WINDSOR ESTABLISHMENT.

HC Deb 25 February 1819 vol 39 cc664-707

Lord Castlereagh

moved the order of the day, for receiving the report on the Royal Establishments at Windsor. The report was brought up, read, and the first and second resolutions agreed to. On the third resolution being read, viz. "That the annual sum of 10,000l. be issued out of the civil list revenues to his royal highness the duke of York, to enable his Royal Highness to meet the expenses to which his Royal Highness may be exposed in discharge of the important duties confided to him by parliament, in the care of his majesty's person,"

Mr. Curwen

said, he was in hopes, in consequence of what took place in the House when this subject was last before them, that those who were in the confidence of his royal highness the duke of York, would have brought from him a disclaimer of his wish to take any allowance from the Civil List for the care of his royal father. This disclaimer would have given satisfaction, not only within these walls, but also elsewhere. It was impossible not to regret that his Royal Highness had not come to such a conclusion. He could not but consider it a matter of deep regret that his Royal Highness had made it a matter of more difficult}' and delicacy to take any allowance from the privy purse than from the people at large. He deprecated the necessity in which the House were placed of discussing this question. It was a satisfaction, however, to think, that what-ever opinion might be entertained respecting this grant, there was but one opinion in the House, that no economy which in the least trenched on the comforts and feelings of our aged monarch was to be countenanced. But it was impossible to connect this grant with the comforts of his majesty. For it was impossible to think that his Royal Highness could be influenced in his attentions to his aged and afflicted parent, by any sum of money which it was in the power of the House to give. Every thing that kindness and attention Could possibly do for an aged monarch, the House were sure would be done by his Royal Highness, without being influenced by any allowance whatever. He did not wish to introduce the other offices held by his Royal Highness into this discussion, with which they had, properly speaking, nothing to do. With respect to the important office, the duties of which his Royal Highness now discharged, though he was one of those who had formerly expressed themselves against his Royal Highness filling that office, he was bound to say, that since his return to it, his administration of the office had been beneficial to the country at large. But, well as the duties of the office of commander in chief were discharged by his Royal Highness, it was impossible for him not to see that this was an office of a new and peculiar description, though under all the circumstances of the times, he was the last man in the country who would be willing to dispense with at present. But he could not avoid perceiving that the various salaries and allowances enjoyed by his Royal Highness for the offices filled by him, made his income equal to about 60,000l. a year; and under these circumstances he could not conceive he could be in any want of income. Besides, if his Royal Highness received so much from the country, the country in return had some right to expect some sacrifice from his Royal Highness. The House had been told that this allowance was to enable his Royal Highness to meet the expenses to which he would be exposed in his new office. But what, he would ask, were the expenses which were incidental to the office? He knew of no expenses, but those of posting from London to Windsor for which expenses 500l. a year would be amply sufficient—and he should consider it an insult to offer this sum to his royal Highness. What other expenses could he possibly be put to? He could not conceive that his Royal Highness could be put to any expenses beyond that of so small a sum as his Royal Highness would not be disposed to make an addition to the burthens of the country. At a time when there was not a man in the House who did not feel the necessity of a most rigorous economy in every department of our expenditure, he could not see how his Royal Highness, with the liberal allowances which he at present derived from the country, could think of making the trifling expenses to which he might be put in discharging the duties of this office, a pretext for obtaining an additional grant of 10,000l. from the country. The noble lord (Castlereagh) had told them, that the House were disposed to deal harder with the royal family, with respect to any grants of money, than with any other individuals. But how could it escape the noble lord with all his penetration, what were the feelings which dictated the votes of last session in the case of the royal dukes. If the House were narrow and rather niggardly to the royal dukes, as he was willing to think in some respects they were, what did it proceed from but this.— Every man who loved the monarchy of this country, thought in the distressed state of the people any addition to their burthens might have the effect of lowering the royal family in the affections of the people. This was a strong mark of the regard of the House for the monarchy—and he said this with a full knowledge of what was then the temper of the House and the country. They wished not to hazard the monarchy by the grant of any one sum, to any branch of the royal family, that could possibly be avoided. After all that had taken place, he could not help viewing it as a circumstance of deep regret that the present grant was again brought before the House. He, for one, would not consent to give a single shilling to his Royal Highness; for he was convinced, that the duties of the office would be equally well exercised without charging one shilling on the public, as if 10,000l. a year were given. He should therefore take the sense of the House on this resolution.

