Commons Sitting of 14 April 1815

SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. Wilberforcerose,
[608
for the purpose of moving an Address to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to have the several Petitions of Messrs. Brodie, Cooke, and Dunbar, convicted in Sierra Leone of being engaged in the Slave Trade, and certain other papers relative to their subsequent pardon, laid on the table of the House of Commons. His object, in submitting this motion, was for the purpose of showing that those persons were pardoned, not from the merits of the case, but in consequence of some informality in the mode of their conviction. It appeared, that they were tried before an incompetent tribunal, and that the judge who presided was not of the profession of the law, but appointed pro tempore by the Chief Justice of the Upper Court. In the decision of this question the precedents of the Chief Justice were followed as closely as possible, and in so doing the Judge thought himself acting upon sure grounds; but the irregularity was this—the crime of which those three men were accused, was not committed upon British territory, and the ordinary criminal court of Sierra Leone had no authority to take cognizance of the fact. The hon. member expressed his apprehension that a considerable error had crept into the world upon this subject. It was too generally believed that those persons were pardoned upon the merits of the case, without any regard to the point of law upon which, in reality, then pardon was founded; he therefore thought, it desirable that the papers mentioned in his motion should be produced, for the purpose of obviating the ill consequences of such an opinion.—The motion being read,
Mr. Addingtoncontended that the production of the papers was unnecessary, and unauthorized by the custom of parliament. Had there been any impropriety in the conduct of the ministers who advised the Prince Regent to extend his mercy to the persons concerned, it would have been a good ground for parliamentary inquiry; but none had been imputed to them in the present instance. The only reason he could discover for the motion was, that a pamphlet had been lately published, reflecting with some severity on the African Company, and misstating the case of those three men. He would assure his hon. friend, that the law-officers of the Crown had delivered it as their opinion, that the individuals in ques-

609]
tion were tried before an incompetent tribunal, and on that account alone the Prince Regent had been advised to remit the sentence.
Mr. Hornerexpressed his surprise that the right hon. gentleman should oppose the motion, and observed that there was, in the present instance, sufficient reason for parliamentary inquiry. The case was this, Parliament had felt a great and laudable anxiety for the total abolition of the Slave Trade. It was therefore a very natural curiosity in them to inquire, why three persons convicted of being engaged in that traffic, should have received the royal pardon. It should be shown to Parliament and the country, that it was in consequence of some defect in the manner of their conviction, and not from the merits of the case. It should be shown that the authority of the Crown was not exercised to sanction that traffic; for these, as well as for ulterior objects, the motion should be acceded to. If the acquittal arose from some defect in form—from some inadequacy in the Act, or in the commission—it was important that the House should strengthen the Executive against all future cases, lest similar acquittals might be the consequence of the present system. This case had been stated by a person high in judicial authority in Sierra Leone (Dr. Thorpe); and by him it had been studiously reported, that they were acquitted, although British subjects, because the crime had not been committed within British territory. Every lawyer, however, must perceive, that by the letter of the law, any British subject who was found guilty of slave-trading might be made amenable to the law. One of these men pleaded guilty. Another was, on the clearest evidence, proved to be guilty. The third alleged that he was a subject of Ferdinand the 7th; it appeared, however, on the trial, that he was a native-born subject, and that his pretence for calling himself a subject of Ferdinand 7 was, that he had served for a certain time on board a Spanish slave-ship. He was perhaps a very fit subject for such a sovereign. He did not mean to impute the slightest blame to Government on this oocasion, but he saw no reason for refusing the papers.
Mr. Bathurstdeprecated all interference by Parliament, in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, and in none more than that most valuable one, of extending mercy. He thought the production of
[610
the papers unnecessary, and would, there fore, oppose the motion.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he was sure if his hon. friend had spoken from any other part of the House, [Mr. Wilberforce was sitting on the Opposition bench], and the right hon. gentleman had not had the benefit of his glasses, he would have acceded to the motion. He begged to remind the right hon. gentleman, that the object of the motion was not to impeach the Government, or the conduct of his noble relative in the exercise of what he conceived to be his duty: but it was to prevent any misrepresentation going forth to the world as to the grounds upon which those persons had been pardoned. Now really, when they recollected all that was necessary for furthering the great work of the abolition, it could not be unimportant to have all the aspersions and calumnies which had been cast upon the Government removed; and to show that it had not taken any part against the abolitionists, but that the sentence had been remitted through a mere defect of form in the trial. He would again beg the right hon. gentleman to recollect that it was the member for Bramber who had brought forward the motion, and that though accidentally among them, he was not one of those who wilfully sat upon that bench.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the opinion which the law officers of the Crown had given on the occasion, was not founded either on the imperfection of the act of parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade, or on that of the commission which was sent out to carry the purposes of the Act into execution. There was no question, that whenever the crime was committed, if by a British subject, it was liable and punishable by law. But the opinion was founded on the deficiency of the power of the colonial jurisdiction. This crime was tried by the colonial court of Sierra Leone, though not committed within the territories of Sierra Leone. It might be another question, whether it might not be right to give the colonial court the same powers in criminal matters which the courts here have. But the fact was, that they had not them. He said thus much to show that it was not on the ground of any point of form, but on that of the deficiency of the jurisdiction of the colonial court, that the sentence had been laid aside. On no other occasion did Parliament give a colonial court a power

611]
to try for crimes committed out of the colonial territories, and it was not extraordinary that they did not do so in this.
Mr. Peter Mooresaid, that he had laid the foundation-stone of this debate, as the petitions presented by those persons had been orignally transmitted through him. He had no hesitation in acknowledging, that lord Sidmouth and the rest of his Majesty's ministers would have acted with justice and liberality towards those men; but he must say, that but for his exertions their case would not have been so attentively considered, and that they would now have been perhaps suffering the penalties of their sentence. It had been asserted, that the judge who tried this case had been appointed by the chief justice of the upper court; this he felt authorized distinctly to contradict. But, in reality, there had been no evidence to convict the prisoners. He had both read and written on this subject, and he felt satisfied that the best mode of treating it would be in a committee. There they could examine into the nature and efficacy of the Act, and of the manner of carrying it into execution; and there, too, be feared, they would discover that the present system, under the operation of that Act, had done greater injury to the cause of humanity than the Slave Trade itself, during the unlimited violence of its fury. This alone would be a good ground for instituting a committee, to which should be referred the papers now moved for, forming a mass of evidence, and of valuable information. He conceived the case of the individuals who had been convicted, to be extremely severe, and those who declared them British subjects, and guilty under the Act, seemed but little acquainted with the circumstances. In fact, only one of them was a British subject, Mr. Brodie, and he had not, been engaged in that traffic for near twelve months previous to the passing of the Act under which he had been convicted, and of the others, one was an American and one a Spaniard. Could it be denied, that such an occurrence did not call loudly for inquiry? And where could the case be so well investigated as in a committee? He would, therefore, entreat the hon. member to prefer that mode of procedure, in which he promised him his most sincere co-operation; his time and his exertions should be most sedulously devoted to the attainment of that interesting object of their mutual wishes.
Mr. J. H. Smythcontended, that the doubts of the law which had been, expressed by the Solicitor General, afforded an additional proof of the necessity of acceding to the motion.
Mr. Wilberforce,in reply, maintained, that unless his motion were granted, the world would understand, that the crime of which these persons had been convicted might be committed with impunity. He was most anxious that it should, on the contrary, be distinctly understood to be a great and atrocious crime, punishable by the British laws; and that, in the present instance, the individuals convicted of it had been pardoned simply because they had been tried by an incompetent tribunal. Adverting to the calumnies which had been cast on the proceedings of the Sierra Leone Company, he said, that with respect to his lamented friend, the late Mr. Henry Thornton, he had been top long known in that House, and too highly respected for his ability, and integrity, to render it necessary that he should be vindicated on this occasion. [Hear, hear!] But he wished to state, with regard, to another gentleman, whose character was not so much, in public view, he meant Mr. Macaulay, that a greater public benefactor, a more disinterested and indefatigable individual, he had never met with in the course of his experience. As to the wish of his hon. friend, for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the subject, he was convinced, that the more light was thrown on the conduct of the Company the purer would it appear; and he would court the inquiry, were it not that he really did not think it a pleasant thing to spend morning after morning in a contentious investigation on the subject. With respect to the appointment of Mr. Purdy, in contradiction to the statement of his hon. friend, he read an extract of a letter from Dr. Thorpe, in which Mr. Purdy was recommended for the situation. He complained of the small sum, only 96,000 l. granted the Sierra Leone Company for civilizing the country around them, while there had been two millions granted formerly for rendering Sierra Leone a depôt for the Slave Trade.
Mr. Addingtonsaid, that the judge who tried those persons, not thinking the evidence conclusive, was resolved to recommend them to mercy; but that, subsequently, the question of the point of law was started, on which the pardon was founded.
Mr. Hornersaid, he understood the three men had, in their petitions, acknowledged their guilt.
Mr. Addingtonreplied, that such was the impression at present on his mind.
Mr. William Smithsaid, that as no injury would arise from the motion, he hoped there would be no farther opposition to it.
Mr. Barhamsaid, that as we were calling on other nations to put down the Slave Trade, and as many doubts were thrown on our own sincerity, every opportunity should be taken to show the injustice of such calumnies; he thought, therefore, that the papers should not be refused.
The Attorney Generaldefended his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, from the charge of throwing any doubt on the existing law. His hon. and learned friend had distinctly stated, that Slavetrading by British subjects, was always felony. If it were thought by any one, that the pardon of the individuals in question proceeded from any disposition on the part of Government to relax in their honourable perseverance in destroying, root and branch, the horrible traffic in human blood, such a supposition was utterly unfounded; it arose from a laudable solicitude to keep different jurisdictions distinct and separate—a precaution indispensably necessary for the security of the liberty of the subject.
Lord Castlereaghput it to his hon. friend, whether his object had not been completely answered by the discussion which had taken place? It was manifest, that the indulgence which had been granted to the persons in question, arose not out of the merits of their case, but out of the nature of the jurisdiction by which they had been tried. Under these circumstances, he submitted to his hon. friend, whether it would not be wise to withdraw his motion?
Mr. Wilberforceacquiesced in this proposition; and, after paying a compliment to the accurate manner in which what passed in that House was stated to the public, withdrew his motion.

