to press his Motion, but that a Committee should be appointed to inquire, particularly as it was for the first time the question was mooted, whether those acting as Commissioners in the country were like London Commissioners, and as such, came under the meaning of the Act. At any rate it was clear, that country Commissioners were appointed by the Act, as was proved by the return made to that House by the proper officer of the Commissioners appointed under it. At the head of the names in that Return stood that of George Pryme, Esq. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, undoubtedly, virtually accepted of the office, and he had declined to act merely because he was going to pursue other avocations at St. Ives. He would beg to ask, whether it were possible to say, that a gentleman having been written to, to ask if he would take a certain office if appointed, and having answered that he would, and being afterwards appointed to the office, and thereby put in a situation to act under the appointment, had not virtually accepted of the office? He could not doubt for a moment, that the hon. and learned Gentleman did accept the office, and that he afterwards resigned it, because he considered it incompatible with his seat in that House. He admitted, that the clause in the Act 1st and 2nd William 4th, declared that a person holding the office of Commissioner could not sit in that House whilst he held the office. These words limited the dereliction in some measure, and he doubted, as the hon. and learned Member was neither a Commissioner at the time of his election nor at the present time, if those words applied to him. As to his having been appointed to the office, he had not the slightest doubt; and if the words of the Act should be construed so, that the very circumstance of his having accepted the office vacated his seat, then he (Mr. Herries) had no doubt of his having incurred that penalty.

said, that if he had the slightest doubt upon the question, he would at once agree to an inquiry either by a Select Committee, as had been suggested by the hon. Member or in any other way. But there appeared to him to be no reason for the inquiry. He contended that the hon. and learned Member had never been in this office, and if he had been in office, he would not have vacated his seat. The question did not come under the Act by which the seat of any Member accepting of office under the Crown became vacated, but as to the construction of the Act 1st and 2nd William 4th. which applied exclusively to this subject, the first question was, whether or not the hon. and learned Member was a Commissioner of Bankrupts, or officer of the Bankruptcy Court.? He was decidedly of opinion that he was no commissioner. There were two sets of commissioners. The one set (which consisted of six members) held their offices under the Crown, and had a fixed salary of 1,500l. a year, which clearly disqualified them from sitting in that House, and to them the provisions of the Act were clearly intended to apply. The other set were not apppointed by the Crown, and had no fixed salaries. They were merely appointed on the recommendation of the Judges, and placed on a list made out by the Lord Chancellor. These were not employed, perhaps, above once or twice in the course of a year. The first set of commissioners were not allowed to practise as barristers; and is was to them that the clause of the Act which prohibited sitting in Parliament applied. The others were neither prevented from practising as barristers, nor from sitting in the House. It was clear, that the hon. Member was not an officer, for if he was so, he must be the officer of some Court. Now the officers were the clerics, &c, of the Court of Review, who were under the directions of the Judges, and could be dismissed by them, and to that class he certainly did not belong. But in order to disqualify a Member, he must have been in office; and he contended that the hon. and learned member for Cambridge had never been in office. The Lord Chancellor had made out the list without giving notice to the hon. Member, but as soon as he heard of the appointment, he repudiated it. If the hon. and learned Member had even resigned the office, there might be a shadow of an argument; but the fact was, that he refused to accept it.

had looked into the Act, and he did not think that there was any ground for the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He thought, however, that there was nothing clearer than that the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the office; and he would deal with the question as if the hon. Gentleman were actually in office at that moment. The hon. and learned Member according to his view of the case, had not been appointed to the office under the Act of the 1st and 2nd William 4th. He merely continued to hold an office which he had held before that Act was in existence—namely, that of Commissioner of Bankrupt in the country, and the only object of the Act was, to regulate the mode of appointment. When he entered the House, he thought there could be no case clearer than that of the hon. and learned Member; but he admitted, that the learned Gentleman who hàd spoken in his behalf had contrived to raise some doubts in his mind. Notwithstanding that, however, he still contended, that in this case the hon. and learned Member had not incurred the penalty of vacating his seat.

was of opinion, that the 8th section of the Act applied only to those who accepted office for the first time. He could not doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman was a commissioner from the moment that a fiat was issued with his name included in it, as every fiat was a Commission of Bankrupt under the Great Seal. But he was also clear, that the circumstance of his having held the office did not disqualify the hon. Member from keeping his seat. The hon. and learned Member was not now a commissioner; and he (Mr. Hardy) would ask if the House could decide that they were to deprive Cambridge of their Member, after he had restored himself to the capacity of holding a seat in the House? He was decidedly of opinion, that since the hon. and learned Member had resigned his seat before the writ was moved for, he was entitled to retain his seat.

