rose to move an amendment relating to Savings Banks, and proceeded to call the attention of the House to the resolution, of which he had given notice, respecting the state of the savings banks throughout the country. A resolution nearly to the same effect had been proposed by Mr. Frankland Lewis in 1831, when the loss to the public was less than it was at present. There were at present in the savings-banks 623,000 individual depositors, having standing in their names a sum of 18,500,000l. There were also several charitable societies, having investments to the amount of about 300,000l., besides friendly societies, which had about 784,000l. Upon these different accounts it would appear, that there was a million of interest paid to the depositors more than the commissioners themselves received. From 1817 to 1828, the commissioners of savings-banks had paid to the trustees interest at the rate of 4l. 11s. 2d. per cent. per annum, and from 1828 to the present time, at the rate of 3l. 16s. per cent., receiving from the trustees variable amounts of interest, generally at a loss of 10s. or 15s. per cent. It appeared, then, that, during the twenty years these institutions had been established, there had been an annual loss to the public of 74,287l. The House might say, this was no great loss, because the money was invested by the commissioners at different prices, whereas the returns gave the value of the money in the three per cents. as at the price of the day, and of the three and a-half at sixty-seven and upwards, there being an increase, therefore, in the value from the rise in the funds. The resolutions which he had printed would show, that, if all the Government securities were invested, the three per cents. valued at the price of the day, and the three and a-half at par, there would be 20,454,000l., equal to the payment of the whole amount. If the funds should fall, it was impossible, that the Government could remain free from loss without some change being made. All the savings-banks did not give the same rate of interest, nor was all the money paid to the trustees by the commissioners divided among the depositors. Of the 500 savings-banks to which the commissioners paid interest at the rate of 3l. 16s. 0½d. per cent. per annum, 412 paid to the depositors only 3l. 6s. 8d., while eighty-eight paid 3l. 8s., leaving, of course, a surplus, in the hands of the trustees of each set of banks. The anomaly in the act which required amendment was this, that it was left to the trustees to send to the commissioners whatever they might deem surplus. One bank paid its depositors nearly the whole rate of interest it received itself, while others, having larger establishments, paid less, as they required a larger surplus. His motion would be, that the House should go into Committee to consider the 9th George 4th, chap. 93, which fixes the rate of interest, with the view to amend the act, and permit Government or the commissioners, under the directions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to reduce the rate of interest given to depositor's in savings-banks to an equality with that which is received in the public funds. He had been one of the original founders of these institutions, and had always paid much attention to, and taken a deep interest in, the subject, and he could assure the House, that the security afforded by them was with the public a matter of much more importance than the amount of interest which they paid. The returns for which he intended to move should extend to the last ten years, and he had no doubt that they would present to the House a mass of information which could not fail to excite in the minds of hon. Members very considerable surprise. They would be surprised to find, that, in effect, the debt of the country was increased without the consent or the knowledge of Parliament. Not that he so much objected to the measure to which his motion referred, on the ground that it was a bad financial measure, as because it was a proceeding carried on without the knowledge of the House of Commons. Surely nothing could be more inconsistent with the law of Parliament, and with the principles of the Constitution, than that commissioners, appointed as those were who had the management of savings-banks' funds, should have the power to change from funded to unfunded debt according as they thought proper. Further, he thought it right to observe, that the present practice in reference to savings-banks involved very dangerous consequences in the event of a run upon the Bank of England; this position he conceived to be abundantly proved by the financial state of the country in the years 1836 and 1837. The state of things which existing provisions respecting savings-banks had brought about, was such as he trusted, the House would not allow to continue, especially when they recollected what past experience had shown might be its possible consequences. In the year 1833, the depositors in the savings-banks drew out between 800,000l. and 900,000l., and did not deposit above 181,000l. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the 9th of George 4th, chap. 93, with a view to the alteration and amendment of the same.

The following are the resolutions which had been printed by the order of the House, and to which the hon. Member referred in the course of his speech.

"1. That there has been received by the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, on account of savings-banks, and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, between the 6th of August 1817, and the 20th Nov. 1837, the aggregate sum of 31,978,161l. 2s. 11d,, principal and interest, and they have paid within the same period, the sum of 11,460,446l. 8s. 2d., leaving the amount of 20,517,714l. 14s. 9d., due to the trustees of savings-banks and friendly societies, on the 20th November, 1837.

"2. That the Government securities and cash standing, on the 20th November, 1837, in the names of these commissioners, valued at the market prices on that day (the 3 per cents. at 93l. 4s. the 3½ per cents. at about par), and including 302,196l. 17s. 5d. of cash remaining in their names uninvested in the banks of England and Ireland, amounted only to 20,453,494l. 12s. 8d., showing a deficiency in assets, of 64,220l. 2s. 1d. to pay the whole amount due, and owing by them, to the trustees.

paid, by the commissioners to the trustees, more than they have received from the Government securities, being on the average an annual sum of 74,207l. more allowed to trustees than received.

"4. That the commissioners have paid to the trustees of savings-banks and friendly societies a fixed rate of interest of 3d. per 100l. per diem, or 4l. 11s. 3d. per cent. yearly, from 1817 to 1828; and from that year to the present time the fixed rate of 2½d. per 100l. per diem, or 3l. 16s. 0½d. per cent. yearly; whilst a variable and lower rate of interest has been received by the commissioners, thereby producing a great loss yearly to the public; and that loss is rapidly increasing, according to the increase of the deposits. That the aggregate loss in ten years, viz., from 1817 to 1828, was 487,657l., or about 48,762l. yearly, on the average of these ten years. That the aggregate loss in fifteen years, viz., from 1817 to 1832, was 965,661l., or 68,957l. yearly on the average of these fifteen years. That the aggregate loss in twenty years, viz., from 1817 to 20th November, 1837, was 1,548,317l. (including 64,220l. deficient in the estimate of assets), or about 77,416l. yearly on the average of these twenty years, exclusive of compound interest, which ought to be added to show the actual excess of interest paid by the commissioners. In the year ending 20th November, 1838, the loss may be estimated at about 90,000l.