OVERTURE FROM BUONAPARTE.
Mr. Ponsonbyrose and said:—Sir, I wish to ask the noble lord opposite some questions on a subject of the greatest importance. It is very generally rumoured, and the rumour is very generally believed, that a proposition—an overture—a communication—I really do not know by what name I ought to call it—has been made by the present
[614
ruler of France to the Government of this country. I wish to ask the noble lord in the first instance, if such a proposition has been made; and in the next instance, if it has been made, what has been done by his Majesty's Government in consequence? It has been rumoured, that the communication to which I allude has been transmitted to the Court of Vienna. If the noble lord should answer the two questions which I have already put to him in the affirmative, I wish then to ask him, if the noble lord has no objection to the inquiry, and I am not disposed to press any question improperly, when any communication may be expected from Vienna in return?
Lord Castlereagh.—I am sure, Sir, that under the present circumstances of Europe, the right hon. gentleman will not expect me to state the nature either of the communication or of the reply. I have no difficulty in saying, that such a communication has been received by his Majesty's Government, and, as the right hon. gentleman has surmised, that it has been transmitted to our Allies assembled at Vienna. At what particular moment the answer may be expected it is not in my power to inform the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Ponsonby—When was the communication sent off to Vienna?
Lord Castlereagh.—Immediately on its receipt by his Majesty's Government—about three days ago.
Mr. Ponsonby.I repeat, Sir, that I am anxious, not improperly to press any question on the noble lord, but this is a subject which seems to me of the highest importance. Is it in the contemplation of of his Majesty's Government to take any step aggressive towards France before the the answer from Vienna shall arrive?
Lord Castlereagh.—I must really beg leave to decline replying to this question.
Mr. Ponsonby,after saying that he would not press it, proceeded to observe, that there was another subject on which it was necessary to make some arrangement. He alluded to his motion respecting Genoa, which had fallen to the ground, in consequence of a House not having been made yesterday. As he understood the noble lord when this subject was lately talked of by them, the noble lord was disposed to grant some of the papers which he required, though not all. It would perhaps save time were he to read the motion, which it was his intention to make; it was as follows: "That an humble

615]
Address be presented to the Prince Regent, praying that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the House, copies of any instructions given to lord William Bentinck in 1811, 1812 and 1813, by his Royal Highness's command, touching his lordship's conduct respecting the Island of Sicily, and the government thereof, as well as the application of the British forces in the said Island; and also touching his lordship's conduct respecting Italy, and the States and people thereof." He wished to ascertain how far the noble lord might be disposed to accede to this motion, that he might thereby regulate his future proceedings.
Lord Castlereaghreplied, that he had no objection to the early part of the motion respecting Sicily; and that with respect to the latter part, although he could not consent to produce lord W. Bentinck's instructions generally as respecting Italy, he was perfectly disposed to produce the part of his lordship's instructions which, perhaps, might be desired by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Ponsonbyinquired if the noble lord was disposed to consent to the production of so much of the instructions of lord W. Bentinck respecting Italy, as regarded the taking advantage of any disposition to insurrection against the power of France?
Lord Castlereaghanswered, that he had no objection to the production of that part of lord W. Bentinck's instructions. If the right hon. gentleman would communicate in private with him on the subject, they might probably come to an understanding upon it.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that the noble lord appeared disposed to give all that he wanted. He would at present fix his motion for Tuesday, and would, in the course of the evening, avail himself of the indulgence of the noble lord to communicate with him on the subject.

PRINCE TALLEYRAND'S LETTER.
Mr. Whitbread.—Sir, another most extraordinary paper has appeared in the public prints. I mean the Letter from Prince Talleyrand to the noble lord opposite, purporting to be an answer to a letter from the noble lord, desiring his opinion on the conduct which ought to be pursued by Congress towards Naples; and ending with a request to the noble lord to apply to his court for authority to subscribe a resolution of Congress, recognis-
[616
ing Ferdinand the 4th as king of Naples. I wish to ask the noble lord, with a view, not of course to any present, but to some ulterior proceeding, whether, in point of fact, the letter so published is substantially accurate, although it may not be so in terms?
Lord Castlereagh.—I can only say in reply to the hon. gentleman, that the reasons by which I was influenced the other evening in declining to satisfy the hon. gentleman's inquiries continue to operate. Whenever they shall cease to exist I will cheerfully answer all questions, enter into any discussion, and give every information on the subject. I am at a loss to conceive what can be the object of these questions by the hon. gentleman with respect to individual documents and circumstances, seeing that, whether I were to answer them affirmatively or negatively, it is impossible that the hon. gentleman could found upon such, answers any parliamentary proceeding.
Mr. Whitbread.—What the noble lord has said is a complete admission of the authenticity of the letter in question. No person who has heard the noble lord can entertain a shadow, of doubt that the letter which has been published in the newspapers, and described to be from Prince Talleyrand to the noble lord, is genuine. This, Sir, is not the time to press a debate on the subject. The noble lord says he is prepared, whenever the proper time shall arrive, to give the House every information upon it. If the noble lord really will communicate the whole of the correspondence that passed between him and prince Hardenberg and prince Talleyrand, prior and consequent to the notable letters in which prince Hardenberg, prince Talleyrand, and the noble lord, cut such a figure, Parliament will then be enabled to take a full and fair view of the question.

MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL LIST ACCOUNT.
In pursuance of the notice he had given,
Mr. Tierneyrose to move for an inquiry into the causes of the excesses of the Civil List. The object which he had in view was not so' much to move the appointment of a committee, for he considered that no objection would be made to this, so as to couple with the appointment of that committee a power of examining such persons as could explain, and of calling for the production of such papers, as might be calculated to throw light on the expendi-

617]
ture of the Civil List. He felt that such a case existed in the excess of the Civil List expenditure, as justified him in asking for a power to enable the committee to send for persons and papers; and he admitted that on ordinary occasions such a measure ought not to be resorted to, and that it was desirable in general that as delicate an investigation should take place into the royal household, as possible. He was ready to admit this as broadly as the right hon. gentleman opposite could do. He felt it necessary for him to make out, that there had been such an enormity in the expenditure of the Civil List, such an inefficiency in the labours of all former committees, that unless the House were determined to say, whenever there was a debt on the Civil List they had nothing to do but to pay it, if they did not appoint a committee with such powers, there would be an end to every thing like control over the royal expenditure. If this was not a case for the interference of Parliament, he knew not when a case could possibly be made out. If gentlemen would refer to the last page of the accounts laid before the House, they would see the first reason why he brought this subject before them;—they would find, that since 1812, two years and three quarters had elapsed to the period up to which the accounts before them were made up;—and they would find, that since 1812, Parliament had provided, for the purpose of squaring the Civil List accounts, the sum of 2,827,000 l. voted under different Acts of Parliament. In 1812, there was a sort of recognition of the expenditure of a farther sum of 124,000 l. He did complain at the time of this; it was not, however, now necessary to do more than to state, that one of the objections he had urged against sanctioning the expenditure of this excedent, which took place between the years 1804 and 1811, was, that it would beget an indifference to any farther excedent. The result had but too clearly proved the truth of this; for instead of the excedent of 124,000 l. which might be said to be sanctioned by Parliament, the actual excedent in the last two years and three quarters, had been 321,000 l. The total of the sums of the Parliamentary estimates, the surplus of Exchequer fees, and the excedents, connived at by Parliament, amounted to 3,299,000 l.—that was the whole of the sums which they were entitled to expend in two years and three quarters. The charge during that period amounted to no
[618
less than 4,108,000 l. The excess beyond the established allowance was therefore no less than 809,000 l. He needed not, therefore, to say one word more in order to prove to the House the necessity for an investigation; and he would ask the House if it was possible to state a case which called more loudly for a strict inquiry? The new æra, which commenced in 1812, had at once produced the terrible excess of 809,000 l. But the excess was actually greater in amount; for to make the new æra set out well, 100,000 l. had been voted as an outfit. His Royal Highness, therefore, it appeared, had expended more than 900,000 l. above the sum allowed to him, in less than two years and three quarters, and that after being allowed to exceed by 124,000 l.
The next, thing he was called on to show was, that the Civil List, for a length of time, had been in the practice of a yearly encroachment above the Parliamentary allowance. In no one case of an average of years had they ever attempted to keep within any thing like reasonable bounds. The knowledge of this was generally kept from Parliament till it was found necessary to come before Parliament to have the Civil List debt paid off. This was one of the inconveniencies of leaving the droits of the Admiralty at the disposal of the Crown. The result of this had been that for seven years together the Civil List excess had been kept from the House by the great amount of the droits of Admiralty; for the right was assumed by the Crown of distributing the proceeds of the droits of the Admiralty either among the captors, or to the Royal Family, or to the Civil List, in whatever proportions it thought proper. In 1783 the Civil List was fixed at 897,000 l. In the seven years ending 1797 the expenditure amounted to 955,000 l. being an excess of 58,000 l. This was such an excess, however, as called for no very serious investigation; and it was easily possible, in such extensive transactions, to have such an excess. The next seven years, ending 1804, the average expenditure was 1,080, 000 l.; and if they were to set the 955,000 l. against it, they would find that it exceeded it by 125,000 l. Three committees had been appointed in different years to inquire into the Civil List expenditure, the last in 1804; and they all suggested the propriety of a new estimate being framed, that Parliament might know to what extent the liberality of the public

619]
could go, and what bounds should be fixed to the royal expenditure. In the time of Mr. Pitt an estimate was accordingly produced, which stated that 979,000 l. in addition to the relief afforded the Civil List, by taking 83,000 l. from it to other departments, would prevent the necessity of any farther recurrence to Parliament. He begged the attention of the House to that estimate, because it had been the fashion of late to contend for having it set aside. It had been said it was good for nothing, as it was not equal to the average expenditure of the seven years before. Did they believe that Mr. Pitt would bring forward an estimate, which on the face of it was a mere nullity? He would do Mr. Pitt the justice to say, that he believed he would not have produced this estimate if he had not felt a reasonable expectation that by some new regulation of the household such a saving might be expected, as would make it applicable to the purpose for which it was intended. This showed the necessity of examining persons, to know why this estimate could not answer the purpose; because it was only the estimate and charge which they had before them, but how that estimate fell short of the charge they were in the dark, and must be so till the appointment of a committee, with the powers in question, on what grounds it so fell short. It would be a mere waste of time to appoint a committee, except they gave them such a power. In 1804 the estimate, which Parliament thought fit to sanction was 979,000 l., and the Civil List went on without Parliament having an opportunity of knowing whether there was any excedent in consequence of the sums derived from the droits of Admiralty, till 1812, when the subject came before Parliament, and it then turned out that the estimate was not worth any thing. So that it appeared to be considered, that if a debt was incurred in one year, that debt was to serve for a justification of all subsequent debts. The expenditure of the seven years, ending 1811, was 1,102,000 l. leaving a new excess of 123,000 l. The next estimate produced was in 1812—he called it an estimate, though it was not such in reality, because it had all the effect of one. The average expenditure of the seven preceding years was taken, being 1,102,000 l., with a power of exceeding to the amount of 10,000 l., being 124,000 l. above the estimate of 1804.
In entering upon a consideration of the
[620
charge of the period since. 1812, he would first consider the two years, and then separately consider the three quarters from April 1814, up to January 1815. In these two first years, up to the 5th April 1814, the excess of the charge amounted to 118,000 l. The first excess which he had mentioned was 58,000 l., next came the excess above that of 125,000 l., then the further excess of 123,000 l., and at last, in the new æra, and in the two first years of it, an annual excess of 118,000 l. Next came the last three-quarters, up to the 5th of January last. The whole two years and three quarters charge was 3,792,000 l. At the rate of the estimate it would have been 3,032,000 l. From that sum however it would be proper to deduct certain sums, which were not expenses which could be supposed likely to occur again. He would make, as a fair allowance for this, 220,000 l.; for this expense, from all that appeared on the accounts now before the House, amounted to 180,000 l. and 40,000 l., being together 220,000 l. After making this deduction there was left an excess of of 531,000 l. over the two years and three-quarters, making the excess from 1812 no less than 196,000 l. per annum. Now, this was taking the subject in the way most favourable to those who were advocates for a great expenditure. But there were others who thought that the estimate of 1804 was perfectly sufficient; and when this estimate was taken, the excess was no less than 321,000 l.; so that after deducting the extraordinary expenses occasioned by the visit of the Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia, there was still an excess of 321,000 l. This excess of 321,000 l. must be paid by the nation. In a time of war this excess might be attended with no great trouble, because it might be covered by sums drawn from the droits of Admiralty. But in a time of peace, if the scale of expenditure were to be adhered to, it would be found necessary to call for additional sacrifices from the people, to cover this excess of 321,000 l.
This was as strong a case as could be stated to justify the calling persons before a committee, to inquire from them how the expenditure had arisen. There had already been five committees appointed to inquire into the Civil List expenditure, all desirous of doing what could be done for remedying this evil. But till a committee should have it in their power to examine persons as to the interior of the