Mr. Robinson

entirely concurred with the hon. gentleman who had spoken last, as to the propriety of keeping out of view, in the present discussion, the duties which his royal highness the duke of York discharged with so much advantage to the country, in his capacity of commander-in-chief; but if it was proper to keep out of view the advantages which the country derived from the services of his royal highness, the House were equally bound to keep out of consideration the salaries which his royal highness received in return for those services. It was not a fit subject for their consideration in the present discussion, what were the emoluments derived by his royal highness from the country, either as a member of the royal family, or in his capacity of commander-in-chief. The question for the consideration of the House now was, if the situation which had been devolved on his royal highness by parliament did not call on him to perform new duties of a perfectly different description from those of his other offices, and if by this office new duties had devolved on his royal highness, whether it would not be quite anomalous that he should receive no salary, because he already, received a salary for the discharge of duties of a perfectly different description? It had been said, that his royal highness ought, in the present situation of the country, to make some sacrifice. There was no man more willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the country than his royal highness, and there could not be a better proof of this than that his royal highness, at this very moment, was discharging the duties of custos of his majesty's person, without knowing what the determination of parliament might be with respect to it. The hon. gentleman seemed to complain of ministers for bringing this question unnecessarily forward, particularly when they considered the disposition shown by the House in the votes of last year, to the royal dukes. But the objection, of last year was not to the principle of the grants to their royal, highnesses, but to the amount of the sums asked; whereas, the objection to the present was not, to the amount of the sum asked, but to the principle. The difference between the circumstances of the case of last year, and the, present was this—that the House, were called on last year to vote certain sums to the royal dukes, not for any duty which they were called on to discharge by parliament; whereas parliament were now called on to affix a salary to an office, comprehending duties of the greatest weight, which office the House had imposed the necessity of accepting on his royal highness the duke of York. Parliament had seen fit to appoint him custos of the royal person—they felt that this was an office of the greatest importance, not with, reference to the comfort and feelings; of the king only, but also with reference to the public good—they agreed that this was an office, which involved the most, important functions, more particularly with reference to the return of the king to the exercise of the royal authority. If it was objected, that at the present moment there was little prospect of his majesty's recovery, he agreed that such recovery was highly improbable; but this did not affect the principle on which the House ought to proceed in the regulation of such an office. They had to look at the present case as a precedent for future times, and as regulating in what manner the duties of a custos were to be discharged. There was no analogy whatever between the circumstances of the grants of last year and the present case. It was impossible that his majesty's ministers should not have felt, that as all cases where grants were asked for any member of the royal family, or any individual connected with administration, were certain to be objected to, so in like manner objections would be stated to this. But it was their duty to consider what the nature of the office was, and what had been given to the preceding custos; and they would have abandoned a principle if they had not submitted this proposition to the consideration of the House. The House would of course deal with this question as they pleased; but, after the general admission, that it was proper some remuneration ought to be granted to his royal highness for the duties which he was called on to discharge; he thought that 10,000l. was a very moderate allowance for these duties; and after the decision, that this allowance ought not to be paid out of the privy purse—he did not see upon what principle it could now be maintained that his royal highness ought not to receive any allowance whatever. Every sound view of policy and justice, therefore, ought to induce them not to agree with the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Denman