"5. That, whilst the commissioners paid, to about 500 savings-banks in England, Wales, and Ireland, interest at the fixed rate of 3l. 16s. 0½d. per annum, 412 banks paid their depositors only 3l. 6s. 8d., and 88 banks paid. their depositors 3l. 8s 5d. (being the largest amount allowed by the act to be paid), thus leaving a surplus of interest of 9s. 4½d. per cent. to the trustees of 412 banks, and 7s. 7½d. to the trustees of 88 banks. That out of that surplus the expenses of the savings-banks have generally been defrayed; and on the 28th of February, 1838, there was standing in the Bank of England, to the credit of the commissioners in the Separate Fund Account,' the sum of 247,787l. of that surplus, the interest of which, amounting at 3½ per cent. to 8,672l. 10s. yearly interest is available towards defraying the loss incurred by the public, as before shewn, although the principal sum remains liable to be called for by the several savings-banks, if required by them, and will reduce the annual loss to the Government to that amount.

"6. That the Government securities standing in the names of the commissioners on the 20th Nov. 1837, namely, 13,306,210l. of 3½ per cent. stock, though valued at par, was purchased at prices varying from 75l. 18s. 7d. per 100l. stock upwards, and the 6,931,317l. of 3 per cents., though valued at 93l. 4s. per 100l. stock, was purchased at prices varying from 67l. 17s. 11d. per 100l stock upwards. That these securities, if sold at this time, would realize the full amount of capital and interest due to the trustees of savings-banks and friendly societies; but if the 3 per cents. should fall from from 93l. 4s. to 83l. 4s. per 100 stock, and the 3½ per cents. from 100l. to 90l. per 100l. stock, there would be a loss of capital to the Government of two millions sterling, and if the fall of 3 per cents. should be to 73l. 4s., and the 3½ per cents. to 80l. per 100l. stock, the loss of capital would be four millions sterling on the whole amount due to depositors, and so in proportion to the amount of stock sold out to meet the demands of the depositors.

"7. That the whole of the deposits, amounting to 20,517,714l., are by law payable in cash; sums under 10,000l. may be demanded by every bank at five days' notice; and sums above 10,000l. at fourteen days' notice; and in times of political excitement and panic, the depositors may thus legally make large demands of cash, so as to produce a heavy loss to the Government and greatly inconvenience, if not endanger, public credit.

"8. That by the existing law, the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt may buy, sell, and exchange the Government securities of the savings-banks, as they may think fit; they may purchase Exchequer bills and exchange them for stock; they may sell out stock and purchase Exchequer bills; thereby affecting materially the currency of the country, and changing the nature of the public debt, without the previous knowledge of Parliament; and it appears, that they have exercised these powers largely during the last twenty years, having paid 35,355,014l. for the purchase of stock and Exchequer bills, and received from the sale of stock and Exchequer bills the sum of 16,684,645, leaving 18,670,369l. as the amount of cost of the stock and Exchequer bills standing in their names on the 20th of November, 1837.

"9. That, whilst it is highly important to the best interests of the country that the Government should continue to afford encouragement and protection to the prudential investment and safe custody of the savings of the industrious classes, it is proper, that such assistance should be afforded without loss to the Government, and with as little danger as possible to public credit."

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the following returns:—

The loss to the public, by the present rate of paying the trustees of savings banks, appeared as follows:

Sums paid in and drawn out at two different periods:—

The question having been put,

said, that he should certainly be unwilling to consent to any course which would tend to shake the security of the deposits in savings-banks, and it was his decided opinion, that the disadvantage of taking a single step would far outweigh any possible benefit that could accrue from change. There was, he admitted, some loss to the public, but a still greater injury to the community would arise from disturbing the confidence which was felt in the security of savings-banks; there was no doubt, however, that if at the original establishment of savings-banks, Parliament could have foreseen the extent to which the system was destined to be carried, they might have made much wiser arrangements than those which had been adopted. All that Parliament had ever undertaken, and indeed, all that it could be expected to undertake, was, that the savings of persons of small incomes should be as well secured, and as cheaply managed, as the properties of the largest capitalists. The matter presented two questions,—namely, the security of the capital, and the amount of the interest to be paid. The only recommendation his hon. Friend had made, was, that the House should interfere for the reduction of the interest. The interest originally was 4l. 11s. 3d. per cent., but it was subsequently reduced to 3l. 16s. He admitted, the Government paid more than they received, but he should decline arguing it as a mere money question. There were greater interests involved in it. If, for instance, by the reduction of the interest, parties were induced to withdraw their deposits, say to the amount of 200l., it would be impossible for them to replace more of that sum than 30l. in any one year, and thus all the advantages of savings-banks would be defeated with respect to such individuals. But it might be said, that a slight reduction of interest would not produce any such effect. He held in his hand a statement of the effect on savings-banks of the various panics, commercial and political, and also of the reduction of the interest which took place in 1828. The fact was, whereas in the panic of 1825 the total amount withdrawn from savings-banks did not exceed 361,000l., and in the political movement of 1832 no greater a sum than 550,000l., the consequence of the reduction of interest from 4l. 11s. to 3l. 16s. instead of being represented by the smaller of those sums, 361,000l., or by the greater, 550,000l., withdrew from the savings-banks no less than 1,500,000l. He was not prepared to say, that under no possible circumstances or at no future time should a reduction take place. He admitted the time might come when a reduction might discreetly and wisely take place; but it never could take place without creating some degree of uncertainty and risk. But, undoubtedly, at the present moment, when the prospects of the country already exhibited symptoms of decided improvement, he would not have it attributed to him by persons out of doors, that for the purpose of effecting a saving in the public expenditure, the mode adopted by Parliament and recommended by Government, was, to cut down the amount of interest payable to the poorer classes, who were the main depositors in savings-banks. There was one of the papers on the table of peculiar importance, contrasting as it did the amount of interest which was paid in money, and that converted into capital. The interest paid in money was only 286,000l., while the interest credited and made principal, was 9,271,000l. The depositors in savings-banks were not the class of persons to make experiments upon. He entreated the House, then, not to adopt these resolutions, affirming matters of fact without leading to any immediate remedy, or at least in as far as they suggested a remedy, were likely to produce the dangers he apprehended. So much with respect to the first point; but supposing the reduction of interest effected, how were they to alter the responsibility of the public to the depositors? How were they to make a new contract with them? IF a proposition were made, that the depositors should only be paid at the value of money in the market, it would be a death-blow to savings-banks altogether. His hon. Friend had found fault with him for what he had done under one of the classes of the Savings-banks Act, but he had only done what he was directed to do by the act itself. He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with having called the attention of the House to this subject, and would not persevere in his resolutions. But if his hon. Friend persisted in dividing the House, he should certainly resist the proposition of enforcing economy at the hazard of the evils which might follow the adoption of the course recommended by his hon. Friend.

considered that the pro- position was calculated to excite distrust of the savings-banks, and those most interested in them. So far from thinking that the interest ought to be reduced, or could be reduced with safety, it was only great care and management on the part of those who superintend the savings-banks, could enable them to pay the sums allowed by the public. The act of 1828 had greatly increased the number of depositors, and it was by the increase of the number of the depositors, that the expenses of the savings-banks were increased.