621]
household, it was impossible that their labours could be attended with any good effect. In proposing an inquiry into the interior of the household, he did not wish it for any impertinent purposes, or the sake of hearing unpleasant tales, but in order to see fairly on what sum the Court could actually be maintained without coming to Parliament for additional sums of money. He was acting as the best friend of his royal highness the Prince Regent, because nothing created such a soreness out of doors, as the seeing continual applications for 3 or 400,000 l. to Parliament. This was the greatest possible eye-sore to them; and the preventing this was one of the greatest advantages of having a Civil List. He saw otherwise no advantage in having a Civil List. The Civil List was appointed for the purpose of setting apart such an annual sum for the Crown as would be sufficient for its expenditure, without exposing it to discussions like that which, with pain to himself, he, was now under the necessity of bringing forward. If it were not for this good effect, as far as economy was concerned, it would be better set aside, and the sums voted article by article. But for the comfort of the Crown, this would be one of the most cruel steps which could be taken. Once for all, let the House settle this point—what would be a sufficient establishment for the Crown. He wished to see a proper sum fixed for keeping up the splendour of the monarchy of England. But the present was such a merciless extravagance as had never occurred in the history of this country before.
In examining the accounts before the House, it was not his intention to travel through all the figures: the committee to be appointed would have power to do this, and they would be all sifted up stairs. It was not his wish to enter into any details in the great branches in which there was the greatest excedent—the third class, relating to ambassadors, the fourth class, relating to the Household, and the class of occasional payments. As to the fourth class, he considered it his duty to observe that in the Lord Steward's department a laudable anxiety had been shown to reduce the expenditure, and nothing proved better what could be done when it was seriously gone about. In 1813 and 1814 the charges in this department were considerably less than in 1810 and 1811, from a person coming to
[622
the management sincerely desirous of a reduction. In 1810 and 1811, the Lord Steward's expenses amounted to 222,000 l. In 1813 and 1814 they were reduced to 164,000 l. Now any gentleman would have said, had such a reduction as this been hinted at two or three years ago, that it was impossible, and that the objection proceeded merely from a captious disposition, and an unwillingness to make any allowance for the increase in the price of all articles. He was ready to admit that a great deal had been done by the Lord Steward in a very short time. The year 1812 was a broken period, and he had not chosen it; but 1813 and 1814 was an unbroken period. On comparing these two years with the other two years, there was a saving of 58,000 l. or 29,000 l. per annum. He could not say so much of the Lord Chamberlain's department during the years 1813 and 1814. In 1810 and 1811 the expenditure was 319,000 l. In 1813 and 1814 it was 293,000 l. being an excedent of 73,000 l. So that while the department of the Lord Steward was reduced by 58,000 l.; that of the Lord Chamberlain, perhaps from there being more demands for the particular commodities which he furnished, was 73,000 l. higher. In 1810 and 1811 the Master of the Horse's expenditure was 58,674 l. In 1813 and 1814 it was 93,000 l., being an excess of 34,000 l., always observing that this was apart from the three last quarters up to January last.
What he had hitherto stated, referred to the period before April 1814. He would now proceed to notice the state of the account for the three last quarters, up to January, 1815, of which, for the sake of clearness in the calculations, he would reckon only upon two, and doubling the sum they supplied, it would of consequence be the expense of a whole year, supposing the last half to be continued upon the same scale as the first. According to this mode of calculation it would appear that there would be an exceeding of no less than 101,000 l. upon a view of the various departments. Such a statement, he imagined, was sufficient to show, that an inquiry, although somewhat extraordinary in its powers, was necessary. He conceived that if his motion rested merely upon this declaration, he had made out a strong case. He was willing to allow that a part of this surplus might be accounted for, and that another part consisted of sums that ought not to be charged

623]
Upon the Civil List, but there would still remain a very large amount, which ought to be investigated.
The third class respected Ambassadors. In the discussion of the Army Extraordinaries, something had been observed upon this head; and appeals had been made to the feelings, regarding the arduous and heavy expenses of Foreign Ministers. Those appeals were then effectual, and Ministers knew that they were likely to be so; he had not been uninfluenced by them, but this very fact showed that the House was not the proper place to make such inquiries. It was not to be accomplished in one evening—it required calm, cool, and long deliberation. He did not mean for a moment to hint, that any of our Envoys had made charges that had not been incurred; but it could not be doubted, that when they were allowed to draw for unlimited sums, our diplomatic agents were not, and could not, in the nature of things, be so careful as if they were restricted, and knew that if they expended beyond a certain amount they would find at least some difficulty in obtaining a reimbursement. It was not to be wondered that the charges were so heavy, if our Foreign Ministers were to be the only travellers on the Continent who disregarded all expenses, and who threw about the public money on both sides, and gave double entertainments for the sake of keeping up the precedence of Great Britain. Among the items in this division was 15,000 l. for lord Aberdeen; how it had been expended, he could not even form a conjecture. To say the least of it, there had been a very loose expenditure. It ought not to be forgotten that in this class was to be included the celebrated Embassy to Lisbon [Hear, hear!]. The very moment when the country was so reduced, and the charges upon the Civil List were so enormous, it had been thought proper to exalt a mere Envoyship into an Embassy, by which a new annual burthen of 14,000 l. was imposed upon the nation. Why this singular step had been resolved upon, was a question well deserving inquiry. Inquiry upon this point would be more proper in the absence of the subject of it, since if the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) who had undertaken the arduous duty of Ambassador at the Court of Lisbon were now present, he (Mr. Tierney) would hardly think it right to call him to account, since the temptation held out was such as flesh and blood
[624
could not be expected to resist [Hear, hear! and laughter]. What cause had been assigned for this appointment? It was said that it was necessary that an ambassador should be named to congratulate the Prince Regent of Portugal on his return from the Brazils. To this it was replied, that it would have been better to wait until his Royal Highness arrived—unless, indeed, it were necessary to allow our Minister there time to prepare his speech for the important occasion. It turned out, however, that the Prince Regent never came. And did not this whole transaction give gentlemen an itching desire to make immediate inquiry? The country had no satisfactory intelligence to convince it that it had been the design of the Prince Regent of Portugal to return, although, to keep up the pretence, a ship had been fitted out to bring him home, at a charge of 40,000 l. The mere fitting up of the cabin cost 6,000 l.
As to the Ambassadors we had employed on the Continent, why was it necessary to appoint individuals who would be doubly chargeable, as Generals and as Ambassadors?—Formerly if we sent out military men, they were Colonels and Lieutenant-Colonels. It was replied, that Ministers wanted information; but why procure it at such an enormous expense? The Generals and their staffs had been of no possible use to the cause. What good had been done by lord Cathcart or any of our other high military officers? The Allies would not give sixpence for a hundred such Generals. They wanted no Generals; they had enough of their own.
Such a profuse and unwarrantable expenditure was not to be paralleled in the history of any Court of Europe. The superficial view of the state of the Civil List, that was allowed by Ministers, bore strong marks of improper conduct. He did not say positively that it did exist, but it was the duty of the House to remove the imputation. It was not merely a question of money, but of patronage; it was a question which regarded the influence of the Crown in Parliament, how far this Civil List had been applied to legitimate and constitutional purposes [Hear, hear!]. The country could not fail to view the application of this money with jealousy, and it would require a Committee permanently and satisfactorily to settle how the expenditure should in future be regulated It became the Court not to be too extravagant, and the House not to be parsimoni

625]
ous. What had been the conduct of Parliament upon this subject? had it dealt but the public money with too sparing a hand? In 1812, 100,000 l. was voted for the outfit of the Regency. In 1814, a debt that had been incurred, notwithstanding that liberality, to the extent of 118,000 l. was paid by Parliament, and in the course of the last year 100,000 l. more had been advanced. What was the return now made for this liberality? That for the last three quarters the House was tailed upon to pay an exceeding of 427,000 l. Such was the return—would the House bear it, or if the House consented, would the country submit to it? Was it to be expected that any man in the nation would ever again submit to the property tax, or to any other tax, while such wanton expenditure existed in the Court? Perhaps Ministers could not remedy the evil—there was very likely something in the Court that controlled them, but he hoped that the House of Commons was yet sufficiently uninfluenced to insist upon inquiry.
The Windsor establishment was most extraordinary, and he had always thought that a great reduction might be made in it. The King in his infirm, state was allowed no less than 160,000 l. The Queen obtained 68,000 l. and the four princesses, independently of annuities, 16,000 l. which, including the duchy of Lancaster, the whole sum was no less than 255,000 l. a year. In the Lord Steward's department the charge at Windsor was no less than 70,000 l. Either the Prince Regent spent too little, which no man would contend, or be spent too much, which few men would deny; but if the expenses of the household of his Royal Highness were to be measured by those of his infirm parent, who, notwithstanding his blindness, was a charge upon the country of 255,000 l. it could not be denied that the court of the Prince Regent was most economical. The charge in the Lord Chamberlain's department on the Windsor establishment was 3,000 l.; in the department of the Master of the Horse 9,000 l., which included a charge for 30 saddle horses for the use of his Majesty, and 28 carriage horses, although the King never went out of the castle gates. It was impossible that it could be so expended; and if the money were devoted to pay annuities to old servants, why was it not so stated? Why was not lord St. Helens, with the other lords in waiting, allowed to retire upon a
[626
pension? Let it be so set forth in the accounts, and the House would know how to proceed. In 1812 (for what reason Mr. Tierney said he could not divine) the Queen received a grant of 10,000 l., and the excuse was, that her Majesty would be put to great additional expense for travelling; but the utmost extent of her journies were, now and then, from Windsor to London and back again. That, however, was a new æra, and a most productive æra in some quarters:—146,000 l. had been voted at the commencement of it, and for what reason had never to this day been explained. The money had, however, been granted by Parliament with unprecedented liberality, and the return made by Royalty was equally unprecedented.
It would be said, no doubt, that in making these remarks, he was not acting wisely or prudently for his own interests. Perhaps were he to listen to the suggestions of his friends, instead of the suggestions of his duty, he should have refrained. Whatever might be the consequences, he begged to take the risk upon himself, and wished to involve no others in any supposed obloquy attaching to the line of: conduct he pursued. Of this he was convinced, that there was no thinking man in the country, who was at liberty to have an opinion, that would not agree with him in the necessity of a thorough investigation. He acted in this case from a strong sense of public duty, and meant, without giving offence, to fulfil that duty. The argument in reply to this motion would probably be, that it was a matter of great indelicacy to examine persons with regard to the private expenditure of the Crown, and it would be urged that it had not been the practice—that there was no precedent on the Journals of the House, But where would ministers find a precedent for such an enormous expenditure as was now the subject of complaint? If the royal family thought fit to exercise all their powers of expenditure, the Commons would lose all claim to public estimation if they did not exercise all their powers of control. The House and the country had placed great confidence in the Crown, and they had a right to expect that that confidence should be reciprocal. It seemed scarcely credible, but the fact was, as appeared by the documents upon the table, that no less a sum than 928,000 l. was consumed by the Royal family; and in receiving it they in-

