Commons Sitting of 8 May 1815

THE NELSON ESTATE.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply.
Mr. Lushingtonrose to propose an additional grant of 9,000 l. to the trustees for the purchase of an estate for the family of the late lord Nelson. He stated that it had been the intention of his Majesty's ministers, when the original grant had been first proposed to the House, to have requested from Parliament the sum of 120,000 l. for that purpose; but in the progress of that measure through the House, 30,000 l. had been granted to the sisters of lord Nelson, and the sum which was finally granted for the purchase of the estate was 90,000 l. During the time since the Act had passed no estate had offered itself to the commissioners which seemed desirable, and which at the game time was of that magnitude which their trust required, except the estate which they were then in treaty for. A sum of 9,000 l. would, however, be requisite to conclude that treaty, principally on account of the timber on that estate. It was unnecessary for him to recite the claims of lord Nelson to the gratitude of the country, which were fresh in the recollection of the House; but he should move, "That a sum not exceeding 9,000 l. he granted to his Majesty, to enable the trustees under an Act of the 40th year of his present Majesty, for settling an annuity on the earl Nelson and the heirs male of his body, and such other person on whom the title of earl Nelson shall descend, and for granting a sum of money to purchase an estate to accompany the said title, and for other purposes, to complete the purchase of an estate situate at Standlynch, in the county of Wills, and to enfranchise the copyhold part thereof, and to purchase a water-rent and some fee-farm rents issuing out of the said estate."
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he was surprised, if it had been thought necessary by the Crown that the grant to lord Nelson's family should be increased, that a message had not been brought down to that effect. No such message had been brought down, and the only plea for augmenting the grant was, that no estate could be found which could be purchased for the sum which had been granted. It therefore came to this question of fact, whether

187]
any estate could have been procured for the sum which was in the hands of the commissioners? And the grant now proposed was not for the purpose of giving an additional recompence to the family of lord Nelson, but for purchasing the particular estate of Mr. Dawkins. In making these observations, he did not put himself in the invidious character of an opposer of a grant to the family of lord Nelson, but merely called on the Trustees to give an account why they had not concluded the purchase of an estate which had been offered them within the terms of their trust. The estate called Branches, in Suffolk, had been offered to the commissioners. The agents for the trust had surveyed, earl Nelson had approved of it, and the trustees had offered about 65,000 l. for it, which Mr. Kemp, the proprietor, had, after some delay, stated that he would accept. The, trustees had then refused to complete the purchase, and without one reason assigned, and concluded a treaty for the purchase of the estate of Mr. Dawkins, of which great part was not enfranchised, although the trustees were forbid to purchase copyhold land; and although one of the objections to Mr. Kemp's estate was, that part was copyhold. That part of Branches was, however, small, and was now actually enfranchised. He did not, therefore, stand forth in the invidious light of wishing to cramp the public munificence to lord Nelson's family, but to require an account why, without any given reason, the commissioners had applied for an additional sum for the purchase of an estate, which, in point of revenue, would not be understood to be very beneficial.
Mr. Rosestated, that since 1800, when the trustees, of whom he was one, were appointed, only two desirable estates had offered themselves to their attention before the estate of Branches and that of Mr. Dawkins, viz. one in Suffolk, in the sale of which they were outbid, and another in Hampshire, on which too high a price had been set, although all possible inquiries had been made. The estate which the trustees were in treaty for with Mr. Kemp, was in a bad country, and accessible only by roads which in winter were impassable; it was for that reason that the trustees had thought fit to prefer the estate in Wiltshire, which was in all respects much more desirable. It was plain, also, that the trustees were under
[188
no engagement to Mr. Kemp, for they had offered the sum of 65,825 l. under three several modifications, which he had refused to accede to, until the treaty had been suspended, and on the supposition that the whole was freehold. Earl Nelson so far preferred the estate in Wiltshire, that he had offered, if the trustees were not able to obtain the additional grant, to pay the difference himself.
Mr. Westernsaw no good grounds for the additional grant. He thought there could be a very good estate purchased for 90,000 l. There was no urgent necessity for making the purchase at present; and as the commissioners had waited so long, they might have waited a little longer to find an estate suitable in every respect. He condemned the conduct of the commissioners with regard to Mr. Kemp; and thought they should not, on such light grounds, have broken off a treaty so nearly concluded.
Mr. W. Smiththought, that leaving the negociation with Mr. Kemp entirely out of the question, the proposition before the committee ought not to be acceded to. As to Mr. Kemp, all that he had ever beard of that gentleman's case was, that he had some years ago bought an estate on cheap terms, which estate he was anxious to dispose of to lord Nelson, on such terms as should secure to himself an extraordinary bargain; but although no advocate for Mr. Kemp, he thought the contract with that gentleman binding. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last, but one, was, therefore, in error, if he supposed Mr. Kemp's case the cause of the obstacles which were presented to the proposed vote, and still more in error in assuming that those obstacles implied any disrespect to the memory of the late lord Nelson. For no such disrespect was felt; on the contrary, he himself, who was such a warm admirer of that hero as to be among the first to support the erection of a monument to his memory, in Norfolk, which monument would be a lasting honour to the object, and to the country, conceived it his duty to oppose this vote, because no circumstances appeared to him to have occurred since the original grant was voted, to make the additional sum now proposed either just or necessary. Even supposing the present earl were equally meritorious with his predecessor, he should, upon principle, feel himself bound to oppose the proposition. His objection was, that if there

189]
was 9,000 l. necessary to complete the purchase, it could be paid out of the revenues' of the estate, and not by a country that had already given 90,000 l. Parliament could appoint trustees to receive the 9,000 l. from the estate, and the business might thus be settled very easily. But if 9,000 l. were granted from the country at present, he saw no reason why 19,000 l. 29,000 l. or any other sum might not be required hereafter. He could discover no sufficient cause for the grant, and must therefore oppose it.
Mr. Roseobserved that Mr. Kemp pertinaciously insisted upon his own terms; namely, that 65,000 l. should be paid for his estate, together with 5,000 l. for fixtures, thus rejecting every proposal of concession.
Mr. Whitbreadremarked upon the expressed disposition of the right hon. gentleman and the other commissioners, on the 2d of July last, to accede to the purchase of an estate, which was now felt to be in such an inaccessible situation, as to be quite unsuitable to the object, and to the proper dignity of lord Nelson's family.
The Speakervindicated the conduct of the commissioners appointed to purchase an appropriate estate for the family of lord Nelson, who had, in pursuance of their duty, concluded for the purchase of the estate of Standlynch, which contained 2,500 acres, together with a suitable mansion, instead of Mr. Kemp's estate of 1,000 acres. But it was also to be observed, that Mr. Kemp could not, as he himself knew, make out a good title. The commissioners had not, however, been guilty of any injustice whatever, either towards Mr. Kemp or the public. This the right hon. gentleman illustrated, by describing the nature of the negociation with Mr. Kemp, and stating that only 87,000 l. was advanced to the proprietor of the estate of Standlynch, the commissioners reserving 3,000 l. for the repairs of the mansion, and covenanting with the present lord Nelson, that he should advance the remainder of the purchase-money, to be secured to him as his own personal property, independently of the original grant. Therefore the commissioners had in no degree pledged the House; and of course it remained to be considered, whether the committee would, as an act of grace, liberality, and favour, accede to the grant now proposed, in compliment to the merits of the late lord Nelson—whether it would stop short with
[190
the original grant, or go farther, with a view to make suitable provision for the family of that great warrior.
Mr. Bankeswas at a loss to know where the House could find a justification for giving the additional 9,000 l. When the merits of lord Nelson were brought before them, it was difficult to fix the bounds of their generosity; but as a limit had been settled, he could not perceive why it should be extended. Under all these circumstances of the case, he could not understand how the present proposition could be supported.
Mr. Rosereplied, that there was nothing to prevent Mr. Kemp from applying to the Court of Chancery, if he should consider himself to have been injured. With respect to Standlynch, no other property had offered equally eligible, and, on that account, the commissioners had conceived themselves bound to accept of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it had been difficult to find an estate applicable to the purposes of the act parliament. The Act required that the estate should be freehold, and free from incumbrances. It was therefore essential to the spirit of the Act, that the estate should be settled unincumbered in the Nelson family.
General Walpolesaid, that every man must think it an advantageous purchase.
The question was then loudly called for, and the House divided:

For the Grant

111

Against it

66

Majority

—45

HIGH BAILIFF OF WESTMINSTER.
In the Committee of Supply, Mr. Lockhart moved, that the sum of 1,800 l. be granted to Arthur Morris, esq. the high bailiff of Westminster, as an indemnity for losses sustained by him at the election of members to serve in parliament for the said city.
Mr. Bankessaid, he was not aware that this proposition was to be brought forward to-day, or he would have prepared himself for the discussion, by refreshing his memory as to the principal points of Mr. Morris's case. He was enabled to state, however, from his recollection of what occurred in a former committee, that it was his opinion the sum claimed by Mr. Morris was much larger than the House ought to sanction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought

191]
that some compensation was certainly due to the high bailiff on account of the expenses he was put to in consequence of an involuntary candidate being started. As this was a case not in the contemplation of the law, he was entitled so far to compensation. As to the larger sum, he did not conceive the claim substantiated.
Mr. Byngcould not see why a difference should be made between the high bailiff of Westminster, and any other returning officer in the kingdom. He did not know where this principle of compensation was to stop.
Mr. Lockhartreplied, that the high bailiff was bound by the Act of Parliament to expenses to which other returning officers were not bound.
Mr. Hornerobserved, that the high bailiff was almost the only returning officer in the kingdom whose office was one of emolument as well as trust.
The resolution was then postponed.

NEW POST-OFFICE BILL.
Sir James Shaw, on rising to move the second reading of the new Post-office Bill, adverted to the Report of the Committee, which the House had now perused, and which was so diffuse and clear as to leave no doubt upon the subject. He observed, that the only difference in the calculations of expense, arose from the difference of the proposed grounds; and the committee was decidedly in favour of the ground in the plan, Number 1, being that of Saint Martin's-le-Grand. The hon. baronet then explained the difference of the four plans which had been considered, and also the difference of the calculations of expense. The select committee, on presenting these different plans for the consideration of the House, had thought it incumbent on them to express their opinion as to that which was most eligible, and which appeared to be No. 1. An hon. member had certainly made a great impression on the House, by stating that the enormous sum of 700 or 800,000 l. would be necessary for this building; but if he (sir James) could have thought such a sum would be required, the measure should never have had his support. On the contrary, however, there was every reason to believe that the expense would not exceed 244,400 l. and considering the sum to be taken towards it from the Orphans' Fund, it would appear that the city would have to contribute very materially towards it. He concluded by
[192
moving, That the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Gordonobjected to the motion, on the ground that the public ought not to be called on to pay such a sum of money, without a strong case being made out of the necessity of building such a post-office at all. On that head there had been no question whatever asked by the last committee, but they had merely referred to the report of the former committee; and even in that there was, in his opinion, no case made out which would justify the House in giving countenance to the Bill. The Post-office had been carried on for many years in the present situation in which it stood, with every advantage to the public. It was true, Mr. Freeling when before the committee had stated, that they had wanted a new Post-office for a long lime, but they could not prevail with the city of London to agree to it before. He could not, therefore, but be a little surprised, that the City should all at once come forward and join their aid to the Government in saddling the public with such an enormous expense, at the moment when the burthens under which they laboured were so great. He objected also to the reason assigned by the City for now agreeing to this measure, because great part of the money was to be taken from the Orphans' Fund. He denied that the City had a right to apply that fund to this particular purpose, and said the consequence would be a continuance of the tax on coals and wines imported into the port of London for three years longer than it ought to continue, which would be laying an additional burthen on the inhabitants of the city of Westminster, and the parts adjacent to London, for the benefit and advantage of the more distant parts of the empire. He sifted the evidence of Mr. Hasker and other witnesses who had been examined, and observed that they were all in some degree belonging to the Post-office; and when one part of their evidence was compared with another, it appeared to him to be little better than a delusion. He adverted to that part of the report which stated that the new building should be devoid of ornament, to which he objected as much as he did to the adoption of the measure at all. If we were to have a new building on which 244,000 l. was to be expended, he thought, that as a public edifice, it ought to have the advantage of ornaments and decorations. It was true he would not wish to set the