Motion negatived.

trusted, that the House would favour him with its indulgence while he endeavoured to bring under their attention the subject of which he had given notice. He felt his own inability to do justice to a question of so much delicacy, but it was one so just in itself, that it could not suffer from the incompetence of its advocate. His object was to carry with him the opinion of the House and of the Government, as he felt confident he should be able to carry with him the approbation of the people out of doors in a proposition for conferring on his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, some public mark of esteem and respect. He proposed, in the first place, in the few remarks with which he meant to trouble the House, to show, that the Duke of Sussex had hitherto been placed in a position which was very unfair with respect to allowances and favours as compared to the other male branches of the royal family. In the next place he meant to show, that not only did there exist no reason for this invidious distinction, but that the Duke of Sussex was in possession of those distinguished qualities and virtues which endeared the prince and the private citizen—that he had the strongest claims upon the consideration of the people of this country—claims which a generous people would be proud to acknowledge. He should, without further preface, enter into the details of the acts by which different allowances were made at different periods to different members of the royal family. In the first place, he ought to mention, that these acts were so involved, repealing some and substituting others, that it was not without con- siderable difficulty, that he had been enabled to arrive at an exact conclusion. The first act—namely, the 18th of George 3rd, c. 31, gave to his Majesty the sum of 60,000l. per annum for the younger male branches of his family, with this proviso, that none of them were to draw from it more than 15,000l., but this act did not come into operation until after the death of his Majesty. In the mean time provision was made for the different members of the royal family by acts which were extremely intricate. He would begin with the late Duke of York. The 32nd George 3rd, c. 13, conferred upon him an allowance of 18,000l. per annum. The 46th of George 3rd, c. 145, conferred an additional allowance of 6,000l. He had also an allowance of 10,000l. for taking charge of his father, but this last ceased on the demise of George 3rd. Again, by the first of George 4th, an annuity was settled upon the Duke of York of 14,000l., which raised his allowance to 38,000l. Besides this he received as compensation for his bishopric of Osnaburgh the sum of 16,000l., and this he received at a time when that territory was occupied by foreign troops. He also commanded two regiments, and enjoyed the sum of 10,000l. as commander-in-chief. These sums, taken altogether, amounted to 58,000l. a-year. Next came the Duke of Clarence. By the 31st of George 3rd, c. 34, he received an allowance of 12,000l. By the 46th of George 3rd, c. 145, he had 6,000l. By the 56th George 3rd, confirmed by the 1st of George 4th, he had 2,500l.; by the 1st and 2nd of George 4th he had 6,000l. On the death of the Duke of York he received 3,000l. and by the 7th and 8th of George 4th he received 9,000l., making altogether an annual allowance of 38,500l., besides his different naval commissions, and his pay as admiral of the fleet, the amount of which he (Mr. Gillon) was not cognisant of. He had moreover, the rangership of Bushy-park, which was worth about 3,400l. The next was the Duke of Cumberland. By the 39th of George 3rd, c. 29, he received 12,000l. By the 46th of George 3rd, c. 145, he received an addition of 6,000l. By the 6th of George 4th, c. 71, he received a further 6,000l., and on the death of the Duke of York he received 3,000l. These sums amounted to 27,000l. annually, but as the Duke of Cumberland had retired from this country, and had become King of Hanover, the sum he enjoyed at present was only 21,000l., but during the time he was resident in this country he received 27,000l. a-year. He would then come to the Duke of Sussex. By the 42nd of George 3rd, c. 48, he received 12,000l. He ought to state, that the Duke of Sussex received his allowance at a later period of his life than any of his brothers. He was considerably above thirty years of age, and this allowance he received at a period of life when, of all others, it was likely that an individual would necessarily incur a certain expenditure, and from the smallness of his allowance certain engagements and debts would be contracted, engagements which had fallen upon the Duke of Sussex, and from which ever since, notwithstanding a most rigid system of economy, any thing but ostentatious, it was impossible for him to redeem himself, and which, therefore, tended in some degree to embitter a life which was further pressed upon by the severe dispensation of bodily infirmity. By the 46th of George 3rd, c. 145, the Duke of Sussex received an addition of 6,000l., and on the death of the Duke of York he received 3,000l., making altogether 21,000l. It was a curious fact, and one well worthy of the attention of the House, that in the Act of the 1st George 4th, in which all the previous acts were recited, allowances were granted to every one of the other male branches of the royal family, and the name of the Duke of Sussex was the only one omitted. With respect to the Duke of Cambridge, he might state, without going into details, that his income amounted to 27,000l. Besides this, he had a regiments; and during a very long period he had, as viceroy of Hanover, been in the receipt of a large allowance. He had shown, therefore, that every one of the male branches of the royal family, with the exception of the Duke of Sussex, had received direct allowances and indirect emoluments. The Duke of Sussex at no time received any emolument. Upon the accession of his late Majesty to the Throne, the ranger-ship of Bushy-park was conferred upon the Duke of Sussex, but the emoluments connected with the office were taken away, so that he derived no lucrative benefit from it. He would say, then, that the provision for the Duke of Sussex was comparatively moderate, when he con- sidered the way in which the better part of his life had been applied. It was well known that his Royal Highness was devoted to scientific and literary pursuits. If these pursuits deprived him of naval and military emoluments, he wished to ask, and he did so with no desire for making invidious distinctions—he wished to ask if the time of the Duke of Sussex had not been profitably employed. He wished to ask if it was nothing in an enlightened and enterprising commercial country like this that every discovery that tended to enhance the happiness and comfort of man, that every invention that extended the power of machinery and the powers of the mind, that everything that tended to the advancement of science, that every spark of rising genius, and modest merit should in that distinguished quarter have found patronage and support. It was known, that for twenty-five years the Duke of Sussex had presided over sixty institutions, many of them of a literary and scientific nature, to all of which he had liberally given his money, his time, and his advice. As president of the Royal Society his royal highness had continually recurring demands upon his resources. No invention or discovery was submitted for his approbation that did not in one way or other trench upon his funds. But it was also well known, that out of his comparatively moderate allowance, the Duke of Sussex had collected together a very large and valuable library of scientific and general literature; and further, on simply writing down their names, this library was open to the use and inspection of the public. The Mouse was aware that neither the time nor the allowance of the Duke of Sussex was wasted in mere frivolous pursuits or personal gratification, but that they were both employed in the advancement of literature and science. He begged also to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the Duke of Sussex was now the first resident subject of the Crown; and he wished also to remind the House of the allowances enjoyed by others when they occupied a similar position. He had endeavoured to show the different calls that were made upon his royal Highness's resources, and to those calls he must add another, which, although it could not be alluded to in a discussion of this sort, was yet as sacred in the eyes of God and man, as any other that he had mentioned, As a humble but sincere Reformer—as one devoted to the exercise of every practical and proper economy in the resources of the country, he ventured to bring forward this motion. He trusted, that those more immediately connected with the Government would not be unwilling to bestow some mark of public approbation to the merits of so distinguished and illustrious an individual. He felt, that in bringing forward this motion, be carried with him the approbation of his constituents and of the people at large. Whatever support the motion might meet with in the House, the people out of doors, who had ever regarded the Duke of Sussex with eyes of well-merited gratitude, would regard it with approbation. He would conclude by moving, that a humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her to take into consideration the Parliamentary allowance hitherto granted, and at present enjoyed by the Duke of Sussex, with a view to recommend some addition.