observed, that all those who had spoken on the opposite side of the question were lawyers; and with every respect for their opinions outside of the House, he had no great respect for them inside its walls. They were too much accustomed to the strict and legal mode of considering statutes, and considered too little the privileges of that House. He thought that to them might be applied the observation of Mr. Speaker Onslow to a lawyer, a Member of that House, that the Gentlemen of the Common-Law did not sufficiently consider the dignity and privileges of that House, but were too much bound by strictly technical rules; and that if a common-lawyer should be elected to the Chair of that House, the authority and dignity of the House would be materially lessened. He assured their right hon. Speaker, that no allusion was intended to be made to him, for though he had been a common-lawyer, yet he had not been long acquainted with the practice of the Courts.

held in his hand three returns relating to stamp prosecutions. These would show, that within three years there had been above 400 persons imprisoned for offences against the Stamp-laws. The first of these Returns showed, that in 1831, there had been seventy-seven persons prosecuted for these offences; that, up to February, 1832, there had been 3l persons in prison on account of these offences; that, up to March, 1833, there had been 254. He knew it would be said that all these prosecutions had not been instituted by the Stamp-office, but he believed, that a great, many of these prosecutions had proceeded from the Stamp-office. He was obliged to I say, that these prosecutions had increased of late, and especially since the present Ministry came into office. He could distinctly assert, that, from 1819, to the time of the present Ministry coming into office. there had not been half the number of prosecutions that had taken place since. He wished to know whether that was or was not disgraceful to a liberal Ministry? He should be ashamed of himself if he were in their place, to look back upon his former opinions and then to look at its present practice. If they had not instituted these prosecutions, they had, by their conduct, sanctioned them. There was at this moment a great desire for cheap publications, and the Government ought to encourage it, and not to punish those who put forth such publications. The Ministers ought to show more sympathy with the wishes of the people, and not deprive them of the means of buying this cheap knowledge. They had made many general promises to relieve the people from the obnoxious Acts that now prevented their having cheap publications, but month after month, and Session after Session had passed away, and nothing was done. He put it to the Ministers whether they would allow another six months to pass in this manner, when, perhaps, many more persons would be imprisoned under these obnoxious Acts? He had often told the Ministry what might be done. Let them repeal this one of the Six Acts under which these prosecutions were instituted. They had often spoken against it when out of office; let them repeal it now. He hoped that the noble Lord would promise to introduce a Bill to repeal the 60th George 3rd., c. 69; and if he did so, he would do very satisfactory service to the public.

said, that the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that these prosecutions were under the 60th George 3rd. By far the greatest number were instituted under an Act of George 2nd, which had lately been brought into execution, and that by common informers. He believed there was only one mode of stopping these prosecutions, and that was by repealing the Stamp-duty on newspapers, and the fact of these prosecutions had been a motive with him for wishing to repeal that duty. With respect to the 60th George 3rd, to which the hon. Member had so much alluded, it was certainly opposed by him and others at the time of its introduction; but he begged the hon. Member to recollect that the parts he opposed were those that related to the giving of recognizances, and to banishment for the second offence. With respect to them, he had not altered his opinion. As to the Six Acts, he observed that some of them had expired; and he hoped the time was not far distant before this Act, which was a permanent one, might be altered; but if this Act was repealed, that would not put an end to stamp prosecutions, for they were instituted under a different Statute.

said, that the noble Lord seemed to think that the prosecutions under which these men were imprisoned, were not instituted under one of the Six Acts. He thought the noble Lord was mistaken on that point. The great evil of the Six Acts was that they restrained the people from publishing cheap publications periodically. Before the time of passing those Acts, they might have done so, but now they could not publish any paper of a certain size more than once a month, and not with any sort of news, if the price was less than sixpence. The Act was intended against him, but he had raised the price of his paper, and so far as he was concerned, the Government might as well repeal the Act at once. It could be repealed in two hours. If the hon. Secretary opposite would draw up a Bill of a few lines only, it might at once be introduced into the House and passed through the Legislature in the present Session. It was said, that these were prosecutions of common informers, and that the noble Lord was not answerable for them. But he was answerable, for the prosecutions were in consequence of the law which the Government kept in force, and, therefore, these prosecutions were the work of the Government. Besides, who were these common informers? He was informed that policemen generally brought men before the Magistrates, and that persons from the Stamp-office came forward to become prosecutors. Now, to say nothing of the policemen being under the Orders of the Government, if the Government ordered the Stamp-office to desist from these prosecutions they would do so. The Attorney and Solicitor General had tried, in former times, to put down cheap publications, but now the attempt was made by these Stamp prosecutions, and they were the more efficient. These Stamp officers were more tyrannical and malicious than ever the Attorney or Solicitor General had been.

wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to statements he had received respecting prosecutions for tithes, instituted in consequence of a clause in Lord Tenterden's Act. He wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the purpose of staying proceedings for tithes (which he understood to be very numerous) till the Act for the Commutation of Tithes should pass into a law; or whether they intended to adopt some measure to mitigate the difficulties under which the persons now sued for Tithes were placed, by allowing the parties to select one or two cases on which the whole question should be decided, instead of putting them to the expense of contesting two or three hundred?

heard this matter with the greatest possible pain. The Act called Lord Tenterden's Act, relating to the limitations of actions, was introduced on the recommendation of the Law Commissioners, and was founded upon the part of the Report which he had himself framed. The object of that Act was to remove from our law the maxim nullum tempus occurrit ecclesice—a maxim applicable to our Church alone—there being no other Church in Europe, Protestant or Catholic, in which such a maxim existed. It was recommended by the Commissioners, that after sixty years the mode of payment of tithes which had prevailed within that time should be finally established. But when the Bill came from the House of Lords, a clause had been introduced, allowing three years, during which suits might be commenced for payment of tithes, on the presumption that the tithes bad been formerly levied, in a manner different from that practised within sixty years. He had denounced that clause as subversive of the very object of the Bill; but during his absence from town upon professional business, a clause allowing one year, which was to expire on 15th August, 1833, was introduced, and he understood that within the last ten days, thousands of suits had been commenced. It seemed to him a sort of infatuation on the part of the clergy. But what was now to be done he did not know. The Act had given the right of bringing actions up to the 15th of August, 1833, and he knew no way of preventing the exercise of that right. But the evil was of a tremendous kind, and it was as mischievous to the Church itself as to the people, and every true friend of the Church must wish to see a remedy applied to it. He could not introduce an Act for that purpose now; but if his advice were to be listened to, he should say, that an Act of Commutation now to be passed, should proceed upon the principle of uti possidetis, and that where there had been an established mode of payment for sixty years, and three incumbrances, that that enjoyment should not be disturbed.

said, there was a precedent, on the principle of which he thought the House might now act. That precedent occurred in 1800. There were then 602 actions brought against the clergy for non-residence. At first the Legislature did not know what to do; but afterwards, though it was a direct violation of the law, they passed an Act to stay the proceedings. As that had been done in favour of the clergy, there could be no objection now to do it in favour of the people, especially when they would be at the same time doing a real service to the Church.

said, that when the clause was passed to which the Solicitor General had alluded, they had entered their protest against this year of grace for the owners of tithes. The consequence of such a clause was obvious. It was an encouragement to the parties to bring actions. He believed, that 5,000 or 6,000 actions were now entered for trial in tithe cases. The whole country was in a flame. Under such circumstances, it was not possible that any Bill for the commutation of tithes could be entered upon with that good temper which all must feel to be most desirable, but which could not exist while discord was running through the land. He should therefore say, that whenever a Bill for commutation was introduced, it should proceed, as the hon. and learned Solicitor General had said, upon the uti possidetis, principle, and that the period of the annual value of the tithes must be antedated one year, so that all they might now recover should go for nothing.

stated, that a sum of 2,189,772l. would be wanted for the Miscellaneous Estimates. He observed that they had been reduced this year by 115,600l., the largest reduction he believed which had ever been known to take place in this branch of the public expenditure. There was another point connected with the reduction in the estimates which he wished to impress upon the recollection of the House—it was, that the present was the first year in which no vote for army extraordinaries had been required. This vote was one which was in a manner placed at the discretion of Government, and they were consequently desirous to limit it within as narrow bounds as possible. This they had done, and by a comparison with the votes of former years it would be found they had been successful. In 1829, it was 700,000l.; in 1830, 550,000l.: in 1831, 550,100l.; in 1832, 240,000l.; and in the present year, as he had stated, no vote at all was required. He felt the greatest satisfaction in being able to carry on this branch of the expenditure with the vote of last year. The Government had sufficient funds on hand without asking one farthing of the House. With respect to the first vote, he had to mention that the effective service commissariat had been diminished by 4,554l., and the non-effective by 3,500l. He moved that 29,395l. 7s. 10d. be granted for defraying the expenses of the Commissariat Department.

was happy to observe that Government had endeavoured to simplify the statement of the year's estimates. With respect to the particular vote, he would recommend its being referred to a Select Committee next Session, with a view of ascertaining whether it could not be still further reduced. He particularly alluded to the Commissariat Departments in Canada and New South Wales, which he thought far too large.