193]
entrance resembling a triumphal arch, but he would have the ornaments such as to distinguish a public building of this kind from the gloom of a prison, or the melancholy appearance of an hospital. His main objection, however, was to the very great expense, at a period when the country was so little able to bear it; and as such, he should divide the House on the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Hammersleysaid, he had carefully examined, with the other members of the committee, the numerous and great inconveniences attendant on the old Post-office. Great numbers of the valuable servants of, the Government, employed in carrying on this truly beneficial branch of the revenue, were shut up in close rooms, dirty and covered with, smoke, so that their health must be in danger, one would almost think, from suffocation. It had been obliged to be enlarged from time to time, and was a mass of old houses taken in and added at different periods, which rendered the communication of one office with another extremely difficult, and very often apparently dangerous to persons under the necessity of passing in haste from one to another. The passages, also, were so narrow and ill contrived, that as there were several hundreds there at a time in the course of the day, it was surprising they should come off without broken bones. With respect to the new Post-office, he thought the necessity of it was apparent; and as to its situation, he was inclined to think it as favourable as any that could be obtained. He agreed with his hon. friend who spoke last, that though no triumphal arches were necessary, yet in a public building of that nature, there ought to be a degree of magnificence in its ornamental decorations.
Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, that while honourable members were differing about decorations to new buildings, he must beg to remind them, that there was an old public building in this metropolis that was still unfinished. He meant Somerset-house, which was left in such a state in some parts of it as to be a disgrace to the country.
Mr. Westernwas against the Bill. He did not see any thing in the Report which could warrant the adoption of such a measure, while the burthens on the people were so oppressive. Admitting that it would be an improvement, it was still incumbent to show an urgent necessity for it. The Orphans Fund, from which part
[194
of the money was to be taken, was a fund derived from taxation, to which the inhabitants of London and its vicinity were peculiarly liable. But was this measure more peculiarly advantageous to them than to the people of the whole empire? It was known that this fond had been applied to many public purposes: it had been applied to the building of Blackfriars-bridge: but from this and all previous applications of it, the inhabitants of London derived the benefit. The case in the present instance was very different; and therefore if the object was desirable, the public at large should bear the burthen. This was not the moment to involve the country in any expense that was not strictly necessary; and as no necessity had been shown for the measure, he should vote against the motion.
Mr. Charles Longrepeated the grounds on which the former committee had framed their Report. Their opinion was, that the present Post-office was totally inadequate to its object, and they had agreed that the plan. No. 1, was decidedly the best, and would be the most economical. In allusion to the remark of Mr. Western, that the public ought to bear the expense, the right hon. gentleman observed, that the greatest portion of the expense was to be borne by the public at large, and a moderate part by the City. The reason for appropriating a part of the Orphans Fund towards this expense was, that it combined a great public advantage with a considerable improvement in the city of London. He was decidedly in favour of the Bill, although he would have preferred the proposition foe altering the present Post-office, if it could possibly have been adopted.
Mr. Bankeswould not on any occasion-be inclined to go beyond the expenditure prescribed by actual necessity. He must admit that the present Post-office was extremely inconvenient; but he thought that as the business which had been for so many years conducted at it, was a pattern of dispatch and regularity, there was no necessity for the new building. But if it were necessary, he did not believe a better site could be chosen, as the ground was not dearer than it could be purchased anywhere else. It was a wrong idea that the business required tire constant attendance of such a number of persons, who had been represented as shut up in a lazaretto all day. On the contrary, they were not in attendance more

195]
than a few hours a day. He was, notwithstanding all he had heard and read on the subject, clearly of opinion that it would be better the business should stand over for the present.
Mr. Butterworththought those gentlemen who were on the committee must be satisfied that the removal of the Post-office was absolutely necessary. For the last 14 years the present Post-office had cost the country on the average not less than 6,000 l. annually for repairs. The inconveniences of the present Post-office he described to be very great. He urged the importance of coming to an immediate decision, as the inhabitants of St. Martin's-le-Grand had been for the last two years in a state of great uncertainty, which ought now to be terminated with the least possible delay. The present establishment subjected those employed in it, to more inconveniences than was known in Any of the government offices. It was true, a part of the business was necessarily done by candle-light; but the situation of those who were thus occupied, ought to be ameliorated as much as possible, by giving them lofty apartments. At present—would the House suffer it to continue?—a valuable body of the public servants, were compelled to labour in offices from which both light and air were excluded. The building of the new Post-office would employ many hands now out of work. When completed, arrangements might be made so that large parcels might be forwarded by the Post-office (especially to Ireland) which could not at present be done. He proceeded to set forth the various advantages which would result from the proposed measure, and strongly insisted that the able and satisfactory manner in which the business of the establishment had been conducted for the last twenty years, furnished no argument in favour of the continuance of inconveniences which were not known in other government offices.
Mr. Holme Sumnerwas still of opinion that there was no necessity for building a new Post-office, and that even if it were desirable, the present was not the time for carrying such a design into effect. Where the present building stood, there were 2,000 square feet, which had not been built upon, and 13,000 more between the two lanes and the church close to it might be purchased at an expense of 38,000 l.; and these, with the 25,000 square feet already occupied, he was of opinion, would
[196
give an area sufficiently large for all the business of the Post-office, which had hitherto been transacted so well within a space of 25,000. The plans for the new Post-office were on a grand scale; one went to occupy 64,000 the other 50,000 square feet: but he saw no reason for supposing that nearly three times that space was now requisite, which had formerly been sufficient. The Inland-office was well managed by the present arrangement. The average daily delivery was 38,000 letters, but on Mondays there was usually an excess. The committee had seen 44,000 letters sorted and put in order for delivery in the course of 45 minutes; and how, without the aid of magic, the business of that department was to be performed quicker by any change which could be made, he had yet to learn. The estimates given in, had to him been very unsatisfactory; and on these accounts, in in the present state of our finances, he thought it very improper to incur the expense which must be attendant on building a new Post-office. He gave a detailed history of the Orphans' Fund, from its establishment in the time of Richard 2, down to the present period, and denied that the City possessed the right of appropriating that fund as they had taken upon themselves to do, and to tax a portion of the people as they had done. From the Orphans' Fund the City had drawn—for the building of Blackfriars-bridge, 90,000 l.; and subsequently, to take off the toll, 64,000 l. more. When the City was about building Newgate, 100,000 l. had been taken; to buy off the London-bridge toll, 30,000 l.; to repair the Royal Exchange, which was said to be in a very dilapidated state, 10,000 l.; and to improve, the river, 8,000 l., in all nearly 300,000 l. For every subsequent improvement this Orphans' Fund had been the milch cow, from which the means were drawn. The new Debtors' Gaol was paid for out of the Orphans' Fund. He was of opinion the City ought to meet such charges out of their own means. The adjoining counties of Hertford, Essex, and Surrey, had defrayed the expenses of their gaols in a very satisfactory manner. It was true, it might be said that the city of London had to provide gaols for the county of Middlesex, but for this it was remunerated. If it chose to give up the remuneration it received, let it do so, and let the expense of the prisons be met by a county rate.
Mr. Grenfellrecapitulated a part of the