627]
curred a debt which was easily discharged by meeting the generosity of Parliament with a full and free disclosure. It was obvious either that there was some, person who gave bad advice to the Prince Regent, or at least some person who abstained from giving good advice: for it was impossible not to believe that his Royal Highness was kept in the dark upon these subjects. It was the duty of ministers to remonstrate strongly against this extravagant system, which, more or less, pervaded every department of the country. He gave ministers credit for separating the management of the erection of royal buildings from the office of the Lord Chamberlain—as he had done for every thing where he could: but there remained behind, the interior fitting-up of palaces; and he desired the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the charge for glasses, and plate, and fitting-up of rooms one day, and altering them the next. He did not assert that corruption existed any where; but great negligence had been unquestionably shown, and if the investigation were allowed, many defects might be remedied; such as the delivery of wine, &c. to domestics, which was a source of much abuse, and the abolition of which had already been recommended. The object of his motion was not so much to make exposures as to prevent abuses, and to fix a fair estimate of expense that should in future govern the disbursements of the Civil List. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the account presented to the House upon the 20th of March last by Mr. Arbuthnot, by the command of his royal highness the Prince Regent, relating to his Majesty's Civil List, and to examine the said account, and report the same as it shall appear to them, together with their observations thereupon, to the House: and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records,"
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the right hon. gentleman had omitted the latter clause of his motion, he should willingly have given it his approbation; in truth it was but anticipating his own intention, upon the subject of the Civil List. The right hon. member had admitted that the proposal was extraordinary in its nature, and that it was giving powers to a committee never before granted upon the subject of the immediate
[628
revenues of the Crown. In the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer no sufficient case to warrant a determination so novel, had been made out by the right hon. gentleman, and by taking too narrow a view of the accounts upon the table he had presented them in a fallacious point of view, and had consequently drawn unfair conclusions. He admitted that it was extremely fit that the Crown should be protected against continual discussions upon this delicate subject; he agreed also that the public ought to be protected from the prodigality of the royal advisers; but he hoped that no man would, on the other hand, deny that the splendour and dignity of the Crown ought to be supported. He argued that justice had not been done to the labours of former committees; much light had been thrown upon the subject of the Civil List, and advantage had been taken of the many useful hints thrown out by them; as much and as satisfactory information had been laid before them as could be derived from the vivâ voce examinations, for which the right hon. gentleman was so anxious. The alteration in the department of the Lord Chamberlain, that had met with the approbation of the right hon. gentleman, had been occasioned not by any minute inquiries by parole evidence before the commissioners, but principally in consequence of the suggestions of the noble lord himself, who held that office, and who had almost proposed the separation of the inspection of royal erections from his other duties. In order to put the whole subject in a clear point of view, and to vindicate the Civil List from the obloquy which for some years had been thrown upon it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt it necessary to take a short review of the state of the accounts. He then went over the statements made by Mr. Tierney from the year 1797 to 1811, showing the gradual augmentation upon the Civil List. The increase only amounted to 15 per cent.; which, the Chancellor of the Exchequer contended, only kept pace with the advance in the other departments, and such as was to be expected from the circumstances of the times. The main charge, however, was directed against the expenditure since 1811, which, it was contended, was still more extravagant. It appeared that on the average of 1812, 1813, to April 1814, the expense was 1,330,000 l.; but it should be recollected that Parliament in that period had thrown

629]
several burthens upon the Civil List for political purposes, and for the establishment at Windsor, which much reduced that apparent augmentation. The attention of the House had been more especially drawn to the three last quarters, from April 1814, to January 1815, on which the right hon. gentleman had argued, that there was an increase of 140,000 l. in the whole (after deducting 180,000 l. and another sum of smaller amount, from the gross charge of the Civil List, for the charges attendant on the visit of the Sovereigns of Europe last summer), which remained to be accounted for. In the first place, it was but fair to observe, that these calculations were made upon the most unfavourable portion of the year, since the exceeding would not have appeared so great if the accounts up to the conclusion of the April quarter could have been laid upon the table. This surcharge was to be accounted for in several ways, and partly by various extraordinary and unavoidable charges for new furniture for the reception of the Royal Visitors, for expenses of investing them with the Order of the Garter, for furniture for Cumberland and Cranbourne Lodges, and for an excess on the bills of the Office of Works, which made together a total of 55,000 l. Besides these sums, was to be taken into account the increased expenditure in the several departments of the household, occasioned by the presence of our Illustrious Visitors. In the department of the Lord Chamberlain the expense had been 142,000 l.; that of the Lord Steward 42,000 l. which, it was to be observed, however, fell short of the estimate, which was 56,000 l. The excess of expense of the department of the Master of the Horse was 30,600 l. including presents of horses, which had been made by the Prince Regent. The remaining surplus expenditure in this department was occasioned by the establishment of a stud for the Princess Charlotte of Wales. However large, therefore, the expenditure seemed at first sight, it was already known and had for the most part been recognised by Parliament, estimates having previously to the expenditure been laid before them; and so far from the expenditure proving that any inquiry was necessary, had fallen short of the sum at which the estimates were laid.—The only remaining branch of the Civil List expenditure was that of the occasional payments, the greatest part of which consisted in diplo-
[630
matic expenses, which would be better explained, than he should be able to do, by the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. He perfectly concurred in what had been said by the right hon. gentleman as to the occasional payments; and three years ago he had submitted a plan on that subject to the House for its consideration, which, if adopted, would relieve the Civil List expenditure from the obloquy under which it now laboured. That plan was to provide for the occasional payments by a distinct vote, instead of throwing a burthen on a fund already appropriated. When these occasional payments amounted to large sums, being all in ready money, they subverted the system of ordinary money payments, and threw them into arrear, to the great inconvenience of the departments, and with a loss to public economy. If these occasional payments were provided for by a distinct grant, the different classes of the Civil List expenditure might be prevented from falling into arrear, being relieved from charges which formed no part of the expenditure of the King's household, or the state of the monarchy. It was certainly proper, that for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety of some alteration of the plan of the Civil List expenditure, as well as to inquire into the reason of the excess in the last year's expense, a committee should be appointed. But it would not be necessary to this end, that the committee should be armed with extraordinary powers; and as the appointment of a committee, without such powers, would answer all the beneficial purposes to be expected from it, he should move, as an amendment, "That such part of the motion as empowered the committee to send for persons, papers, and records, be omitted."
Mr. Wardthought the speech of his right hon. friend who made the motion, remained wholly unanswered. The powers which the motion required for the committee appeared to him to be necessary, or, like former committees, it would only give them good advice, and encourage them to indulge pleasing hopes of the future, which would never be realised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deny that the Civil List expenditure had continued progressively to increase, notwithstanding the frequent appointment of committees; and things would go on in the same way as heretofore, from year to year, unless a measure like that recom-