said, that it was with unaffected diffidence he offered himself to the attention of the House, at a time when he was aware there must be so many persons of rank and consideration desirous of stating their sentiments on this most important subject. He should perhaps be thought to stand the more in need of the indulgence of the House, as it was not his intention to enter into any of the legal points of the case. If the arguments on that part of the question urged by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) on the floor had, failed to convince the House, he (Mr. Denman) had not the presumption to suppose, that any thing he could say would have that effect. With a perspicuity and candour which proved that he was convinced of the truth of the doctrine he maintained, his hon. and learned friend, the solicitor general, had endeavoured to combat those arguments, but most unsuccessfully. After so full and able a discussion, it was in his opinion ║ impossible, that any thing could be added to alter the opinion of any one member of the House on the subject. But when the right hon. the president of the board of Trade told the House that, in consequence of their decision, that no grant to his royal highness the duke of York should be charged on the privy purse, they were therefore bound to charge one on the public purse, he (Mr. Denman) answered, that the question was still as much open as if that vote had never passed—whether the House would consent to any allowance, from what fund so ever, to his Royal Highness, for the discharge of the duties of the office of guardian of his royal father.

Notwithstanding the decision after the late debate, by which the majority of the House expressed their opinion that the privy purse was private property, he could not help thinking that many of the members who voted for the affirmative of that proposition, felt considerable hesitation with respect to the law on the subject; for if, indeed, the question was so clear, so self-evident, that it required a sort of perverse ingenuity to raise any doubt upon it, he was utterly at a loss to conceive what could have induced the noble lord to use language so extraordinary—language, unprecedented, perhaps, within the walls of that House—and to endeavour to intimidate those who ought to vote agreeably to the unbiassed dictates of their conscience, by telling them they would cover themselves with infamy if they differed from him in the construction of the act of parliament in question. Nor could he believe the proposition to be so indisputably clear as it was described, when he heard the right hon. member for the university of Oxford displaying so much studied eloquence, so much prepared rhetoric, so much consummate skill, in order to seduce and captivate the House, in a speech which resembled the appeal of an able and experienced advocate to the passions of a jury for the purpose of obtaining a verdict for his client, rather than a calm and liberal address to a British House of Commons, on a subject of grave constitutional policy. Nay, he was strongly persuaded, that his royal highness the Duke of York himself was convinced, that parliament were not, on any principle of law or right, debarred from drawing on the privy purse—that, having drawn on it once, they might draw on it again; and that the privy purse was liable to all the charges with which parliament might think fit to burthen it. Unless that was his Royal Highness's conviction, what were the House to think of the message which had been communicated to them from his Royal Highness? What interpretation could be given to it but this: "I warn you not to commit a robbery; but, if you do commit a robbery, I will at all events not be an accomplice in the crime?" It was impossible that such a construction ought to be put on his Royal Highness's message; the meaning of which evidently was, "I am aware that you have a right to charge this sum upon the privy purse, although, as a matter of personal delicacy, I cannot take it from that source," In that view, and in that view-alone, could the message from his Royal Highness be considered a proper one to that House; although the right hon. member for Oxford had gone a great deal further, and had argued the question on very different grounds. That right hon. gentleman had thought it necessary to take a very extensive view of all the acts of parliament connected with the subject, for the purpose of producing a powerful impression on the feelings of the House. He had performed a kind of sentimental journey through the money bills; and had discovered that the preamble of the first act in the present reign making a settlement of revenue on his majesty (although the usual preamble on such occasions) was one of the most beautiful, classical, and affecting compositions that ever emanated from a public assembly. He (Mr. Denman) was not prepared to deny, that even in the most prosperous times, there was something very interesting in the sacrifices made by a great and liberal people to the splendor of the family who ruled over them. The spectacle was still more affecting of a people labouring under the burthens of a long and expensive war, and oppressed with an enormous and almost intolerable taxation, pressing forward with the strongest feelings of loyalty to lay their hard earnings at the foot of the throne. But it was surely a little cruel, that because the people of England, losing sight of every thing but their affection for the Crown, had for sixty years exhibited towards the royal family the utmost munificence, they should therefore be considered bound to go still further; that their expressions of attachment should be converted into claims upon their purse; and that, at a time when they were nearly overwhelmed with their difficulties, they should be expected to submit to an increase of their burthens for the purpose of inducing a son to perform the most sacred of all duties to an aged parent. The right hon. member for the university of Oxford had talked of the interesting terms in which a particular preamble was conceived; but how different a preamble must be devised, if the present proposition should be carried into effect: "Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God to visit his majesty with severe indisposition; forasmuch as his royal highness the duke of York has been appointed to the care of his majesty's person on account of the affection which he is known to entertain towards his royal parent; forasmuch as on former occasions parliament have voted large sums of money to the royal family in testimony of their loyalty and attachment; of which as his Royal Highness himself now receives 60,000l. a-year from the taxes; and whereas the people are already oppressed with burthens beyond their bearing,—it is therefore expedient, and be it enacted, that a further drain should be made on the people for the purpose of granting to his Royal Highness an additional allowance of 10,000l. a-year to induce his Royal Highness to act that part towards an aged and afflicted parent of which duty and the ties of nature demand the voluntary performance at his hands." In fact, what were the duties which his Royal Highness was called upon to discharge? Was there one which his relation as son to a parent did not impose upon him? It was said that he should receive a salary for the anxiety, responsibility, and expense entailed on him by the proposed office. Was such anxiety the subject of pecuniary compensation? The real responsibility rested with others; and the expense was so trifling, that it was almost an insult to his Royal Highness to give it a moment's consideration.