197]
second report of the select committee appointed by the House to inquire into this subject, recommending the building a new post-office. That report was drawn up on the spot, and agreed to unanimously, with the exception of the member for Surrey. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Holme Sumnersaid, he had omitted to move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Speakerremarked, that it was too late for the hon. gentleman to make such a motion, consistently with the usage of the House.
Lord Miltonwas surprised that none of the City members had risen to vindicate the city of London from the charge preferred against them by the hon. gentleman, who had represented them to be disposed to pay part of the expense of this great undertaking out of funds which were not their own. While pretending to pay out of their own pockets, they in fact imposed a tax, not only on the city of London, but on the city of Westminster, and on all places in their vicinity, as in all the duty on coals tended to advance the price of fuel. Before the city came forward in aid of such an undertaking with their pretended generosity, they ought to show that they did not do this out of the funds of others; and this done, unless they derived a greater benefit from the proposed change than the inhabitants of other places, the expense ought to be borne by the public at large. At all events, if they did contribute towards the new building, they ought to do it at their own expense, and not out of funds which they had appropriated to themselves by means which he would not describe.
Sir William Curtissaid, the City intended to contribute towards the expense of the new Post-office out of their own funds. They meant to raise a sum of money for that purpose by duties on wine and coals brought to the port of London. An hon. gentleman had correctly given the history of the Orphans' Fund; but he had not stated the means by which it was taken from the City in former times. Thank God! the country had now an honest Government! but formerly the country was differently circumstanced, and in troublesome times Government had laid hands on the money entrusted to the City, which formed the Orphans' Fund. By the advances made from the Orphans'
[198
Fund the City had not benefitted alone, and when the hon. gentleman talked of what Surrey and other counties had done, he wished to ask what places had been benefited more than Surrey by those measures of which he complained? The toll on Blackfriars-bridge had been considered an inconvenience; and from this, as well as from that on London-bridge, the public had been relieved, and Surrey bad paid nothing for the benefits thus conferred on her. In the same spirit the funds of the City had furnished the means of building a court-house at Westminster, and another at Whitechapel. He then, referred to the great improvements which had been made in the City itself, and wished those who could remember it as long as he could, to compare its former state with what it now was. He wished them to look, for instance, at Temple-bar and Snow-hill. He denied that there was any thing in the Orphans' Fund that made it one with which the City ought not on such occasions to interfere; and concluded by declaring, that they were not reduced to the pitiful and disgraceful expedient of putting their hands upon funds which were not their own, in order to carry into execution those plans which they thought it their duty to support and countenance.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that when the city of London had come to Parliament on the subject of the Orphans' Fund, they had spoken of it as having been dissipated during "the late troubles," but had not said a word of its having been seized by the Government.
The House divided:

For the second reading of the Bill

149

Against it

70

Majority

—79

Lord Miltonwished to know in what manner the Bill was to be committed.
The Speakersaid, that as private claims were connected with it, it must, in the first instance, go to a committee above stairs, who would report upon it, and, subsequently, it would come before a committee of the whole House.

MOTION FOR POWER TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL LIST ACCOUNT.
Mr. Tierneyrose for the purpose of bringing forward his promised motion upon this subject. He observed, that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour it would be more satisfactory if he were now to proceed, and not to postpone a subject of so much

199]
importance. Gentlemen who had been in the habit of attending the present and former committees on the Civil List were aware that he had failed in his attempts to invest those committees with sufficient powers to accomplish any useful purpose; and they knew, also, that he had consented to attend them only for the sake of trying the point, that the House might be convinced that if any good practical result were in view, it would be impossible by such restricted means to attain it. In order that the mere production and investigation of papers might not, however, be the sole effect of its appointment, he had made two suggestions to the Committee: 1. That the great object ought to be to examine in what way the enormous expenditure of the Civil List had been superintended. 2. That the Committee ought to give to the House some detailed estimates, in order to ascertain what reasonable bounds ought to be put to the expenditure of the Royal Family. To the first point, which had for its object the imposing of necessary checks, the Committee consented entirely; but with the last they complied only in part, being of opinion that such conduct would be improper and indecorous in the Committee: but they recommended that a motion for the purpose should be made in the House, and it was not doubted that such estimates would then be supplied by the Crown. Having gained the first point, he thought that he had accomplished much, being convinced that a neglect in superintendence was the true source of the lavish and uncontrolled expenditure in the Civil List.
It was not his intention on the present occasion to go into a detail of the accounts on this subject; it was, indeed, unnecessary, since on a former occasion, when he had called the attention of the House to them, it had been generally felt, and denied by none, that the issue from the Civil List was, he would not say unjustifiable, but at all events carried to a most alarming extent. His object now was to bring the question, whether the Committee ought to possess the power of sending for and examining witnesses, to another issue; and he was Confident that he was addressing many gentlemen, who might have voted against him on the former night, but who—after the statement of the two objects he had in view, and after the experience they had had of the impossibility of their ac-
[200
complishment without farther power—would now, from a thorough conviction of their duty, give his present motion their hearty support. In pursuing this subject, he should not trouble the House with any details, but under the fourth class of the Civil List expenditure, and even that would be further narrowed to the department of the Lord Chamberlain. He begged it to be understood, that in fixing upon this department he meant nothing invidious to the noble lord who was at its head; and he promised, that if he succeeded in his proposal this night, he would, on a future occasion, make a similar motion with regard to the other departments of the fourth class. On the mere inspection of the papers upon the table, no gentleman would deny that in the department of the Lord Chamberlain the strictest examination was necessary; those documents, however, supplied only the gross amounts charged by the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse; and to obtain a few particulars, it was necessary to call the attention of the House to some of the accounts already furnished to the Committee. If they were not perfectly intelligible, it was the fault of ministers, who would not allow them to be regularly laid upon the table of the House for deliberate investigation.
The right hon. member meant to confine himself still further to that portion of the Lord Chamberlain's accounts, independent of public buildings, and of those subjects that came under the cognizance of the Board of Works. It would be found, on an inspection of the papers, that for Carlton-house only, during the short space of two years and three-quarters, the enormous sum of 160,000 l. was charged under the head of Furniture and Tradesmen's Bills, perhaps including some articles of plate. He had a right to say, that this sum was most exorbitant; and it took its origin, very singularly, just after the splendid fete given by the Prince Regent in 1811. After that date the expenses of Carlton-house, in the respects mentioned, had branched out to the extent of 160,000 l. It ought also to be recollected, that at that period Parliament voted no less than 100,000 l. to the Prince Regent, for the augmented expenses of his household. The late Mr. Perceval had expressly stated, that it was principally to be applied to the purchase of plate; and the whole increase, since the year 1811, had