said, that this vote raised the question as to how many palaces the country ought to build, or ought to keep in repair. It appeared to him, that there were many items in this estimate which might be dispensed with—he alluded especially to those charged for the keeping up palaces not necessary for the accommodation of the Sovereign and his family. He would refer, in the first instance, to Kew Palace. He did not see the necessity there was for keeping that up as a royal palace. He was aware that a portion of it was occupied by members of the royal family; but they had princely incomes, and princely residences elsewhere; and there was no necessity for keeping up that palace at the public expense for their accommodation. Then there was Hampton-court Palace, kept up in the same way, and for the same purpose. Besides, he should like to know whether, when Buckingham Palace was finished, St. James's Palace was to be kept up in the same way that those other palaces were. If that should be the case, the result would be, that they would then have built a new palace for the Sovereign, and they would be put to the expense of keeping the old one, for which he would have no sort of use. In fact, the expense of keeping those palaces in repair was quite enormous. First, there was Windsor Castle; then there was Hampton Court; then Kew Palace; then Kensington Palace; then St. James's Palace; then the Royal Pavilion at Brighton; and lastly, Buckingham Palace, the building of which had cost so much; and for the maintenance of all these the country had to pay. Now, with the exception of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, he did not think that they were called upon to provide more residences for the royal family. Let those two palaces be maintained in sufficient splendor, but let not the public be bur thened with the expense of maintaining other palaces that were perfectly useless. The Government, in fact, must take some steps to bring this estimate down to what it ought to be—not more than 20,000l. per annum. There was no branch of the public expenditure which deserved more serious consideration than that connected with the various buildings belonging to the public offices. If Somerset-house could be made to accommodate all the public officers, which he believed it could if the Government took care not to fill up the vacancies as they fell out there, the public might sell off the buildings appropriated in different parts of the town to the various public offices, and thus get rid of the expense of keeping them in repair, and several other expenses connected with them. It appeared to him, in looking at this estimate, that by reducing the palaces to their proper number and expenses, and by dispensing with a variety of buildings that were not required for the public service, it might be reduced to about 20,000l. a-year.

said, that with respect to Somerset-house, the places occupied there by official persons, as they fell vacant, were not filled up. Nothing at present could be done towards rendering it fit for the accommodation of all the public offices until the repairs being made in the Stamp-office were finished. Arrangements, however, were in progress to render Somerset-house fit for the accommodation of the various public offices that were now scattered in different parts of the town.

said, that he observed in this estimate an item of 2,680l. for completing the repairs of Whitehall Chapel. If, as it was stated the other evening by the noble Lord, it was the intention of Government to convert this chapel into a national gallery, might not this item be omitted in the estimate."

said, that this estimate had been prepared and laid before the House previous to the announcement to which the hon. Member had referred; and besides, much of it was for work that had already been executed.

must regret the intention which the noble Lord had intimated on the part of Government, of converting this chapel into a national gallery. He for one must deprecate the turning a place of worship into a national gallery, and he must especially deprecate it when, as in this instance, no other place of worship was previously provided for those who had been in the habit of attending at this chapel.

said that upon a former evening he had not stated this arrangement as one suggested merely on economical grounds—he had stated it as one that recommended itself for adoption for the twofold reason, that a better gallery would be provided for the public, and at a more; economical price. Besides, this building had been always considered a most inappropriate one for a chapel. He believed, that so general was that feeling that upon a former occasion it had been proposed to convert it into a national library, and that the Bishop of the diocess had more than once stated that he did not regard it as a building properly calculated for a chapel. He could assure the noble Lord, upon the authority of persons who understood the subject well, that a better place, after certain alterations were made in it, could not be supplied for a national gallery than Whitehall Chapel.

was surprised at the extravagance of this estimate. Indeed, he had been surprised at it year after year, and he would move for some reduction in it now in order to take the sense of the House upon the subject. He saw amongst other items that the public were charged with the expense of maintaining the various kitchen-gardens attached to the royal palaces. He begged to move, as an Amend- ment that the sum in this estimate be reduced to 41,050l.

would briefly state a few facts to the House, which would prove, that this estimate had been framed upon the most economical principles. In the year 1831, when the first estimate on this subject was brought forward by the present Government, the amount of the vote was 66,675l. In the year 1832, that sum had been reduced to 57,357l.; in the year 1833 it had been reduced to 50,661l.; and the estimate now asked for the current year was so low as 46,050l. It appeared, then, from that statement that a reduction to the amount of 20,000l. had actually been made in this estimate in the course of three years. Originally it was 66,000l., but in consequence of measures which had since been adopted by his noble friend (Lord Duncannon), it was reduced to the amount he had mentioned. The result of the change made in the Civil List respecting those palaces was, that, at the time that change had been made, the charge for them amounted to 39,000l., and that the same service was now performed for an estimate not exceeding 22,670l., so that a reduction of about 16,329l. had been made in that portion of the vote. Such had been the result of the arrangements made by his noble friend in bringing this matter under the review of Parliament. He had one observation to make as to the number of palaces, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex. Government had undoubtedly taken charge of the maintenance of them, and he would put it to the House whether the proprietors of great hereditary mansions would like to dispose of them, or allow them to fall into decay. It would not, surely, be a popular act on the part of such hereditary proprietors to dismantle those great mansions that had descended to them from their ancestors; and those palaces having descended as hereditary mansions to the Crown, the State should support them, and not allow them to fall into decay. It was true, that when the Government originally proposed to submit this item of the public expenditure to Parliament, they were told that Parliament would treat it with a parsimonious feeling. They rejected the idea then, at the same time that they felt that Parliament would, no doubt, desire that every degree of proper economy should be observed upon the subject, and upon such principles the present estimate had been framed. It was surely, then, safer to go with the Government and vote for this estimate, than to vote for the capricious reduction proposed by the hon. member for Surrey.