had great pleasure in seconding the motion, as he was quite sure, that it was one which out of doors would meet with the warmest approbation. There was one point which his hon. Friend had omitted in the course of his speech; namely, that his royal Highness, the Duke of Sussex disposed of very large sums annually, in the way of charity. It was only just that this should be taken into account in discussing this motion.

said, that this was a motion for an address to her Majesty, asking her to recommend that House of Parliament to make an addition to the income enjoyed by the Duke of Sussex. He certainly felt, that if it were proper that a Parliamentary addition should be made to the income of the Queen's uncle, it would be proper for the minister of the Crown to propose that addition, as no advice naturally could be more grateful to her Majesty; and, therefore, if it were proper to make this addition, they were guilty of some neglect of duty in not having tendered that advice. With this feeling, therefore, he felt himself bound to say a few words, and but a few words, to the House, not having received any command to bring down a message from the Crown, or to make any proposition to the House upon this subject; and in addressing these few words to the House, he should not attempt to dispute the greater part of the statements made by his hon. Friend, the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Gillon); and, above all, he should not dispute that which he had stated so eloquently, and at the same time with so much truth, of his royal highness the Duke of Sussex's liberal and indeed munificent patronage of the arts, and of his royal highness disposing of the income he enjoyed in a manner befitting a prince and a member of the royal family. Neither should he attempt to dispute the statement made with regard to the income hitherto enjoyed by his royal highness, as compared to the incomes enjoyed at different times of their lives by the other members of the royal family. He would not enter into the circumstances—he did not desire to enter into the circumstances by which that difference was caused, or why larger incomes were enjoyed by the brothers of the Duke of Sussex; but in looking back to the discussions which he remembered to have taken place on some of those allowances, he could not say, that he thought those discussions very well calculated to prompt a very ready application to that House on the part of the Crown for an increase of the allowances of the royal family. When such increase was made, it ought to be in some case in which there was a general and almost universal assent of the House, and an assent as ready and as universal on the part of the people out of that House. He remembered with respect to one of those grants, being present at a division when the grant was carried or rejected, he did not recollect which, by a majority of one. He remembered on another occasion a grant, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk had alluded—namely, the grant of 10,000l. a-year to the Duke of York on the occasion of intrusting to him George 3rd, during his malady, occasioning not in that House but out of the House reflections which were not only injurious to the Duke of York, but tended in some degree to lower the royal family to which he belonged in the estimation of the people. It was because he wished to keep up that respect which was due to the royal family that he thought it more advisable for the Ministers of the Crown to keep the incomes of the royal family within the limits already assigned them; as, in exceeding the limits, he thought they would not be acting up to the just expectation on the part of the nation with regard to any of the members of the royal family. Without comparing the income of his royal highness the Duke of Sussex with those incomes which had hitherto been enjoyed by the other members of the royal family, which he thought would not be altogether a satisfactory mode of deciding these questions, because many of those to whom the argument would be applied might say, that they differed as to the justice and propriety of those incomes—he would say, therefore without entering into any comparison, that the income now enjoyed by his royal highness, the Duke of Sussex, in consequence of the votes of Parliament was 21,000l. He must admit, that his royal highness was of a most liberal disposition, and that his royal highness wished to benefit in every way, not only charitable institutions, but those which belonged to science and literature, which made it difficult for him to keep within the limit of his income; but, at the same time, that income was not a stinted or narrow income for Parliament to bestow on a younger branch of the royal family. It was upon such considerations, during the present year, when the civil list had to be settled, that in adverting, as Ministers felt bound, to the income of his royal highness, the Duke of Sussex, they did not think it their duty to make any proposition for an increase. His own opinion, if he had consulted his private inclination as to what he would wish done for the Duke of Sussex as an individual, the respect he entertained for him would have induced him to wish that a larger income than that his royal highness at present enjoyed might be granted; but, speaking in his character as a Member of Parliament and a Minister of the Crown, he thought the Ministers consulted the interests of the royal family in general, and the interests of the Crown, in coming to the resolution to which they had come, that it was not expedient to advise her Majesty to send a message down to the House to propose any increase of the income of his royal highness, the Duke of Sussex. Having said this, and having said, that he did not think that it would be proper to give such advice to her Majesty, he begged he might not in the least be understood as saying, that he rather wished that this proposition should come from a Member of the House than that it should come from the Ministers of the Crown. On the contrary, he thought that if such a proposition were to be made to the House of Commons, it ought to be a proposition made by a Minister of the Crown, and not left to an individual Member of the House. Therefore, while he opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Falkirk, he opposed it as a proposition which he did not think it wise or advisable in itself to adopt, not from any censure which it would seem to cast upon his conduct as a Minister of the Crown, but he thought he was bound to withstand the motion which had been made to the House, because he did not think it fitting to advise her Majesty, as an act of grace on her part, to accede to such a proposition.