201]
not been less than 260,000 l. [Lord Castlereagh said, that it was 160,000 l.]—Mr. Tierney thought the surprise of the noble lord, at the amount, extremely natural: he could not readily believe that it was really 260,000 l.; but such was the fact, including the 100,000 l. voted by Parliament. He begged the House to notice some of the items as they had been made out above stairs by the committee. For the upholsterer in the first year, the sum charged was 19,000 l.; in the second, 28,000 l.; and for three-quarters of the third, 46,291 l. This showed a progressive and most wonderful augmentation, more especially in the last three-quarters of a year, which nearly doubled the charge for the whole of the second year. The same arithmetical progression would be observed in the expenses of or-molu, china, and glass; the latter article, for the last three-quarters of a year to which the civil list accounts were made up, amounted to no less than 12,368 l. For linen-drapery, &c. for the first year there was charged 33,000 l.; for the second, 41,000 l.; and for the three-quarters, 64,000 l. Silversmiths bills were charged in the first year 32,000 l.; in the second at 37,000 l; and for the last three-quarters they ascended to 41,000 l. The bills of tradesmen amounted together to no less than 138,000 l., excluding silversmiths and jewellers, whose charge was 111,000 l. Next came what was called the Great Wardrobe: in the first year 43,000 l.; in the second, 47,000 l.; and in the third, 72,000 l. These were sums that he thought would astonish the House, and even alarm the noble lord; and yet it was required that the whole subject should be investigated by means of what could be laid before them in writing. [Hear, hear!]
He admitted that there was a certain degree of delicacy to be observed upon this subject; but he could not help thinking that the Royal Family must be extremely anxious that it should be fully investigated. Why they should be unwilling, or should feel any degree of soreness on the touch of Parliament, he could not imagine; and he had not heard a single argument used on the other side, but that Parliament had never so interfered. Why was such profusion allowed? And why, when the civil list was so deeply in debt, did ministers endeavour to pay it off as soon as possible, and with as little inquiry as possible? The investigation might be deemed indelicate; it had been
[202
for years postponed; the House was willing to try the parties a little longer, until after four or five years the accounts were produced in a state unparalleled in the history of any Court of Europe. It would be said, that these amounts were not the ordinary expenses of the Royal Family merely; that 32,000 l. was to be deducted on account of the Royal Visitors, and that a reduction ought to be made in the charge for plate and jewels. It was true, that the expense for investing the knights of the several orders, for ambassadors, for great officers of state, and for the investing of foreign Sovereigns, amounting to 20,358 l., ought not to be included, which, with the former sum, would reduce the charge for jewellery, &c. to about 62,000 l. or 23,000 l. a year, including two years and three-quarters. He appealed to the House whether any such permanent and continued expenditure could be necessary? Another point to be investigated was, to whom the jewels, &c. belonged? They were paid for out of the civil list by the public—then they belonged to the public, and ought at least to be hereditary with the Crown. Of what use was the privy purse of 73,000 l. per annum, if the civil list were to be so applied? Was no part of that sum to be devoted to the maintenance of the splendour of the Crown? It was worthy of remark also, that in none of these accounts was any credit stated: 32,000 l. had been paid for furniture for the Sovereigns on their visit. What was become of it? They had not taken it away with them. Into whose possession, then, had it devolved?
He did not complain of any unwillingness to furnish accounts to the committee; but if the complicated subject were to be so investigated, not one session, nor ten sessions would be sufficient for the labour. In the committee room, when a host of cabinet ministers, secretaries, paymasters, and other adherents were ranged against three or four individuals, it was amusing to notice the mode of proceeding—if the necessity of any document were suggested, the most ready compliance was given as a matter of favour; it was not allowed that the committee should issue any direct and public order from itself, but the paper was procured by a sort of whisper in the application for it, and a whisper in return on compliance—when papers were obtained, they were not implicitly to be relied upon, not because they were garbled (for that he did not mean to assert), but because

203]
they might be garbled, and at the best would afford no information on which the committee could satisfactorily act. The right hon. gentleman said, he had therefore taken this early opportunity of submitting his motion for vivâ voce examinations; because, although every day his case would have been strengthened by the vain proceedings of the committee, yet every day the attendance of members in the House would have been diminished. He begged to refer the House to a letter written by a gentleman of the name of Mash, to an application by Mr. Wharton on this subject two or three years ago, which at that time had given the greatest satisfaction, because it declared that before any furniture was ordered, the Lord Chamberlain always ascertained that it was necessary; an estimate was then made out of the expense, and an inspection was afterwards had that the article was worth the charge. What, however, was his surprise and disappointment when, on the 28th of April last, the Secretary of the Lord Chamberlain wrote a letter to the committee, in which he declared, that what Mr. Mash had said was not official, but that it applied to all royal palaces not in the occupation of the King or of the Prince Regent. That was exactly the point in dispute, for if the Prince Regent had the uncontrolled direction of the furniture, &c. of Carlton-house, and it was paid for out of the pockets of the people, it was a system that ought not to be endured. The state of things was exactly this, that all those guards existed in palaces not occupied by the King or the Prince Regent, but that his Royal Highness might order what furniture he pleased to any amount for his own palace, without the slightest possible check or control. It was true, that the plate was afterwards examined; but with regard to furniture of the most expensive kind, there was no restraint.
It could not be meant to be said that things should remain in this state. He did not believe that gentlemen knew that it was such; for the committee of 1812 and 1813 had relied upon the letter of Mr. Mash, and they imagined, consequently, that previous estimates were always made. Those who argued in opposition to the motion, must contend to this extent, that there was in the Crown a power, independent of the Lord Chamberlain, to give orders to tradesmen to any extent, for which the public were to pay
[204
The right hon. gentleman said, he denied the doctrine, and maintained that such order and delivery of the goods constituted a private debt, for which the King or the Prince Regent was liable, which was not to be defrayed out of the civil list. It was directly in the teeth of Mr. Burke's Bill, which declared that the Lord Chamberlain was to be responsible. It was, indeed, one object he had in view in this motion, to show the House that it was in vain to appoint committees, unless it made the Lord Chamberlain feel that he was responsible; although he had recently fulfilled what was called his duties, as if he were answerable for nothing. If the House would allow witnesses to be examined, Mr. Tierney pledged himself to prove beyond a doubt, that an immense amount of furniture had been purchased, that no man living could establish to be at all necessary; and he thought the House bound to interpose for the protection of the people of England, who ought not to be imposed upon and juggled out of their hard earnings for the sake of gratifying caprices. The right hon. gentleman then read to the House several parts of Mr. Burke's Bill, in order to prove that the Lord Chamberlain was by it made responsible in all such cases as those to which he had referred. He pointed out a positive enactment, providing, that if the King shall order furniture, it must, before it can be supplied, receive the approbation of the Lord Chamberlain. The answer would probably be, that Mr. Burke's Bill had been for some years a mere dead letter. So much the greater necessity was there for reviving it; especially in these times, when, however indulgent the House might wish to be, it could not countenance an unprecedented expenditure of 160,000 l. He maintained that the office of Lord Chamberlain ought not to be converted into a sinecure, with great patronage annexed to it, merely for the purpose of allowing the occupant of the throne to run into any extravagancies that were to be paid for by the people of England; for it was a mockery to say that by them it must not be defrayed. It now, therefore, did not appear wonderful that so much importance was attached to the appointment of certain officers of the household. It was now seen of what advantage it was to have the Lord Chamberlain independent of ministers. The noble lord opposite (lord Castlereagh) had no more control over the Lord Chamberlain,