The only argument which had been advanced in favour of the proposed grant was, that when the office was first established in 1812, a similar grant had been voted to her majesty the queen. To this he could only say, that in his opinion his right hon. friend near him had done himself the highest honour, and had evinced the accustomed superiority of his judgment, by opposing the grant in 1812. The House too, had, he believed, agreed to grant that sum in 1812, not on any general ground of its propriety, but on account of the peculiar circumstances of her majesty's situation. It was also to be considered, that the country was at that period engaged in an expensive war which was carried on by the most extraordinary exertions, and that it was forced to lay out such heavy sums every day, that 10,000l. was felt to be mere dust in the balance, compared with them. But that career of expense was at an end; the reckoning was on the table; and it was the duty of parliament not only to see that that reckoning was paid, but also to try whether the losses of the country could not be repaired by economy. Now was the time for the House vigilantly to exercise its duty as guardian of the public purse, and to take care that not the slightest unnecessary charge should be laid on the people.

The House were told, that the new duties imposed on his Royal Highness were of a high and constitutional nature. It was somewhat singular, that they had never heard of those high and important duties before. No man ever thought that her majesty was performing the duties of a great and laborious and constitutional office when the care of the king was entrusted to her. It might be necessary to use great caution in the selection of persons for the administration of that office, and to see that its duties were properly discharged; but the office itself was not a constitutional one, but one of affection; its duties were those which a wife would naturally wish to perform towards a husband—they were those which a son would naturally wish to perform towards a father. But the House were told of the council which it would be necessary for his Royal Highness to consult in his office of custos (Why the word "custos" was used on the occasion he knew not, unless it was for the purpose of concealing a false character under a learned name; guardian was a more intelligible term; and quite as expressive). If that argument were good for any thing, it went to show that the council ought to be paid—not his Royal Highness. The office was not of a constitutional, but of a domestic character, and ought above all others to have been kept sacred from the contamination of a salary. If parliament had once been betrayed into the grant of a salary for that office, when it was proposed to devolve it on another person, that did not constitute an adequate reason for continuing so unjustifiable an expenditure of the public money. The present was not a time favourable for perseverance in profusion. So far from there being any inconsistency in the conduct of the House in refusing the proposed grant, it appeared to him that the question, whether the money should be granted or not, was peculiarly open at that time. The former question was confined to the privy purse, and he agreed with the noble lord (lord Compton), that any man who doubted the right of imposing the burden on that purse, was justified in not voting for the motion of his right hon. friend. If any honourable member thought the privy purse was private property, that might be a very good reason for his refusal to assent to the motion of his right hon. friend, but it would not justify him in throwing the burden on the people. With regard to the question of the privy purse, the noble lord had gained his object. The present question did not risk that spoliation of private property, that robbery of our afflicted monarch, of which so much had been said. It was no longer necessary to call on the House to resist the attempts at depredation of an infamous minority, contemptible in numbers, rank, property, and talent, and so lost to character, as to have no interest in upholding the principles which bound society together, and to be ready to trample on all the laws of property for the sake of the most trifling advantage—ready, without the slightest remorse, to commit a violation on private property for the sake of 10,000l. a year!