had never heard a speech more honourable to the person filling the office of leader of that House than the speech that bad just been made by the noble Lord, since both by his political connexions and the friendship which they all knew subsisted between the royal Duke and the noble Lord, as well as the manner in which the subject had been brought forward, the noble Lord had every motive that could weigh with a Minister of the Crown to consent to the proposition. The course taken by the noble Lord did him the greatest honour, and would, he hoped, be only estimated by the country, as he perceived it was by Gentlemen on the other side of the House.

had come down to the House with an impression that the motion would have met with the general concurrence of the House, and he thought the noble Lord might, without any compromise of public duty, have given his assent to it. The hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the proposition had said so much in support of the proposition, and of the merits of his royal highness, that they had left little or nothing for him to add. At the same time he might venture to impress upon the House the recollection that his royal highness, the Duke of Sussex, had ever been, peculiarly, the member of the royal family who had resided and spent his income in this country, and that the number of institutions over which he presided was seventy, and not sixty, as an hon. Member had that night stated. In addition to this, the various other acts of charity of his royal highness were most numerous. He should not think that he was performing his duty if he did not give his cordial support to this motion.

said, that the speech of the hon. and learned Gen- tleman who had just sat down had deprived this motion of all party character, and he hoped every hon. Member opposite would look at the case solely with reference to its own merits. His royal highness was now between sixty and seventy years of age, and it ought not to be forgotten that he never received any Parliamentary allowance until he was past thirty. He had most honourably set apart, for many years past, a portion of his income for the liquidation of debts, which, owing to the small allowance for his own personal expenses which he received in the heyday of his youth, he had been compelled to contract. It was a fact, that his royal highness was not in a state at the present moment to entertain with that hospitality and dignity which his station required, the distinguished foreigners who were now in London. This was neither conducive to the dignity of the royal family, nor to the credit of the country.

thought the motion placed the House in an inconvenient and inappropriate position, because the duty of the House consisted in checking, not in urging, expenditure on the part of Government. He believed, that the grants at present enjoyed by Members of the royal family were amply sufficient to support their dignity. If, however, a case of necessity were made out, no one would be more ready than himself to come forward in favour of an additional allowance to his royal highness, the Duke of Sussex; but this had not been attempted on the present occasion. He was grateful to the noble Lord for the manner in which he had spoken. The observations of the noble Lord had removed a great many difficulties which many hon. Members felt on the question, and were of a kind, to induce the acquiescence of the House. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Gentleman would suffer his motion to be disposed of without pressing it to a division.

said his feelings of duty led him to give his support to the noble Lord on this question. He must say, he should not be satisfied with himself if he shrunk from doing what was personally disagreeable, in giving the noble Lord that support, and he must say too, that he felt fully, that from community of feeling with his Royal Highness, and from the noble Lord's intimacy with his Royal Highness, the noble Lord had very great temptations to depart from the strict line of duty on this question. The noble Lord had set an example that night to public men, which, in his opinion, was well deserving of imitation. With respect to the allusions that had been made to the political feelings of the illustrious Duke, he was not aware that the illustrious Duke had ever urged his political opinions so as to be disagreeable to any one. As he had said, in giving his support to the noble Lord, he was doing what was personally disagreeable to himself; for his personal opinion was in favour of the motion. When he saw the illustrious Duke devoting his time to the pursuits of science, and occupying a distinguished situation in its ranks, making even hospitality subservient to the interests of science, he could not but say, that his personal feelings were in favour of the motion; but he agreed entirely with the noble Lord, that her Majesty's Government ought to make up their mind upon a question of this nature, on an enlarged view of the circumstances of the whole royal family; and in the course that suggested from the House of Commons, that they ought to meet with support. The House of Commons was not fit to be trusted with grants of this kind, and after all the abuse which he had heard applied to different Governments, on the score of lavish expenditure, he believed, that Governments were ever more inclined to economy on questions of this kind than the House of Commons. It would be exceedingly dangerous to acquiesce in the precedent that would be furnished by the motion of the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, he thought it was infinitely more respectful to her Majesty, that motions of this kind should originate with the Government. The Government was much better aware of the remote consequences to be expected from grants of this sort, than any single member of that House could possibly be. On these grounds he gave his entire and cordial support to the view of the noble Lord, wishing, at the same time, however, to guard against its being supposed that, in refusing this grant, he was in the slightest degree influenced by political or party motives.

said, that if his political and personal feelings had ever agreed, it was in favour of this motion. For thirty years that he had been engaged in politics, he had ever found his Royal Highness in favour of education, the friend of the poor, and the advocate of liberty. It was not for him to say, in what respects his Royal Highness had done his duty; he would only ask any individual to say, in what the illustrious Duke had not done his duty. But he did expect, after what fell from the noble Lord, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Selkirk, would at once have put an end to the discussion, by withdrawing his motion. For his own part he could only say, that he felt he had a public duty to perform, and he should perform it, though it would be with great pain that he should divide on this question. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his motion.

also opposed the motion. If the illustrious Duke were able to collect the libraries and curiosities which it was said he had accumulated, and that out of his present income, surely this, which was urged in favour of an increase of his allowance, was the strongest argument against such a grant. He was convinced that the Duke of Sussex would not; if appealed to, consent to have any addition to the sum which he at present received, The object which the people most desired when they sought the Reform Bill was; that it should become the means of effecting a reduction in their burdens; and yet by a return which he held in his hand, the expenditure was 1,700,000l. less the year before the Reform Bill passed than in the year 1836.

observed, that whatever were the politics of the illustrious Duke, no one could be more ready than he was, to bear testimony to the benefits, which the illustrious Duke had conferred on the arts, and the active services which he had rendered in behalf of all our charitable institutions. He hoped, however that the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this question, would not press it to a division, as, if he did so, it might be construed into a denial of those claims on the gratitude of the House which all admitted the illustrious Duke possessed.

was well aware of the importance which attached to the opinions of the noble Lord, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel), but could not help thinking, that this motion had been treated by them rather harshly. He did not know why or wherefore, but he did not hesitate to say, that a greater degree of exactness and rigour had been shown in the arguments adduced on the evening, than he had heard on many other similar occasions. One thing was quite clear, that the admiration entertained by the public, of the useful and consistent public life of the illustrious Duke, was echoed from all sides of that House; and if the Government had thought fit to accede to this motion, he was certain that they would have been supported by the cordial sympathy of the House, and the people.