205]
except from family affection, than he (Mr. Tierney) had. The Prince Regent had only to say that such jewellery, or such furniture should be sent in, and so that the orders came from some palace where his Royal Highness was residing, there was no control over them. He wished also to observe on the sums charged for foreign ambassadors: there was Mr. William Hill, who was no ambassador, but the accounts called him an ambassador, and he had ambassador's plate, for which 3,968 l. was charged. He did not know whether this plate was realty given; very often, he believed, the money was accepted instead of the plate. There was also nearly the same sum for plate to Mr. A'Court, who he believed was no ambassador. This, however, was as much as was paid for plate to lord Stewart and the duke of Wellington; and the same was paid for plate to Mr. Canning, that the dignity of England might be maintained with due splendour at the court of Lisbon, which, with 14,000 l. for salary, and the sum for outfit, was pretty well for one year. This plate, he understood, was often not actually bought; in 1806, for instance, lord Cathcart was appointed ambassador to Russia, but he never went thither. He was long enough appointed, however, to be entitled to his plate, and he took 4,400 l. instead of it. Now, what the real state of the expenditure was, it was impossible to ascertain, without calling the officers who were acquainted with it, and examining them in person. It was true the examination might be carried on, as a trial at the Old Bailey might be, by letter; but it could not be very expeditious, or very satisfactory. It was not to be expected that the accounts of the expenditure should be taken without any inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he understood, about to frame an estimate of such part of the expenditure as arose from foreign missions, to enlarge or curtail it, but at any rate to reduce it to an intelligible state; nor would it be supposed that any estimate could preclude the necessity of asking questions respecting it. How, then, could it be supposed that the committee which was to inquire into the grounds of the expenditure of the civil list, could be satisfied by merely seeing it stated?
His object in reality was, as far as possible, to take every thing relating to their expenditure from the control of the Royal Family, and to place it under the
[206
control of responsible persons. This did not arise from any want of delicacy to the Royal Family; for that delicacy would not be shown by suffering matters to remain in their present state, in which it was necessary that, from year to year, they should be dragged before the public. From this he wished to exempt them; and at the same time to provide, as well for the strictest economy of the public money, as for the due splendour of the Crown. The Prince Regent might require from the responsible officer every thing suited to the dignity of the Crown, and nothing so required would be denied. He wished the wardrobe and the jewels to be put on this footing; and the first class of expenditure would then remain alone with his Royal Highness, viz. the money paid directly into his hands. It was to be remembered, that the Prince Regent had the disposal of a privy purse of 70,000 l. a year; but in addition to that, he had the direction of the jewels, and wardrobes, and furniture, without check or control. It could not be supposed that his Royal Highness's mind was set on these frivolous objects. The building department had been entrusted to a board which was to be permanent, and which might stand as a permanent security between the Crown and the country. Why, then, were not the other departments placed on the same footing? Why was such an arrangement to be less desired with respect to those departments either by the Prince Regent or the country? But before any such change was carried into effect, it was necessary for him to show before the committee, that no inconvenience would result from such an arrangement, and to that end he wished to examine the persons connected with the department. How could this be done by letter? how was it possible by that course of proceeding to bring to light the abuse or negligence in the different departments, that censure might be fixed upon them, and that it might be really ascertained what sum was necessary for the maintenance of the splendour of the Crown? This was not a party question; and with the exception of an allusion to Mr. Canning, for which he apologized, he had said nothing that savoured of party matters; and this he owed to the number of gentlemen, who, unconnected with any party, had supported him on a former occasion. He had now made out a practical case more strongly than he

207]
could have made out the theoretical case before. As to the charge which had been brought against him as wishing to interfere with the internal arrangement of the household.—with the scullions, turnspits, and he knew not what, it was foreign from his thoughts. There was no man who wished more to support the dignity of the Crown; but he wished to inculcate the idea that it was not for us to enter into competition with foreign monarchies in splendour: the chastened splendour of the British monarchy inspired more real awe for the Monarch of England, than any paltry attempts to imitate a magnificence for which we were Hot calculated. What was really necessary to the dignity of the Crown he should willingly pay; but he could not agree to support the merciless extravagance of the last two years and three quarters. If all the House did was to grant the money, and to pass through the ceremony of a committee, it would not stand very well in the estimation of the country. He hoped they would pause before they turned a deaf ear to his proposition, for while they liberally paid all that the dignity of the Crown required, it was necessary to show something like sympathy with the people [Hear, hear!]. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving.
"That the select committee appointed to take into consideration the account presented to the House upon the 20th day 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, have power to send for Mr. T. B. Mash, of the Lord Chamberlain's office."
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the motion of the right hon. gentleman might be considered rather as an appeal from the judgment of the House on a former night, than a measure which had arisen from the inquiries of the committee. The authority of the right hon. gentleman was to be received also with some distrust, as he had said he had attended the committee with no other intention than to bring the question again before the House. There was no one could wish more for an investigation of the accounts than the Prince Regent; bat no ground had been shown to satisfy the House that it was
[208
necessary to depart from the respectful course which had always been adopted towards the Crown—which had been, to take all information from communications from the Crown itself, and never by examination of its officers. The noble lord said, he should follow the right hon. gentleman's own clear and perspicuous order, and should have no occasion to dispute his figures. The first great point of the right hon. gentleman's argument was the admitted excess in the three great departments, those of the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse. To one part a remedy had, as far as it was necessary, been applied, by the appointment of the Board of Works, which was a control on the expenditure of the Crown in that branch. It was necessary to establish some standard at which the reasonable expenditure of the Crown should be taken. This could not be the estimate of 1804, which had been acknowledged by the committees of 1812 and 1813, to be too small; and it was only provided that estimates should be produced when the expenditure exceeded 24,000 l. above that estimate. The expense, therefore, recognized by Parliament, was for the Lord Chamberlain's department 121,000 l.—for the Lord Steward's 105,000 l.—for the Master of the Horse 30,000 l.—in all 256,000 l. The actual expenditure had been, in 1812, 268,000 l.—in 1813, 279,000 l.—in the three quarters of 1814, 428,000 l. The expense of the remaining quarter could not be at the same rate as the three first; taking it to be 70,000 l. or 1–4th of the former year, it would make 498,000 l. The recognized expenditure, 256,000 l, being deducted from this gave a remainder of 242,000 l. to the excess of the last year. But he would ask even the right hon. gentleman, was there not an obvious interpretation of this excess? From the most accurate estimate which had been made out, an expense of 132,000 l. had arisen from the presence of the Royal Visitors; so that deducting this from the exceeding in the expense of the three last quarters, there would remain about 90,000 l. as the extra expense of the Sovereign. From this was to be taken also 15 or 20,000 l. for the establishment of the Princess Charlotte, and about 13 or 14,000 l. for plate to foreign ambassadors, which would reduce the sum of 90,000 l. to 60,000 l. If to this were added the excess of the two former years, one