would not vote for the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Surrey, as he would rather have one single word of promise from the noble Lord opposite—one single intimation from him that he would do all he could to reduce this expenditure—than divide for so small a sum of money; and he would not vote for it also for this reason, that if he voted for the sum being 5,000l. less, he should be so far giving his sanction to an expenditure of which he could not altogether approve. Of this he was sure, that there was not a man in the kingdom who would grudge the King or the royal family any thing that was necessary to their splendor, pleasure, or magnificence. He spoke of the feelings of the people because he knew them to be such, but those feelings should not be shocked by flagrant expenditure and unfeeling waste. There was not a man in the kingdom, not even the poorest labourer, who would not gladly work a day extra rather than see St. James's Palace or Windsor Castle pulled down. He would not, however, say so of Buckingham Palace. No one would complain of its being pulled down. There was an enormous large sum expended upon a heap of marble at that palace which he had spent several mornings looking at, and he could make nothing of it. This 75,000l. amounted to a year's poor-rates for the county of Bedford, and to the wages of 3,500 labourers at 12s. a-week for twelve months. It was monstrous to fling the public money away in this manner. It was such things that made the people angry with the Government. If the noble Lord would pledge himself to reduce this expenditure as much as possible in future, he (Mr. Cobbett) would be content, and so would the people too.

said, that the hon. Member having thrown it upon him to give a pledge on this subject, he would only say that he thought what had just been stated by his hon. friend, the member for Cambridge was the best pledge that Government could possibly give of its intention to follow up the principle of the strictest economy in reference to this estimate. What Ministers had done already was a better assurance than any promise he could give of what they were determined to do in future; and with regard to the building to which the hon. member for Oldham had referred, he might be perfectly assured that no such building had ever been authorized by his Majesty himself, or by any of his present advisers.

said, that all the arguments of the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. member for Oldham and others, on this subject, proceeded on the supposition that we were dealing liberally with the Crown in this instance, and that, in fact, we were making the Crown our debtor. Now, he would contend that we were giving nothing to the Crown to which the Crown was not fully entitled, and that the Crown owed nothing to the people in that respect. One fact would prove the truth of what he stated. When the Crown surrendered its hereditary revenues on the accession of George 3rd, a specific bargain was made with the Crown that all those matters should be provided for out of the Civil List. A return had been lately laid before the House, showing what had been the aggregate amount of the revenues thus relinquished by the Crown since that period, and, having referred to it since the commencement of this discussion, he would just state the result. It was this—that the hereditary revenues surrendered by the Crown from 1762 to the 30th of January, 1830 amounted to 94,871,451l. Deducting from that amount what might have been required for annuities, and the discharge of debts on the Civil List, which might be estimated at 65,000,000l., a balance of 29,000,000l. was left in favour of the people. Now, after that statement, he supposed it would not be thought too much to ask the people to pay 20,000l. a year for keeping those old palaces in repair. He hoped, under such circumstances, the amendment would not be pressed. With regard to the expense incurred for the arch, he was not prepared to defend it, but this he would say, that much good was done to the labouring and industrious classes of the country by an expenditure of that description; of course, he did not mean to say that that circumstance would justify a too large expendi- ture of the public money. If the Government attempted to convert Whitehall Chapel into a national gallery, that accommodation could not be afforded to the Royal Academy which all seemed to think so desirable.

was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that Government would agree to the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex.

observed that Govenment was doing everything in its power to reduce the expenditure, but he could give no specific promise on the subject.

stated, in reference to a former question of the hon. member for Middlesex, that nothing would be done for the conversion of Whitehall chapel into a national gallery without due consideration. It was necessary to make some arrangement on the subject of the grant at this late period of the Session, and the smaller sum had been proposed as most expedient, under all the circumstances. If the national gallery were not erected at Trafalgar-square, no appropriation of the ground would take place till the reassembling of Parliament.