631]
mended by his right hon. friend were adopted. He took occasion to notice the difference between the estimates and the real expense of some of the public works. The alterations made at Cumberland-lodge were estimated at 12,000 l. The charge for them was 40,000 l. He hoped the works in the Parks would not furnish ground for a similar comparison. He complained of the strange jumble which appeared in the accounts of the Admiralty droits, which made it no easy task immediately to discover in what mode the money had been expended. It appeared that there had been paid to the American commissioners the sum of 148,000 l. In 1812, when the American declaration of war was received, it was not at first answered by a similar declaration. An embargo was laid on American ships, and orders were issued to seize and detain all vessels belonging to that nation. This course had been taken, in the expectation that the proposition sent out to the American Government would produce the immediate restoration of peace. When those hopes were disappointed, he considered the vessels thus detained to be fair and lawful prizes, and as such the property of the captors; but of the 148,000 l. at which they were valued, the captors received from the commissioners but 78,000 l. The enormous charges of the proctors he took occasion to notice. He wished not to throw obloquy on any particular class of men, but their charges he understood frequently ran away with the whole of the prize, and even made the captors losers by their success. This was a grievance which was severely felt in the navy, and one which called for an immediate remedy.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that the difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. friend who made the motion was, that his right hon. friend wished for a committee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished merely for an apology, and by tacking an amendment to the motion, wanted in reality to sink it. Without following the Chancellor of the Exchequer into his details, he should make some remarks on a subject on which he had not touched. Although more than 900,000 l. had been expended yearly on the royal establishments, the country did not know for what it was that they paid it; for though they heard that salaries were paid to certain lords and ladies, there was not any such court as
[632
was held in other countries at this time, and at other times in this country. The time was in the recollection of every one, when there was a levee twice a week, and a drawing-room once a week, during the sitting of Parliament. Now there was a levee once a fortnight, and a drawing-room once in the year—now there were substituted for these levees, private parties at Carlton-house, which were, in some respects, made subservient to political purposes. Though some persons who were not adherents of the ministry were sometimes admitted to these parties, they were few in comparison of those who, from their rank and birth, might claim admission to the royal presence. Though no one entertained more sincere respect for the Royal Famiiy—at least for their situations—than he did,—these parties at Carlton-house were not the places in which he should wish to see his friends, therefore it was not from any private interest that he adverted to the subject. But it was impossible to disguise how great the effect was which was produced by admission to the presence of the Sovereign—how bitter the disappointments from exclusion. This system of excluding the nobility and gentry front the presence of the Prince Regent, was carried on even at a time when on all accounts it would have been thought that it would have been departed from, namely, during the presence of the illustrious Visitors in the last summer. The monarch was never to be considered in a private capacity—every moment of his life should be devoted to public good, and the system, therefore, of continually giving private parties, from which so large a portion of those who would be intitled to appear at levees were excluded, was, to be deprecated. As to the particular item of expense in the department of the Master of the Horse, it appeared very great. Some years ago an extraordinary expenditure had been made in this department, to create a stud at Hampton court, from which, the late Mr. Perceval augured a great reduction of expense. What had been the fate of that stud he knew not, but the expense of the department had never been reduced. The hon. gentleman then remarked on the excess above the estimate of the expense which attended the Jubilee in the parks. It had been triumphantly stated last sessions, that 15,000 l. would cover the whole of the expense. Nothing could be more false

633]
than this estimate; for it now turned out that the, expense was 40,000 l. But what he most objected to, was the pernicious effects with which it was attended. He trusted he should never live to see such another scene of vice and dissipation arise to the infinite annoyance of all the middle classes of society in the metropolis. The whole proceeding had inflicted a serious calamity on the morals of the people. He also remarked on the great expense which had attended the mission of sir Henry Wellesley in Spain, and concluded by expressing his opinion that ample ground had been given for the appointment of the committee with full powers, for the purpose of investigating the subject thoroughly.
Mr. Roseadmitted, that a case had been made out which called for inquiry. It was fit that a strict investigation of the excess which appeared in the estimates should take place; but for this purpose, he denied that it was necessary to give the committee powers which the committees formerly appointed had not possessed. Those which it had been customary to give were in his opinion quite sufficient. In sixteen years, under very extraordinary circumstances, the excess had averaged 81,000 l. per annum. This, all things considered, he thought would not appear to be a very great excess. With respect to the enormous charges made by the proctors in prize cases, which had been spoken of in the course of the debate, he could say, from his own personal knowledge, the statement made to the House was founded on very loose information. For a considerable time all ground of complaint on this subject had been done away, though reports had been circulated which were of a nature to cause much ill blood in the navy, and which had unfortunately had that effect.
Sir W. Congreveacknowledged that the works in the parks had exceeded the estimates; but he would be bound to prove they did not exceed them by more than 3,000 l. One cause of the excess was, that though the erections were sold, they did not bring one-third of their original cost, as was usual with such materials, but only about one-fifth. A deduction was also to be made for the bridge over the canal, in the park, which it was thought proper to retain. The sale of the tickets had not amounted to more than a sixth part of what had been expected. For this, however, ministers could not be answerable.
[634
As to the principle of the fêete, it had only been following former precedents, and surely no occasion of the conclusion of a peace had offered of a superior kind. With regard to the immorality complained of, he was afraid there might have been a little excess of that sort, where such multitudes of people were drawn together.
Lord Miltonsaid, that the committee, without power to call for persons, papers, and records, would be a dead letter. There was no necessity for a committee, if it was only to make calculations on the papers already on their table. The duty of a committee would be not merely to see whether there were vouchers for every expenditure, but whether it was conducted consistently with economy. He wished to know whether the erections in Windsor-park were within the department of Woods and Forests, or that of the Civil List?
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that by recent regulations, the surveyor of woods had the superintendence of buildings in the parks. He thought it quite unnecessary that the committee should have the power of sending for persons, papers, and records The chairman might be instructed to move the House, that additional information might be granted; or any individual member might move for information, if he thought fit. To grant such a power to such a committee, was unprecedented. He could not see how his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be accused of a desire to defeat the motion, when he had himself given notice that he should have moved for a committee; neither could he see, that if the committee had the fullest powers, it could inquire into the reason why the Prince Regent did not hold three levees a week. The doctrine that a Sovereign was to be never in private was novel. Were they to be as Indian idols, always open to the gaze of the worshippers? The hon. member deprecated the invidious comments which had been made upon several items in the papers on the table, with regard to the expenditure of the Royal Family, and adverting to the animadversions upon the allowance granted to his right hon. friend, Mr. Canning, at Lisbon, the hon. gentleman entered into some explanation. Before his right hon. friend's appointment to the office of ambassador to the Court of Portugal, the chargé d'affaires, who had not to maintain the dignity of that station

635]
which was assigned to his right hon. friend, was allowed 5,000 l. a year. The difference, then, between that sum and the allowance to his right hon. friend was not at all unreasonable, under all the circumstances of the case. For what were those circumstances? An ambassador from Portugal was at the Court of London, and it was thought proper to appoint an ambassador from this country, with suitable splendour, to represent our Court at that of Lisbon, and to receive the Prince Regent on his return to his European dominions. That that return was expected at the time of his right hon. friend's appointment, there could be no doubt. The Prince Regent of Portugal had, indeed, communicated to our Government his intention to return to Portugal, and had expressed a desire to be conveyed from the Brazils in a British squadron, naming even the officer whom he wished to command that squadron. In fact that prince was expected to sail from the Brazils as soon as the squadron required should reach that country. But as it was at present understood that his Royal Highness had informed our Government that he did not now intend to return to Europe, there could be no doubt that his right hon. friend would resign his appointment and return home, unless his Majesty's ministers should still think it necessary that an ambassador should be maintained at Lisbon. That was not a question on which his right hon. friend could decide. Every one knew that he would have gone to Portugal as a private individual, had he not been sent out in a public capacity; and he did not expect he would continue there as ambassador, in the absence of the Court to which he was accredited. If an ambassador was necessary at all, he could not be sent out on a smaller allowance; for fifty years the salary of a foreign minister had been 5,200 l.; and to secure that sum from diminution by the loss of exchange, 8,000 l. was no more than was necessary. The right hon. gentleman defended the public rejoicings of last year. The greater part of the additional charge on the Civil List, had arisen from the extraordinary expenses of last year; and after all the privations and sufferings of a twenty-years war, it seemed quite reasonable that the people should have an opportunity of expressing their exultation at the glorious termination of the war. He contended that it would be most indecorous were the committee to extend its investigations into
[636
the private expenditure of the Royal Family.
Mr. H. Martinthought the question for the House to consider on this occasion was, whether they would appoint a committee with powers sufficient to obtain full and satisfactory information, as his right hon. friend proposed, or with no powers whatever but to read the papers laid before it, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recommended. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer pleaded precedent in support of his recommendation. What, however, did this precedent show? Why, that notwithstanding the several committees heretofore appointed upon the subject of the Civil List, the debts had still gone on increasing; so that the evil, complained of had been in no degree cured. On the contrary, the mischief had been aggravated; and this surely was a strong reason for discarding the precedent relied upon on the other side, while it furnished a volume of argument for adopting the proposition of his right hon. friend for the appointment of a committee, with competent powers to inquire and obtain adequate information.
Mr. Longsaid, he resisted the motion of the right hon. gentleman opposite, on the same ground that he opposed a similar motion two years ago, namely, because he thought such a proposition contrary to parliamentary practice, and the inquisition in view indelicate and disrespectful towards the Crown. As to the debt of the Civil List, any gentleman who considered in his own private expenditure the change which had taken place in the value of money and all the articles of consumption, from the year 1797 to 1811, when the last investigation of this debt took place, could not be surprised at its amount. He denied that any part of this debt, or any mischief attributed to it, could be conceived to proceed from the committees alluded to; and as to the committee proposed by his right hon. friend, if that committee in the progress of its inquiry was found to require additional powers, it would be open to the chairman to move the House upon the subject. With respect to the expense of our embassies, the right hon. gentleman asserted that our diplomatic agents were not so well paid as those of any other court in Europe.
Mr. Calcraftsupported the original proposition. The Civil List he considered as a compact between the Crown, the Par-