209]
of 12,000 l. the other of 23,000 l. it would be seen that the excess in all the three years was from 80,000 l. to 90,000 l. Now, he should show that the Prince Regent had not in reality incurred any excess, but that the public had been benefited by his conduct. During the time that the Prince Regent held the restricted regency be had not received any thing from parliament, though he had incurred great expenses; but when he assumed the unrestricted regency, he applied half his revenue as Prince of Wales to the payment of those debts which he had contracted as an individual; after the liquidation of the debts, the revenue would revert to the public. The sum of 100,000 l. had been granted to his Royal Highness for outfit. This sum, however, his Royal Highness applied to the liquidation in part of his debts, so that the revenue of 60,000 l. would revert to the public a year and three-quarters before it otherwise would have done. If this sum was placed in the account, as it had been made use of for the public benefit, it would be found that there had, instead of an excess, been a falling-off in expense. Thus, all that part of the right hon. gentleman's argument fell to the ground; for if that sum of 100,000 l. had been applied to the purchase of plate, &c. the expense would have fallen within the recognised estimate. An unfair advantage had been taken of the name of 'cottage,' to raise a prejudice against the expense which had been incurred in the erection of a residence for his Royal Highness near Windsor: but when it was considered that the sum of 17,000 l. for furnishing this house was the only sum which had been incurred for a country residence for the person exercising the supreme government of the country, the smallness, rather than the magnitude of it, would be subject of wonder. How much more would have been the expense of fitting up Hampton Court, if the Prince Regent had chosen to reside there! How great the inconvenience to the numerous families who would have been displaced! The cottage, as it was called, afforded a residence for his Royal Highness and his suite, with the advantage of proximity to his family at Windsor. The statement of the right hon. gentleman had been extremely exaggerated, perhaps from his not having known the circumstance of the application of the 100,000 l.; but he had also made an assertion which was the
[210
reverse of the fact, namely, that the expenditure of the Crown in this country was infinitely greater than that of any other country. To refute this assertion he should only mention the Civil List of one million sterling, which had been granted to Louis the 18th, solely to maintain the dignity of the Crown: while the Prince Regent had only the disposal of a privy purse, of which all, except 28,000 l. a year, was regularly paid in stated pensions. A detail of his other expenditure had been also presented, in which every sum above 500 l. was specified; and yet it was asked that a species of inquiry, never before applied to the subject, should be extended to it. The right hon. gentleman should also have mentioned a most material circumstance, viz.—that there was a warrant of the Prince Regent's before the committee which provided that very remedy which the right hon. gentleman recommended, and which enjoined—1. That estimates should be made out of the expense of the Lord Chamberlain's department as formerly—2. That no goods should be furnished by the tradesmen of the Royal Family but on an order from a responsible officer, which was to be necessary as a voucher for the debt—and 3, That when the orders amounted to 1,000 l. above the estimates, supplemental estimates should be made out,—[Mr. Tierney here observed, that no such warrant is before the committee.]—If the warrant was not now before the committee, it would be in a day or two. This system would provide all the checks which the right hon. gentleman recommended. The noble lord contended that the statements of Messrs. Mash and Calvert were perfectly consistent; and observed that the right hon. gentleman had gone into the committee, not with a view to gain information, but to try whether he could contrive to make out some case upon which he might rest an appeal to that House to reverse its decision of a former evening. Such a case, however, the right hon. gentleman had failed to make out; and therefore he trusted the House would adhere to its former decision.
The Earl of Yarmouth, adverting to the observation of the right hon. mover, as to the Prince Regent's display of plate in 1811, stated that but a very small part of that plate belonged to his Royal Highness; and he would ask any gentleman in that House, or in the country, whether, when

211]
the Allied Sovereigns visited this country, he could endure to see the royal table furnished with plate borrowed from the silversmiths of London, or from the duke of Devonshire, or other private friends of the Prince Regent. On such a distinguished occasion it was surely due to the splendour of the Crown, that the Regent should be supplied with a suitable service of plate for the entertainment of his illustrious guests. The right hon. mover had asked what was become of the King's plate? The noble earl said, he understood that it was distributed among the members of the Royal Family; but this plate, being the property of the public, might of course be re-demanded. With regard to the other points alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, he could not pretend to speak upon that with which he had no concern—with which, indeed, he was in no degree conversant.
Mr. Wynnanimadverted strongly upon the appropriation of the 100,000 l. alluded to by the noble lord (Castlereagh), to a purpose quite different from that for which it was voted by Parliament. The hon. gentleman read the provision of the Act, viz. that 100,000 l. should be granted to his Majesty, in order to defray the expenses incident to the assumption of the royal functions by his royal highness the Prince Regent. Who, then, he would ask, had been bold enough to advise a dispensation with this law, by directing such a contravention of its letter and object as the noble lord had stated, and stated, too, in the way of panegyric? With respect to the motion before the House, he thought it impossible to come at the truth in a case of this nature by any other means than through the examination of vivâ voce evidence. Indeed, if it were not for such examination, that inquisitorial power through which committees of that House had been able to trace such enormous abuses in various departments, would become utterly nugatory. The noble lord had said, that to grant this motion would be an innovation upon the constitution. This was a doctrine which had never been very boldly brought forward, and gentlemen in inferior departments had generally been put forward to make the assertion. For four hundred years these inquiries had been exercised by the House; and, in 1780, a majority had declared, that it had a right to examine into the abuses of the Civil List, as well as into all other departments.
[212
The House should give greater powers to the present committee, in order to render their labours more effectual than on former occasions. None of the articles removed had been accounted for, and the House were justified in presuming that there had been an abuse. The committee should, therefore, be enabled to examine persons vivâ voce, for it was by such means only that the abuses in the Navy had been detected.
Mr. Roseobserved, that although nine or ten applications had been made to the House since the Civil List was established, in order to obtain the discharge of its arrears, no such proposition as the present was ever brought forward. In all former applications respecting the Civil List, accounts had been furnished, but in such a way as to throw no light whatever on the subject. [Hear, hear!] At present very minute details had been given, and every one who looked at them might judge of the state of the Civil List without examining witnesses vivâ voce.
Mr. Thomas Courtenayconceived that he was the member whose former opinions had been alluded to by Mr. Wynn. He had not denied the right of the House in regard to the Civil List; but he had stated, and he would state again, that from the period of the settlement of the Civil List upon its present footing, a few years after the Revolution, no such motion as that made by the right hon. gentleman had ever been agreed to, or even been proposed to the House; although there had been many hostile motions in regard to the Civil List. It was very true, that the House had, in the year 1780, resolved, that it had a right to correct abuses in the Civil List; but there were many branches of the Civil List besides those connected with the King's household, and a distinction of this nature had, at the time, been taken by sir Fletcher Norton. He would not now argue as to the effect of the statement which he had made; but being called upon by the hon. and learned gentleman, he could not forbear from repeating it; and he could assure the hon. and learned gentleman that he was quite mistaken in supposing that he had been on the former occasions "put forward" by ministers to make statements of this nature; they were the result of his own research; and he could not yield in this respect to the hon. and learned gentleman.
Mr. Mooremaintained, that every