complained that those were taxed to pay for the British Museum to whom it was inaccessible. He was certain that the House had not a moral right to grant away the public money in this way, and he even doubted whether it had the legal right. He admitted, that this system had a tendency to beautify and aggrandize this town; but he had observed that wherever such a system had been practised in past times, it had been the sure precursor of national downfall and ruin. How was all this show got up and paid for? By extorting the money from the pockets of the poor, who were not able to visit the Museum, and by extracting it from the pockets of the country gentlemen, who seldom, if ever, came up to London. With respect to the management of the Museum, he believed it to be as bad as bad could be. The officers of it were for the most part clergymen, who employed poor curates to perform their duty at their different livings, whilst they were living in indolence and affluence here in London. He knew that he was now telling truth, and, what was more, truth that was unpalatable. The House and the country, however, would thank him for it hereafter; but whether they did or not, if nobody else in that House would tell disagreeable truths, he would. The country, he was sure, would profit from such a practice. The expenditure in the Museum was as profligate as profligate could be; and if the returns for which he was inclined to move were granted, he would undertake, to prove it.

said, that it was very easy to make assertions, but not altogether so easy to prove them. He would take the hon. member for Oldham at his word; he should have the accounts to which he referred, and he should be placed in a situation to prove, if those accounts would let him prove, the misconduct of which he complained so vehemently. He begged to remind the Committee, that Government was not responsible for the management of the Museum; but, without knowing the trustees personally, he would say, from his general knowledge of their private characters, that he was quite sure that they would not sanction such proceedings as those which the hon. member for Oldham had announced. The hon. Member should have every account and disbursement for which he had asked. He (Mr. Rice) was not himself a trustee of the Museum, but, he felt that he was only performing his duty to the trustees of that institution when he gave the hon. Member that promise on their behalf. The hon. member for Oldham had availed himself of that opportunity to laud himself as the only person who dared to speak unpalatable truths in that House. That the statement which the hon. Member had made that evening was unpalatable he freely admitted; but whether it was the truth, he for one, knew not. The hon. Member said, that the poorer classes took no interest whatever in the Museum. Let the hon. Member go to the Museum on any public day, and he would find it crowded, especially on Mondays and Tuesdays, with members of the poorer lasses, who went there to see the works of art and science, which they had read of in the works of information which they had read on the previous Saturday. He would see that the pleasure derivable from the chefs d'æuvres of arts and science was not confined to the higher classes, but was extended even to those whom we were accustomed to consider as the lower classes of the community.

said, that the officers of the Museum were not in general clergymen. Only two of them were clergymen, and one of those two only was beneficed. Mr. Henry Ellis, a layman, was at the head of the Museum.

said, that he had neither criticised nor attacked the trustees of the Museum. He knew better—he knew that they knew nothing at all about its internal management. The hon. member for Cambridge was very angry with him for what he had just said—[Mr. Ricc: "No."] No? then it was much worse, for the hon. Gentleman must have feigned anger. If he were good humoured, let him seem so and be so. If the accounts of the British Museum were given to him, he would undertake to make them all up with ease in six hours; he would undertake to prove, that 16,000l. a-year was spent in that Museum in a way which the hon. Secretary would not even pretend to justify. He might be wrong in saying that none of the poor of this country derived any benefit from visiting the Museum. Perhaps the labouring classes of the metropolis might sometimes visit it; but the man who worked in the fields, at a distance from London, could not come up to view it; and why, therefore, should he be called upon to contribute to the payment of the expenses incurred in keeping it in order? At the present moment, when every man was exclaiming against the enormous amount of taxes which he had to pay, we ought not to be flinging away the money of the nation in the purchase of useless fineries. He had received a letter that morning from Hull, by which he heard that the people there had refused to pay the Assessed-taxes—that their goods had been seized, and exposed to sale—but that no one had come forward to purchase them. He would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing upon this grant; but he must say, that, in his opinion, this expenditure of 24,000l. was not as well managed as it ought to be.

said, that he had been at the Museum that day. There were about 500 persons there at the same time, all of the poorer classes of the society. He never saw persons enjoying themselves more than they appeared to do in contemplating the curious productions of nature and art which were there submitted to their view. It was said, that the poorer classes in the more distant parts of England were prevented from visiting the Museum. This was to a certain extent true: but when rail-roads to and from the metropolis were completed, he was convinced that not only the master manufacturers but also their artisans would avail themselves of that mode of conveyance to London in order to study the works of art now collected in the Museum. The late Mr. Wedgwood, the inventor of the pottery which went by his name, had repeatedly acknowledged with gratitude the great benefit which he had derived from the inspection of the works of art in London.

asked Ministers this question:—"Were there less than 10,000 men at this moment in gaol for fiscal exactions, and were there less than 10,000 families suffering in consequence of their imprisonment?." If the answer of Ministers were, as it ought to be, in the affirmative, then he would ask, was this the time for expending more money in altering and repairing Windsor Castle? For his own part, he believed that Windsor Castle was now much worse off than it was before its recent changes. To call this a Reformed Parliament, and in a Reformed Parliament to vote away money for a purpose like this was enough to make every Member ashamed to see himself if he only went out of the House by daylight. If we go on at this rate, (said the hon. Member) the people will have a right to oppose us by every peaceable and constitutional means in their power; and if they shall be unable to bring us back to reason by peaceable means, they will obtain at length the right of resorting to absolute resistance.