637]
liament, and the People, and it appeared to him essential to the popularity of the Crown to maintain that compact unbroken. No one acquainted with his character could suspect him of a disposition to act niggardly towards the Crown, or to abate any part of its necessary splendour and dignity. But yet he could not help observing, that ever since Mr. Burke's Bill, which was intended to regulate the expenditure of the Civil List, its debt had gone on increasing. This was an evil which called loudly for correction, and the five committees heretofore appointed having operated no good upon the subject, he felt it necessary to vote for the appointment of a committee, with adequate powers efficiently to investigate and completely to remove the evil. As to the idea of the last speaker, that it would be open to the chairman of the proposed committee to move for additional powers, it would be idle to calculate, that if the chairman of a committee proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were likely to make any such motion, that House would be apt to accede to it after rejecting the proposition of his right hon. friend.
Lord Castlereaghthought that no case of necessity had been made out for deviating from the established practice of Parliament upon a subject of this nature, and therefore he felt himself bound to oppose the original motion. He could not recognise the policy or propriety of violating the delicacy and deference due to the Crown, by subjecting its expenditure to such an odious inquisition as this motion appeared likely to produce. It was due, injustice to the Crown, to consider the nature of the Civil List, which, be it remembered, was originally established as a substitute for a large hereditary revenue surrendered by the Crown to the public. But that revenue was notoriously derived from sources, the produce of which would have progressively increased with the progressive prosperity of the country, while the amount of the Civil List being settled, was affected by all the changes of circumstances and the depreciation of money, the influence of which, every individual must feel in his own private expenditure. Had the Crown retained its hereditary estate, it was not at all likely to have been under the necessity of applying to Parliament for the payment of its debts. But the fact was, that the bargain which gave rise to the
[638
establishment of the Civil List, and fixed the revenue of the Crown, was not for its advantage. Yet the spirit of that bargain had never been violated, nor was it proposed to depart from it, although it became necessary, in consequence of an advance in the general scale of expenditure, to make good the additional expense, to which the Crown was subjected. The only way in which the expenditure of the Civil List could be rendered fixed, was to withdraw from it all those fluctuating charges, the amount of which must vary according to circumstances; and he had no hesitation in saying that to adopt that valuable principle would be highly desirable. What might be called the floating expenditure would then be made a matter of annual estimate, and as such, would not only be subject to the vigilance of Parliament, but the Crown would be relieved from that unjust odium which, he contended, was wholly unknown in the practice of Parliament.—With respect to the excess in the Civil List account, that excess had chiefly arisen in two departments; that over which he had the honour to preside, and the Lord Chamberlain's. The excess of the latter had grown out of transactions which could not be considered as comprising any part of the permanent expenditure of the Royal Household—he alluded to the visit of the Allied Sovereigns last year; and upon that subject he might be permitted to state, that as far as he had possessed opportunities of comparing the expense of courts abroad, and the style in which the ministers of those courts supported their establishments, he certainly could trace none of that profuse splendour at home, which the right hon. gentleman seemed to consider as the cause of the increased expenditure of the Crown. With regard, also, to the expenses incurred by the reception of the august Personages who visited this country last year, he believed, if he could have brought with him the document from Vienna, containing the expenditure of the Emperor of Austria, in receiving and entertaining the Allied Sovereigns, it would appear, that no excessive splendour was exhibited here, and that the Emperor of Austria's civil list was a little more hardly pressed upon than that of the Prince Regent. So far as his own department was concerned, he should have, no difficulty in giving to the Committed the fullest explanation upon every item, in any manner which did not involve a

639]
departure from the practice of Parliament; and that being the disposition which he felt, he should not detain the House with going into minute details. He wished, however, before he sat down, to explain some circumstances that had been alluded to, and which, injustice to the individuals connected with them, should not be left under that weight of prejudice which might attach to them, from the manner in which they had been mentioned. Fifteen thousand pounds appeared to the name of the earl of Aberdeen, for the expenses of his mission; but it should be remembered that that sum was subject to a very severe tax from the rate of exchange, which reduced it to not more than 10 or 11,000 l. He had no allowance from the Civil List; he did not go out as an ambassador, but upon a public mission, the expenses of which were to be defrayed, but no direct emolument was derived by him from it. That 11,000 l. included also the expenses of all the persons attached to his mission. The embassy to Lisbon had been again alluded to, and in the same tone which, he understood, had been applied to it in his absence. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the expenditure of this country was augmented by that embassy; but if he would only refer to the accounts in his (lord Castlereagh's) office, he would find that the expense of an inferior agent at Lisbon had been nearly double. With respect to the propriety of an ambassador, he thought there could be no doubt. The Court of Lisbon had had an ambassador here for the last three years; and it was due to the friendship which this country felt towards Portugal, and after the calamities which had attended the Prince Regent, that he should be met on his return, and be congratulated by a British ambassador. When that arrangement was made, it was in the full expectation and indeed persuasion, that the Prince Regent's return to Europe would immediately take place—an event which, for political reasons, even this country must be naturally anxious to accomplish with the least possible delay, The appointment was one which certainly could hare been no object for the right hon. gentleman to accept, if domestic circumstances (the sickness of his son) had not rendered it necessary for him to go to that country; and that being the case, it was natural for Government to wish to take the advantage of the circumstance, and propose to him an embassy, which
[640
under other circumstances he would probably not have accepted. With regard to the employment of general officers upon foreign missions, the noble lord contended that no augmented expenditure was incurred by coupling the military with the diplomatic character, while great service to the country, especially during the campaign of last year, was derived from it. An hon. gentleman had alluded to the expenses at the Court of Madrid. They were, indeed, of a magnitude which might be expected to draw the attention; of Parliament to them: and he had felt in his duty to enter into a full explanation upon that subject, with the person who now resided at Madrid, who had expressed his anxiety to concur in any measure for limiting that branch of expenditure to a fixed and reduced amount, desirous as he (sir Henry Wellesley) was to incur any sacrifices rather than remain subject to the sort of obloquy which it had beer unjustly attempted to cast upon him. I would be seen, however, when the committee inspected the accounts, that what might strictly be called the personal expenditure of our ambassador at Madrid did not exceed 14,000 l. a year. Will respect to the whole expenditure of the Foreign Department, it was to be remembered there was not a court in Europe now at which we had not administer, and the extraordinaries under that head were necessarily larger in the first creating those appointments, because then the expenses of the outfit were incurred. His earnest wish however, was, that the House would take the extraordinaries of the Foreign Department out of the Civil List altogether, and let them be the subject to annual estimate. Upon the whole, he did not see why they should change the course of proceeding hitherto adopted, be giving to the committee unusual powers; powers, in fact, to institute a species of inquiry, whose only object would be to render expense odious, and not to control it; he therefore felt it his duty to adhere to the ancient parliamentary practice.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that the arguments of the noble lord were as much against the appointment of any committee, as against a committee with such powers as had been recommended by his right hon. friend in his motion; and he must really think that if his right hon. friend had failed to convince the House that night of the necessity of such a committee there was no reason to hope it would ever