213]
advance to any department of the state was constitutionally subject to the audit of the public, with a few exceptions, to which the head of expenditure, alluded to in the motion, did certainly not belong.
Mr. Longstated, that the furniture provided for the accommodation of the Allied Sovereigns, and upon which the right hon. mover had so much animadverted, had been thus disposed of: part had been sent to Cumberland Lodge, and the remainder was lodged in proper stores, to be reserved for other purposes. With regard to the motion, he thought it a mere shifting of ground on the part of the right hon. gentleman. What on a former evening he moved for generally, he now proposed with respect to a particular person. But if the right hon. gentleman's proposition were acceded to, he no doubt meant to move also for the examination of other persons [Mr. Tierney nodded assent]. That being the case, he called upon the House to withstand the principle of the motion; which principle, if adopted, was but too likely to be acted upon hereafter, in a manner not so much calculated to promote public good as to gratify private pique.
Mr. Tierney, in reply, observed, that the last speaker argued the question fairly and manfully, for he had laid down the broad principle that it was not to be admitted that any evidence should ever be examined as to the situation of the Civil List. Thus the right hon. gentleman would provide effectually against every prying person disposed to meddle with that subject. But then on the other hand if no such examination were allowed, did it not afford an encouragement to the Crown to contract debts, and to indulge in extravagance? For there could be no control if there were no power of inquiry; and inquiry must be useless, if no information was to be obtained upon which any reliance could be placed. As to the danger which some gentlemen professed to apprehend of improper scrutiny, if the power he required were granted to the committee, he would ask, whether such an apprehension could be seriously entertained by any man who looked at the members of that committee, who looked at the eight right hon. gentlemen about the Treasury-bench, all drawn up in battle array to guard the Crown against any indiscreet inquirers in the committee? The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had observed, that if he (Mr. T.) were on the
[214
committee of 1812, he would have understood the statement of Mr. Mash; and yet the right hon. gentleman himself, who was on that committee, did not understand that statement, as appeared from the note recently sent to Mr. Mash, to obtain an explanation. As to the furniture which cost 35,000 l. he would ask, why part of it was sent to Cumberland-lodge, and who was there to use it? He would also ask, why the remainder was placed in stores—where, and by whose order? These were questions which, among others, he wished to put to Mr. Mash, and therefore he was anxious to arm the committee with power to send for that evidence.—He contended he had made out a good and sufficient case in the Lord Chamberlain's department; and, if he were permitted, perhaps he could make out as good a one in the Lord Steward's and the Master of the Horse. He hoped, however, he had convinced the House, that there ought to be a vivâ voce examination. The noble lord had said that he was sure he (Mr. Tierney) would not be so unjust as to compare the present expenditure of the Civil List with that in 1804. He certainly would not: but the noble lord had done that which he expected would be done; he had told the House that in 1812 Parliament sanctioned an exceeding of 124,000 l. If, however, there was one person who on that occasion raised his voice louder than another, to caution Parliament against the step it was taking, he believed it was himself. With the help of that 124,000 l. the noble lord had reduced the excess to 90,000 l., though he (Mr. Tierney) was at a loss to comprehend the process by which he did it. However, he would not dispute the noble lord's figures; they should be all right if he pleased; but, at the same time, the noble lord had not impugned any of his (Mr. T.'s) figures; and a more monstrous case of court extravagance had never, in his opinion, been brought before Parliament. The noble lord had talked about the debts of the Prince Regent. Why had they not been manfully and fairly brought before Parliament? In which case he, for one, however reluctantly, but considering that they must ultimately be liquidated, would have been willing to have them paid. At present they were no more paid out of the Prince Regent's money than they were out of his (Mr. Tierney's); for the allowance which was consecrated to their

215]
discharge, in point of fact, ceased and determined from the moment he assumed the functions of Regent. These debts, therefore, were an incumbrance to the country to their whole amount, because, were it not for them, the funds now appropriated to their discharge would have been set free, and have returned into the general revenue of the country. The points he had pressed were by no means answered. Those points were, first, what had been the superintendance exercised over the expenditure of the Civil List; and, second, what estimates had been prepared by which its future expenditure might be fixed and determined? It appeared that no superintendence at all had been exercised hitherto, though the noble lord had given them to understand that now it would begin, and therefore he could not deny that he (Mr. Tierney) had done a little good; for if he had never agitated the question, they would have heard nothing of the warrant mentioned by the noble lord. What was the date of that warrant? And might not the warrant which was granted to-day be revoked to-morrow? What he wanted was, thorough and satisfactory examination; and to oppose that examination one reason or another would always be found, unless Parliament took it into its own hands. It was surely too much to tell the country that no inquiry should be granted into the debts contracted by the Court, when by the operation of the Property-tax, the private affairs of every man in the kingdom was liable to be examined into. He should not trouble the House further, but sit down, in the hope that he had shown enough to convince it of the necessity of inquiry.
The House then divided:

For the Motion

119

Against it

175

Majority against it

—

56

List of the Minority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.

Boughey, sir J.

Althorpe, lord

Byng, G.

Anson, hon. gen.

Buller, Jas.

Atherley, A.

Bankes, H.

Aubrey, sir J.

Beach, M. H.

Acland, sir T.

Beach, W. H.

Barham, J. F.

Blackburn, J.

Bernard, lord

Burdett, sir F.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Babington, T.

Bewicke, C.

Butterworth, Jos.

Birch, J.

Calvert, Ch.

Burrell, hon. P. R. D.

Calvert, N.

Burrell, sir C.

Campbell, hon. J.

[216

Campbell, gen. D.

Martin, H.

Cavendish, lord C.

Martin, J.

Cavendish, H.

Milton, lord

Chaloner, R.

Monck, sir C.

Cocks, hon. J.

Moore, P.

Cocks, J.

Morpeth, lord

Carew, R. S.

Morritt, B. S.

Coke, T. W.

Mostyn, sir Thos.

Dickenson, W.

Molyneux, H.

Dundas, Ch.

Newman, R. W.

Duncannon, lord

Newport, sir J.

Dundas, hon. L.

O'Hara, Chas.

Elliot, right hon. W.

Parnell, sir H.

Ellison, C.

Pelham, hon. C.

Finlay, K.

Philips, G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Prittie, hon. F. A.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Plumer, Wm.

Foley, hon. A.

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

Foley, Tho.

Pym, F.

Frankland, W.

Plunkett, rt. hon. W.

Fremantle, W.

Proby, lord

Fane, J.

Protheroe, E.

Fellowes, W. H.

Russell, lord W.

Gordon, R.

Ramsden, J. C.

Grant, J. P.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Grattan, right hon. H.

Romilly, sir S.

Grenfell, P.

Rowley, sir W.

Guise, sir W.

Sebright, sir J.

Geary, sir W.

Scudamore, R. P.

Hammersley, H.

Smith, J.

Horner, F.

Smith, R.

Hanbury, Wm.

Smith, W.

Halsey, J.

Smyth, J. H.

Hamilton, lord A.

Stanley, lord

Heron, sir R.

Speirs, Arch.

Hornby, E.

Tavistock, marq.

Howorth, H.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Keck, G. A. L.

Tremayne, J. H.

Langton, W. G.

Whitbread, S.

Latouche, R.

Walpole, hon. G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Western, C. C.

Lemon, sir W.

Wharton, J.

Lewis, F.

Williams, Owen

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Warre, J. A.

Lloyd, sir E.

Wilberforce, W.

Lloyd, M.

TELLERS.

Methuen, Paul

Robert Greenhill.

Mackintosh, sir J.

C. W. Wynn.