I wonder at the indiscretion, for I will not call it by a harsher term, of which the hon. member for Oldham has been guilty. Let the public decide on the truth of the hon. Member's assertions by this one circumstance; he alleges as a fact, that 10,000 men are now confined in the different gaols of this kingdom in consequence of revenue prosecutions. Why does he say that. On what authority does he avouch it? Lot him call for all the returns which chooses, and prove it if he can. To produce some effect of his own, which I will not venture to describe, the hon. Member ventures to assert that 10,000 men are imprisoned on revenue charges. I call upon him to prove that assertion now, or to be convicted here in the presence of the assembled Commons of England, and of the whole British public, of having wilfully and deliberately, for his own purposes, made an assertion which he cannot justify. There never was a misstatement more gross than that on which the hon. member for Oldham has just ventured. He has now upon the Table a return from every prison in the kingdom, containing an account of the number of persons confined within it. He has time before the end of the Session, to look those returns through—let him apply himself to the task, and see whether he can make out that number from those returns. There was no delusion greater the (hon. Gentleman continued) and certainly none more mischievous, than that which under any circumstances brought into direct contrast with each other, the situation and comforts of the different classes of society. If it were possible that there was not a single poor man in England, it would be as much the duty of the House then, as it is now, to refuse every grant which was not warranted by the exigencies of the public service; but it was most unfair and unjust, for the sake of aiding an argument of temporary interest at best, to contrast the condition of the poor with that of the rich, in such a manner as to cast odium upon the rich as the authors of all the misery of the poor. Such contrasts must always be in existence as long as man was man. If you could improve the condition of the poor by them, he should say, that it was right to make such contrasts; but if the only result to be derived from such contrasts was to kindle animosities which did not exist, and to blow the trumpet for an "everlasting civil war, he should then say, that it was not the part either of a good citizen or of a good subject, or of a good member of Parliament, or of a just and legitimate reasoner, to make such contrasts.

was sorry to see the hon. Secretary treat this subject with so much passion. He asserted that he had not drawn any invidious contrast—or, indeed, any contrast at all—between the condition of the rich and that of the poor. He had complained of the number of persons who were now suffering under the exactions of the taxation of the country. He repeated that he had made no contrast between the rich and the poor. Why should he have made such a contrast, when he knew that there was no set of men poorer than those who were styled gentlemen of landed estate? The hon. Secretary had acted that evening as he bad acted on a previous occasion, when the Stamp-acts were under consideration. He had gone into figures of rhetoric, when he ought to have attended to figures of arithmetic,—he had dealt in a wonderful confusion of tropes and metaphors, when he ought to have confined himself to the simplicity of facts. It was his (Mr. Cobbett's) firm belief, that there were at this moment more than 10,000 persons in prison, in consequence of the pressure of taxation. The House was so impatient. He wished the people were so impatient. He might be guilty of an indiscretion—he thanked the hon. Secretary for giving him that word—in making that assertion: but, if the people were as impatient about the paying, as the House was about the voting away their money, he thought that the Treasury would not be much the better for it. He would undertake to prove, that 10,000 men and more were now in prison, in consequence of the fiscal exactions of the Government; and if he failed in establishing that point to the conviction of every fair and impartial man, he would own that he was fairly exposed to the reproaches of the hon. Gentleman.

thought, that it was the duty of an honest member of Parliament, if he saw squalid misery existing among the poor, and if he reflected that the poor supplied the great part of the expenditure of the State, out of the earnings of their industry, to state it in a fair and candid manner, free from extenuation on the one hand, and from exaggeration on the other. He had stated, on several previous occasions, his objections to this grant for the repair of Windsor Castle. "I stated," said Mr. Hume, "those objections as strong as man could state them, I stated them, as strong as I could state them." The hon. member for Oldham had not said a single word about fiscal prosecutions; he had merely spoken of fiscal exactions. He (Mr. Hume) believed that, instead of 10,000 men having been committed to gaol by fiscal exactions, there had been 50,000. He believed that at this present moment there were not so many as 10,000 persons in prison for debts of any description. About three years ago, in all the gaols of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the number of persons confined amounted to 5,300. He believed that the number of persons now confined in the metropolitan prisons was less by 600 or 700 than it had been for many years past. He did not, however, the less deprecate, on that account, any complaint which had a tendency to infer that, because the number of persons imprisoned had diminished, it was therefore the duty of an honest Member of Parliament to be silent when he saw the money of his constituents absolutely thrown away. He would not object to this grant now, as the repairs of Windsor Castle were now almost at a close; but this he must say, that nothing had affected the people of. England more than, that 600,000l. should have been expended upon the repairs of Windsor Castle, and 800,000l. upon the rebuilding of Buckingham House, and yet that neither of those buildings was at present completed.