Though it had on some occasions happened, that his votes did not give satisfaction to his constituents, he was sure that his conduct would receive their sincere approbation, when he supported a motion for increasing the allowance of that illustrious Duke, who had done them essential service in his unwearied efforts to promote education, science, and every object beneficial to mankind. He thought this grant was the more called for now, as he recollected to have heard, many years ago, from the Dukes of Sussex and Kent, that they could not, in their youth, command, for their necessary expenses, such an income as the sons of merchants expended in Switzerland or Germany.

expressed his belief, that those who most strongly opposed pensions in that House would be found amongst the first to give their sanction to an increase in the allowance of the illustrious Duke. He could answer for his own constituents, and, he might add (he was sure), for all parts of the country, that no vote could give them greater satisfaction than that which gave the illustrious Duke greater scope for the exercise of his truly benevolent qualities.

was sure that his constituents would cheerfully assent to such a motion as that which was proposed, and which would enable the illustrious Duke to increase the benefits which he had already conferred in the promotion of the arts and sciences and of the good of the public generally. It had been said, if the illustrious Duke could collect libraries at present, the fact showed his income to be sufficiently large; but it should be recollected that this expenditure, for what might be considered a public object, diminished the means which he had at his disposal for his own immediate expenses.

replied. His only motive in introducing this question was a sense of public duty. The support which he had received from hon. Members representing large constituencies left him no alternative but to divide the House.

The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 98; Noes 48: Majority 50.

The House in Committee of Supply.

, in moving that a sum be granted to her Majesty sufficient to defray the expenses of the Coronation, observed that the Coronation of his Majesty George 4th cost 243,000l. The expenses of the next Coronation, that of William 4th, were estimated at 50,000l., but were found to amount to a sum less than that which he had named by 5,000l. or 6,000l. The whole expenses of the present Coronation exceeded that of his late Majesty; but he could explain the difference in a way which would prove that her Majesty's Ministers were justified in the outlay which had been made. The House would recollect, that at the approach of the Coronation her Majesty's Ministers determined to fix on a certain standard as to the expenses of that ceremonial. Many appeals were made in Parliament, and also from public meetings, stating that the scale proposed for the Coronation of her Majesty the Queen was unworthy the dignity of the occasion, and would give general disappointment to the public. While her Majesty's Government felt it to be their duty to prescribe a limit to the expenses, they also felt, that within that limit it was their duty to make the Coronation of the Sovereign of this country in all respects suited to the occasion, and conducted in such a manner as to give the greatest share of enjoyment to all her subjects; and if they compared the late Coronation with that which took place at the period when George 4th ascended the throne, he had no difficulty in saying that taking (as connected with the ceremony) the object of Parliament and t Government to be that the greatest number of the free subjects of this kingdom should have the greatest degree of enjoyment which could on such an occasion be possibly afforded, the course taken by them (the Government) was of all others the best which could be adopted. Let those who differed from the Ministers on a former occasion compare the late ceremonial with those Coronations which they recollected, and let them ask themselves whether they did not feel a pride at the course and the result of the proceeding, whether they regarded the aspect in which the people of this country were presented to our distinguished visitors at the inauguration of her Majesty, or when they assembled in well-conducted multitudes in the streets. He was enabled to state to the House, that of the several items in which an increase had taken place, that increase was in no respect occasioned by that portion of the ceremonial peculiarly connected with the Sovereign, but was incurred in consequence of extending to the great mass of the people the means of participating in this national spectacle. For instance, the Lord Chamberlain's expenses were less than at the accession of William 4th. [Mr. Hume: Is there an estimate]. No; but as there was an excess over the last, he wished to show how it had taken place. There was accommodation given to three thousand private persons in the abbey more than had been afforded on the last occasion. In like manner the procession rendered necessary a much larger expense; but except as to the medals, the amount paid to theatres, and the fireworks, the expenses of the late were kept within the bounds of the former Coronation. He believed, that a larger sum of money had been expended in the metropolis than if there had been two banquets. He spoke on good authority when he said, that the public had voluntarily paid for seats commanding a view of the procession no less a sum than 200,000l. He had been told, on the same authority, that in addition to the enormous metropolitan population of one million and a half, individuals from the country had flowed into town, and were enabled by the arrangements made to share in the great national ceremonial, to the number of 400,000. So that there was exhibited within the metropolis the glorious sight of two millions of souls; and never was there given to sovereign or to a country a prouder proof of good conduct and discretion than that afforded by the assembled multitude on the occasion of her Majesty's Coronation. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that a sum of 70,000l. should be granted to the Sovereign in order to defray the expenses of the Coronation.

said, that although the vote proposed was double the estimate presented to the House previous to the Coronation, yet, as it was fully three-fourths less than that required for the Coronation of George 4th., he had nothing to say against it. He must, however, observe that a more gratifying sight than that of last week he had never witnessed. It had afforded a convincing proof, that the great mass of the people were disposed to enjoy themselves whenever occasion was presented, quietly and rationally, and that the more they were left to their own discretion the better behaved they would be. The conduct of the populace at the Coronation rebounded much to their credit, and presented the strongest proof of their devoted loyalty, and affection for their Sovereign.

Vote agreed to.

took that opportunity to state, that he should shortly have to present to the House two petitions, the one from the Linnean Society and the other from the Horticultural Society, both praying that Kew gardens might be made more worthy of their national character, by their being converted into a botanical garden, to which the public at large should be admitted. He thought this was a subject in all respects deserving of the attention and consideration of the House, and he pledged himself to take an early opportunity of directing notice to it. With respect to the admission of the public to these gardens, he might observe, that very recently increased facilities had been given. He might be allowed also to take that opportunity of stating, that with respect to Hampton Court, arrangements had been made by the Government, by the abolition of a sinecure office formerly charged on the civil list, which had put them in possession of the requisite funds, to give to the public a complete free admisson to the palace, without cost or charge, of any kind upon four days in each week. Of the remaining two one was to be allotted to artists desirous of studying there, and the other to the cleansing of the rooms.

Vote agreed to.

On the grant of 4,378l. 8s. 8d. for the National Gallery and Royal Academy.

complained of the manner in which the estimates for this building were brought forward year after year in this piecemeal manner. It was a building which, after all, it would be much better to pull down than to complete.

expressed his regret, that the public were not admitted freely to see the exhibitions of the Royal Academy; especially when it was considered that those exhibitions took place in a building erected with the public money. He thought that the Academy might throw their rooms open to the public at least on one day in the week.