641]
be granted at any future period. Without investing the committee with those powers which the motion contemplated, its labours would be as nugatory as those five successive ones had proved, from whose reports no benefits had resulted. The House were told that the committee might, if they thought proper, instruct their Chairman to move the House for any papers they might think necessary. What a childish hope was this to hold out to the House of Commons! When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appointed his committee, they were to have powers to ask, if they thought proper, for the production of those papers. Who could doubt that there would be no want of delicate guardians of the Crown in this committee? The accounts that the committee were to receive of the expenditure of the Crown must be purely spontaneous on the part of the Crown. The noble lord had throughout the course of his speech talked of the delicacy which was due to the Crown, as if the Crown was the only party. He had mentioned that the Crown had formerly an hereditary revenue; but as for Parliament, the noble lord appeared to conceive its functions quite inconvenient, unless when they were employed in passing complimentary addresses to the Prince Regent for the wisdom of his ministers, or voting the sums of money necessary for the wars which the noble lord contemplated. As to this hereditary revenue, the noble lord appeared to go back with pleasure to the glorious times (as he conceived them) which preceded the Revolution. In those times, however, the sovereigns out of the hereditary revenue defrayed a great part of the expenses of the state. The noble lord might also go back to the glorious times of Charles the 2nd, when not only the expenditure of the hereditary revenue was not inquired into, but when the pension that that sovereign received from France was not inquired into also. Bui since the period of the Revolution, when was it that Parliament did not inquire into the expenditure of the Crown? The noble lord had only talked about sovereigns—about the Prince Regent, and the Emperor of Austria. He had appeared to have entirely forgotten who it was that supplied the expenditure of the Civil List, both to the Prince Regent and to the Emperor of Austria. It was the people who paid those civil lists, and this was a circumstance which the noble lord appeared to
[642
have entirely forgotten. As to the proposition that the expense was always found to exceed the estimate, he must observe, that much to the honour of the Lord Steward, the expense in his department did not exceed the estimate. The expenses n the Park, which were estimated at 15,000 l. did in fact amount to 40,000 l. A more shameful waste of the public money, or a greater disgrace to this country, be had seldom witnessed, than the scene of drunkenness and riot which prevailed in the parks for a week, and which had cost the nation 40,000 l. A right hon. gentleman, the surveyor of the woods and forests (Mr. Huskisson), who had been formerly a great economist, and who had represented that the nation must be ruined, if prodigal expenditure was not checked, had now completely changed his sentiments, and had that night become the advocate of every species of expense. He now ridiculed the idea of controlling the expenditure of the Crown, and asked who would be a King, or a Prince Regent, if they could not be allowed to spend 5,000 l. on a green-house, or 1,000 l. on horses, without an investigation before the House of Commons? In mentioning this 1,000 l. about horses, an anecdote occurred to him, which he hoped was not true. It was said that an illustrious foreigner, prince Platoff, had made a present to the Prince Regent of a horse that had carried him through the late successful campaigns. It might naturally be supposed that such a horse, as a remembrance of the donor, would have been kept with the most extraordinary care, that it would have a separate groom to attend it, that it would have been pampered, and suffered to pass the remainder of its life in a sort of riotous felicity. He had heard, however, and was very sorry to hear it, that this animal was now employed in drawing a dung-cart at Hampton-court, (a laugh.) When the passion for giving 1,000 l. for horses was spoken so lightly of, he could not avoid thinking of what he had heard had been the fate of prince Platoff's horse. The expenses at Windsor also certainly deserved a most minute examination. It appeared that here there was a most profuse and lavish expenditure. Unless the committee were authorized to call for persons and papers, it was not to be expected that documents from evidence would come spontaneously before them, to show where the waste of the public money lay. Large aums of money

643]
were voted for purposes to which they were never applied. A large sum was annually given for travelling expenses to our gracious Queen, whose journies were merely from Windsor to London and from London to Windsor, except, indeed, one to Brighton, and that was paid for separately. A large sum was also given for horses, which she never used. As to the embassy to Lisbon, he would call upon the gentlemen on the other side, to answer bonâ fide, and upon their honours, whether, if those domestic circumstances had not made it desirable for Mr. Canning to go to Lisbon, they would have appointed any ambassador to that court? If they could say they would have done so, then the question was disposed of: but if they could not say, upon their honours, that, independent of Mr. Canning's convenience, they thought an ambassador necessary at Lisbon, and intended to send one, then it was evident that this transaction had been properly described, as a job for the benefit of Mr. Canning at the expense of the country. He was not surprised at the manner that the noble lord floundered over this part of the case, as this appointment had taken place in his absence. When the noble lord professed such excessive delicacy for the Crown, he would wish that he had also some compassion for the people of this country. If proper consideration was shown to them, and it could be proved that the expenditure was justifiable, the gratitude and attachment of the people would amply repay this consideration.
Mr. Bathurstdefended the appointment of Mr. Canning, and contended, that if the revenues of the Crown had been suffered to remain as in the time of Charles 2, they would be more considerable than they were at present. He was clearly of opinion, that no farther advantage could accrue from a vivâ voce examination of witnesses than would be derived from the production of the documents promised by the noble lord. He would not agree to open the door to so general a mode of inquiry as that proposed by the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Tierney,in reply, ridiculed all the arguments which had been urged by the opponents of his motion, to show that the House could have a good inquiry without sending for the persons and papers from whom alone the requisite information could be obtained.
Mr. William Smithsupported the motion.
[644
He recommended economy in every branch of the public expenditure, and thought that the expenses should be in proportion to the means of the country.
Sir Thomas Aclandsaid, he should vote for the motion, on the ground that a pretty general feeling existed throughout the country, that on this particular subject there was a greater waste and extravagance than necessary, and that in this particular quarter there was a habit of expense, not conducive to the true splendour of the Crown, nor calculated to advance the real honour of the country. In such a case, when such a feeling existed on the part of the people, that House ought not to be found wanting in their duty to those whom they were bound to protect. If ever there was a time in which the discharge of this duty was more loudly called for than at another, it was the present; first, as an expression of gratitude for the manner in which the House had been seconded by the people during twenty years of arduous contest; and secondly, because it was considered not impossible but that the Government of the country might in a short time be compelled again to draw very deeply indeed upon her exertions. If this last necessity should occur, he trusted that every man would cheerfully come forward to lend his aid, and no one should be found more ready to support the interests and the honour of the country than himself; but this would be done with more alacrity, H the people saw that on an inquiry like that now proposed, the most efficient way was taken of arriving at the truth. He did not blame any one. He would treat every body with all due delicacy. He would, instead of curtailing the splendour of the Crown, do every thing to add to that splendour; and he was persuaded that the most substantial mode of effecting this, would be to institute a bonâ fide investigation.
The House then divided on the Amendment—Yeas, 127; Noes, 94: Majority 33. The amended motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

List of the Minority

Abercrombie, hon. J.

Barnard, lord

Atkins, ald.

Baring, sir T.

Astell, W.

Baring, Alex.

Althorpe, lord

Byng, Geo.

Acland, sir T.

Burrell, Walter

Brand, hon. T.

Butler, hon. J.

Bennet, hon. H.

Butler, hon. C.

Burrell, hon. P.

Bastard, E,

645]

Bewicke, col.

Martin, H.

Babington, T.

Monck, sir C.

Bankes, H.

Moore, P.

Barham, F.

Milton, lord

Butterworth, J.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Barclay, C.

Methuen, P. C.

Calcraft, J.

Montogomery, sir H.

Calvert, C.

North, D.

Calvert, N.

Newman, R.

Cavendish, lord G.

Neville, hon. R.

Cavendish, H.

Osborne, lord F.

Cavendish, H.

Proby, lord

Douglas, hon. F.S.N.

Paulett, hon. W.

Dundas, Charles

Philips, G.

Dickenson, W.

Ponosonby, rt. hon. G.

Duncannon, lord

Piggott, sir A.

Elliot, rt. hon. W.

Prittie, hon. F.

Ellison, Cuthbert

Protheroe, E.

Fremantle, W. H.

Ramsden, J.

Fane, John

Ridley, sir M.

Grant, J.P.

Robinson, Aber.

Grenfell, P.

Smith, W.

Guise, sir W.

Smith, R.

Hammersley, H.

Stanley, lord

Hornby, E.

Shelley, sir T.

Horner, F.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Howorth, H.

Tavistock, lord

Idle, C.

Whitbread, S.

Lemon, sir W.

Western, C. C.

Lambton, J.G.

Wharton, J.

Lloyd, M.

Walpole, G.

Leach, J.

Wynn, C.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Warre, J.

Leader, W.

Wright, A.

Latouche, R.

TELLERS.

Lubbock, J.W.

Gordon, R.

Littleton, E.J.

Hamilton, lord A.

Martin, J.