thought, that the House would be guilty of a dereliction of its duty if it did not justify itself from the imputation which had just been cast upon it. The hon. Gentleman had Said, that the hon. member for Oldham had been guilty of an indiscretion: he (Mr. Robinson) would go still further, and would say, that that hon. Member had been guilty of an act of gross injustice towards the House, for he had had the presumption to arrogate to himself the monopoly of all the philanthropy felt for the lower classes of the community. How could the hon. Member presume to arrogate to himself all the regard of the House for the interest of the poorer members of the community. He would not yield to that hon. Member in love for the lower classes, or in a desire to alleviate their misfortunes and distresses. What did the hon. Member mean by saying that we should be ashamed to see ourselves, upon walking out of the House, if we did not walk out in the darkness of night, instead of the brightness of day? And what connexion had he shown to exist between this vote and the alleged distresses of the country? The hon. Gentleman had certainly indulged in imputations against Ministers which he had no facts to justify.

expressed his disapprobation of the plan of converting the chapel at Whitehall into a gallery for the reception of works of art. He thought that a new building for the purpose should be commenced immediately in Trafalgar Square.

said, he was informed that Whitehall Chapel would perfectly answer the purpose to which it was intended to appropriate it; but if, upon ex amination, this should turn out not to be the case, no part of the money would be expended on the alteration of the building, and the ground in Trafalgar-square would, in the mean time, remain unbuilt upon till the next Session of Parliament.

hoped, that, as the sense of the House was in favour of the erection of a new gallery in Trafalgar-square, the noble Lord would pause before he took any steps with respect to Whitehall Chapel.

said, he would enter into a compromise with Ministers; he would support a vote of 50,000l. for a national gallery, if they would repeal the Malt-tax. Until that was done, they could not afford money for a national gallery.

said, that by converting the chapel at Whitehall into a gallery, instead of building a new one, a great saving would be effected.

said, that the cheap plan was proposed under the idea that the House would refuse a grant sufficiently large to enable a new gallery to be built, but, now that that notion was dissipated, surely it was advisable at once to commence the building in Trafalgar-square.

asked whether, if Government should resolve upon the erection of a new gallery, Mr. Wilkins's plan would be followed?

said, that Government were bound to act upon Mr. Wilkins's plan if a new gallery should be built.

thought, that other architects ought to be allowed to send in plans.

said, that other plans had been submitted to Government, which he thought superior to that of Mr. Wilkins. He would oppose the grant now proposed, if an assurance were not given that it should not be appropriated to the completion of Mr. Wilkins's plan.

explained, that his declaration as to Government being bound to follow Mr. Wilkins's plan must be received with this qualification—that they were bound to do so only in the event of his undertaking to complete the building for 62,000l.

wished the noble Lord to explain how Government could be bound to follow Mr. Wilkins's plan, when he himself had abandoned it.? He hoped competition would be allowed.

said, that Mr. Wilkins had prepared his plan under the authority of the Treasury; and, if his contract for executing it had come within 62,000l. it would have been adopted, and by this time partly executed. His tender, however, amounted to 75,000l., and, under those circumstances. Government would not proceed with the work until they brought the matter under the consideration of Parliament.

moved the third reading of this Bill.

considered the Bill to be a measure which was inconsistent with sound financial principles. The object of the Bill was, to purchase the repeal of taxes, amounting to 35,000l. a year, by a grant of 160,000l. He objected to the payment of this sum of money, because, according to the repeated declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury could not spare it; and, secondly, because there was no pressing occasion for the measure. The tax was paid by foreign vessels coming to the port of London, and its repeal would be injurious to the ship-owners.

objected strongly to the principle of the Bill, and thought, that no reason for forcing it on at the present late period of the Session had been established.

moved, as an amendment; to leave out all the words after the word, "that" in the original Motion, for the purpose of inserting words to the effect "that in all questions of the expenditure of additional payments out of the Exchequer, especial regard should be paid to the interests of those who suffer the greatest pressure of the public burthens."

Young supported the amendment.