, as the building had been executed at the public expense, maintained that it would be reasonable to expect that the exhibition of the Royal Academy should be open to the public on two days of the week.

observed it ought always to be in the recollection of the House, that the whole of the money obtained by the exhibitions of the Royal Academy, was devoted to the advancement of the arts. Not a single individual derived any benefit from it. It was employed in defraying the expenses of the schools and of lectures, and in the endowment of pupils at Rome, &c. At the various times at which this question had been discussed over and over again it was generally acknowledged that nothing could be more creditable than the manner in which the Royal Academy had devoted large sums to the advancement of the arts. As to the notion that the royal academicians derived any personal profit or advantage from the exhibition, there never was a greater mistake. While, however, he said this, he undoubtedly thought that a certain regulated free admission to the exhibition would be at once creditable to the royal academicians and useful to the arts. But anything like a general throwing open of the exhibition was, in his opinion, to be strongly deprecated. And why was this proposed throwing open of exhibitions of art to be limited to the exhibition of the Royal Academy? The public had no right to free entrance merely from the circumstance that the building in which the exhibition took place was a public building.

, as one of the public, disclaimed any right on the part of the public to gratuitous admission to the exhibitions of the Royal Academy.

was sure that his hon. friend who had just spoken would be of a different opinion if he knew the facts of the case. He felt quite indignant at the conduct of the Royal Academy. A certain number of gentlemen, assembled at a public meeting, had come to a resolution that it would be very advantageous to the lower classes if they could obtain gratuitous admission to the exhibition of pictures in a building which actually belonged to the public. For what was the situation in which the Royal Academy stood in that respect? The edifice in Trafalgar-square had cost the public 100,000l. The Royal Academy occupied half that building, at a cost to the public, therefore, of 50,000l. Now, all that the meeting to which he had just alluded required of the Royal Academy was, that they would allow the rooms to be gratuitously opened one day in the week; Monday being the day proposed, as that was a kind of half-holiday already with the working classes in the metropolis. To that proposition the Academy gave an abrupt refusal. It was next proposed to them that they should allow the exhibition to be open gratuitously for a week after its regular close. To that they as decidedly objected. What were the receipts of the Royal Academy? On the average those receipts had recently been 6,000l, or 7,000l. annually, while the exhibition was at Somerset-house, the present year the receipts would probably amount to 10,000l. What did they do with this money? Their receipts for the seventy years during which the Royal Academy had existed, amounted to 272,000l. Of this money 73,000l. had been devoted to sending students to Rome, and to the payment of salaries to royal academicians as professors, to the payment of a professor of anatomy, &c.; to annual dinners, 19,700l.; to the pension fund, 20,000l.; to the expenses of the exhibition, 60,000l.; property in hand, 52,000l.; expenses of the schools, 36,000l. charities, 19,000l. &c. In a letter which had been written and published by the President of the Royal Academy—he did not remember his name—Sir Martin Shee—in which the writer spoke of Radicalism as hostile to the arts, forgetting that he had many years ago published an opinion that the arts flourished more under the cap of liberty than under other forms of government, and forgetting that the opening of the exhibition was not demanded by Radicals alone—in that letter great stress was laid upon the expense of sending students to Rome, but he had a list of the names of fifteen students who had been sent to Rome since the year 1771, with the expense of each, and the whole amounted only to 2,756l. Nothing could be a greater fallacy than the claims of this society to any share in the formation of the public taste. It was evident, that when George 3rd., gave the Royal Academy apartments in Somerset House, he intended that their exhibition should be open to the public. When it appeared that the Royal Academy had 52,000l. in hand, it was rather hard to call upon the public to pay the expense of a new building for them. To the system pursued by the Royal Academy it was attributable that the people of this country were in a state of ignorance with respect to the arts, which had no parallel in any other country in Europe. Why was it, that the people of England had not as refined a taste in painting and in sculpture as the people of any other country in the world? Because they were excluded from our exhibitions of art. The whole principle on which the Royal Academy was founded was monopoly—exclusion. Why not put all societies of artists on the same footing?—Why was the Royal Academy to be the favoured society? He was not disposed to vote a farthing more of the public money for its benefit. He would therefore move that the proposed grant be postponed until further information was obtained on the subject; and if the Royal Academy did not make some reasonable concession he hoped that the building would be taken from them. It was not erected for them. They were only to be permitted to occupy a portion of it until the public service should require that portion for other purposes. Why did they not imitate the example of other public bodies, why did they not imitate the conduct of the East-India Company, who liberally threw open their museum to the public every Saturday? The Royal Academy, which ought to set an example to other institutions, was the most mean and stingy of them all. He would move there- fore that the grant be postponed for fourteen days.

begged to call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that the proposition was a grant to complete the National Gallery, and that it did not contain a single farthing for the Royal Academy; and yet the hon. Member for Kilkenny proposed to suspend it for a fortnight, on the ground, that it was a grant for the benefit of the Royal Academy! With respect to what the hon. Gentleman had said about the expense of sending students to Rome, more was said of the benefit of such a course than it deserved. What he considered to be the chief advantage which the public derived from the Academy was, the lectures of the different professors: and he well remembered the pleasure and benefit which he had enjoyed from assisting at those lectures when he was a young man. The several schools of the Academy were also open to young artists in the most liberal manner; and, in his opinion, it was an institution which deserved general support

was persuaded, that if the right hon. Gentleman were only judiciously to exercise the power which he held in his hands, he might soon bring the Royal Academy to consent that their exhibition should be open one day in the week to the public. When the public was called upon for money to complete a building for the Academy, it was the bounden duty of Government to require some equivalent for the public. The Royal Academy possessed 52,000l., with which they might build, if they thought proper, but they preferred coming upon the public treasury. Under these circumstances, Government ought to stand out, and demand for the public some equivalent. Looking at the question, in the shape of one of interest to the Royal Academy, he would venture to say, that by opening the exhibition one day in the week to the public, they would create a love of the arts which would eventually repay them ten, ay, a hundred fold. As it was, they took a most narrow view of their own interest. If, however, they persisted in refusing to do this, Government ought to give them notice to quit, and tell them, which was the fact, that they wanted more room for the National Gallery. When the original vote passed for the erection of the National Gallery, he protested against half the building being appropriated to the Royal Academy. He said, at that time, that it would be necessary to build large rooms for the reception of church pictures—which were to be obtained on moderate terms. The consequence of dividing the building was, that there was not a single room sufficiently large for the reception of such pictures as he had alluded to.

thought it would be very unwise to withdraw public support from an institution which had produced such men as Sir Francis Chantrey, Sir David Wilkie, and other eminent artists. At the same time he was willing to allow that some arrangement might be made to admit the public gratuitously to the exhibition, either one day in the week or for a week after the regular close of the exhibition; and he thought the Royal Academy would show a sense of their own interests, and a due regard for the interest of the arts generally, by acquiescing in some plan of that kind.

was understood to argue, that the Royal Academy was to be considered either as a public or a private institution: if it were a public institution, then its exhibitions ought to be opened free to the world: if it were a private institution, then he was at a loss to conceive why it should enjoy the privilege of holding its exhibitions in a public building more than the Suffolk-street Society, or any other society of artists in the kingdom. He was also at a loss to conceive why the Cartoons, the most valuable works of art of which the nation could boast, should not be removed to a place where the public might have an opportunity of viewing them without cost, and without inconvenience.

observed, that the Royal Academy owed its existence, from the beginning to the end, to the liberality of George 3rd; that it was for a considerable period supported at the sole expense of that monarch; and that its funds, such as they now were, were applied, not to the aggrandisement of individuals, but to the general cultivation and improvement of the arts. It was an institution, therefore, in every way entitled to public respect. The rooms at Somerset-house had been presented to them, as a free gift from the Crown, for the purpose of their exhibitions, and for the general transaction of their business. If, therefore, they had a right to the rooms at Somerset-house, so in an equal degree had they now a right to the rooms appropriated to them in the National Gallery.

Vote agreed to.

observed, that he had, on a former occasion asked for an account of the salaries paid to the officers connected with the House of Lords, and had been told, that he could not move for any such an account. In the present estimate he found that 32,700l. were included in this vote on account of those salaries. He should, therefore, move, by way of amendment, that the vote be reduced by the sum of 32,700l. This he did in order, if possible, to obtain a return stating the manner in which this money was appropriated.

said, if the hon. Gentleman wished to know the names of the persons to whom the money was paid, he could very easily arrive at that knowledge by referring to the reports of committees of the House of Lords which had sat upon the subject of the fees and salaries paid to the officers of their Lordships' House. But, with respect to one House making motions for returns relating to the establishment of the other, he thought it a proceeding in which a certain degree of discretion should be used.

observed, that 1,000l. was charged for preparing the breviates of private bills. He wished to know whether that was intended to be a permanent charge, or whether it was a payment on account of the experiment which had been made during the present Session.

said, that the 1,000l. was certainly to defray the expense of the present year. As far as his observation had gone, he believed, that the experiment had answered perfectly well. In consequence of the breviates the attention of Members had been drawn to the details of private bills; and, he believed, that from the knowledge of the attention of Members being so called to private bills many of those gross jobs which had taken place in former years had not been attempted during the present Session. He did not consider the sum of 1,000l. to be any great remuneration to the Gentleman who had prepared the breviates, and who had discharged that duty so much to the satisfaction of the Speaker and of the House; nor did he think that the object could be attained at a less sum. Mr. Booth (the gentleman referred to) was a man of great ability, of great integrity, and one possessing an extensive knowledge of the law.

bore willing testimony to the able manner in which Mr. Booth had discharged the duty intrusted to him.

said, that the House having confided to him the duty of selecting the individual to whom the charge of preparing the breviates was to be intrusted, he thought it right to state the circumstances under which he had made his selection. The House was perfectly aware that this was merely an experiment for one year. In that consisted the difficulty of getting an individual who was competent to discharge the duty, to undertake it. It was obvious, that the task of preparing breviates of private bills required a person of very considerable professional experience, in order to discharge the duty in a manner satisfactory to the House. It was not easy to find a professional gentleman of very considerable experience who would consent to relinquish three or four months of the most active period of the year in order to serve the House of Commons, it being quite uncertain whether he would afterwards be retained by the House, or whether the remuneration which the House might be disposed to give, would be such as would correspond with his views to accept. Under these circumstances, he made all the inquiries he could, respecting the gentleman whom he had appointed to discharge this duty. With Mr. Booth he had no previous acquaintance; he had acted upon the judgment of an individual in whom he could perfectly confide. That gentleman recommended Mr. Booth as a person well qualified to perform the duty required of him, and, as far as the experiment had gone, he considered that Mr. Booth had conducted himself in a manner which entitled him to the approbation of the House. He had felt, that the greatest inconvenience to which the House was exposed in making the experiment was, that the execution of that experiment might possibly be confided to an incompetent individual. He was, therefore, desirous to select a gentleman not only qualified by professional experience, but, being well aware that any gentleman having to perform the duty required, might have to encounter some opposition, he was exceedingly desirous also that, in addition to being a person of professional experience, he should be an individual of a firm, steady, and independent character; one who would not suffer himself to be influenced by any consideration other than that of a strict regard to his duty, and who would not be liable to be affected by any solicitations or applications from any party. These were the qualifications and requisites which he had sought for, and he believed, that they had all been found in Mr. Booth. Under these circumstances, he having required from Mr. Booth to sacrifice three or four months of the most important part of the year to a professional man, without the means of affording him any assurance of his being permanently employed or efficiently remunerated by the House, he did not think, that he did otherwise than what was consistent with proper feeling and justice towards a gentleman in offering him the sum of 1,000l., always bearing in mind that the duty was one purely experimental.

Vote agreed to.

Several other votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.

moved, that the House should go into a Committee on his resolutions on the First Fruits and Tenths.

at this advanced period of the Session would recommend his hon. Friend to let this measure stand over.

did not think, that it would be fair towards the House for the hon. Member for Leeds to persist in going into Committee.

, in reply, said, that if it was the determination of both sides of the House to resist the introduction of the measure he must submit, but his wish was so far to advance his bill, which he had ready, as to have it printed and circulated, that both Parliament and the country, particularly the clergy, might be fully aware of the precise nature and object of that bill. As long ago as the 8th of May, he had carried the Committee by a large majority, and ever since that time he had laboured to advance the bill, but the pressure of Government business and the interruption to the proceedings of the House in other ways had defeated his exertions till he now felt, that he must give up all hopes of further progress for the present. He would, however, say, that so long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he should never cease to urge upon its consideration this act of justice to the poor clergy.

Resolutions withdrawn.