There would therefore be no inconsistency in voting with the noble lord on the former occasion, and resisting the present proposition. But let not hon. members flatter themselves that this would be the best mode of obtaining popularity. He firmly believed, with the hon. member for Bristol, that it was unpopular to oppose the grant of so trifling a sum to a member of the royal family, and that those who would buy popularity at the expense of principle, would act wisely by speaking in favour of such grants. He was persuaded that no measure was more likely to acquire to those who supported it, vulgar popularity—the favour of the mob—than a grant of money to the royal family. He thought the hon. member for Galway perfectly correct, when he said, that if the proposition were made to the mob before the hustings at Covent-garden, they would at once grant the money to his Royal Highness. There were no measures better calculated for the attainment of vulgar popularity, than resistance to the Catholic claims (the cry against which had once been so successful), and grants of money to the royal family; and no honourable member, whose object was that kind of popularity, could speculate better than by exciting clamour against those who refused, trifling grants to the royal family, and those who were anxious to promote the cause of Catholic emancipation. The determination of the minority in that House on the present occasion, might perhaps bring down an additional cloud of unpopularity on the heads of the Whigs. That, however, was a matter of comparatively little consequence. The path of duty was straight and obvious.

Though 10,000l. might be termed a trifling sum, hardly worth debating about, yet no sum could justly be considered as trifling, which the chancellor of the exchequer would find the utmost difficulty in raising by taxation. It should be remembered that the revenue of last year fell short of the expenditure by fourteen millions. It was a subject of congratulation, that the prosperous state of the country was in some respects returning, and some reductions had certainly taken place; but could any man expect the combined operation of growing prosperity and increased economy to diminish-that deficiency by one half? And if the expenditure was to exceed the revenue by seven millions, what a condition was that for the country to be in after five years of peace! But even were the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer to tell the House that the revenue was equal to all the demands upon it, this question would then force itself upon them—"What are the taxes which ought to be abandoned?" He was sure there was not an honourable gentleman who heard him that would not allow there were many taxes, the continued existence of which was a disgrace to the legislature, and which ought therefore to be repealed at the very first possible moment. Such were the ad valorem stamp duties, the legacy duties, &c. which began with the war, and ought to have ceased with it, and which were directly hostile to the industry and commerce of the nation. It was true the sum was comparatively small; but when there was the least prospect or means of enforcing the principle of economy, it ought to be resolutely maintained. Economy must be enforced in many other instances, in order to render it availing; but if the House yielded the principle in one case, they would increase the difficulty of adhering to it in every other. Instead of entering the House with high and heroic professions of loyalty, the proposers of this measure ought to be aware that the subject was one of a much more sombre cast. While parliament was discussing grants of thousands to royal dukes, the questions without doors were, "How many more paupers must be consigned to our workhouses—how much more of misery and crime must exist—in what degree must we add to the contamination of our crouded gaols?" It was for the House of Commons to set their face against the proposal, and make a firm and constitutional stand against every invasion of the great principle of economy. Allusion had naturally been made, in the course of the debate, to what the feelings of his majesty would have been, could he have anticipated the present circumstances. He could not help thinking that if, in the days of his health, the venerable monarch had foreseen his country's glory, and the enormous sacrifices by which that glory had been acquired—if he had foreseen the burthens, the triumphs, and the fame of the country over which he had ruled so long—he could not help thinking that his language would have been— "For myself and my family, whom you have provided for so liberally, whom you have treated so munificently, I can take nothing; but for God's sake spare my people, spare those who have done and suffered so much for me: they deserve it for their noble conduct in the war that is concluded, and they require it, that they may not be disabled from meeting fresh difficulties if they arise, and making all exertions that may be necessary for the glory and independence of the country." Such would have been the sentiments of our patriotic king; such must be the sentiments of those who exercised the sovereign power in his name and on his behalf; and of all the members of his illustrious family. The royal duke in particular, for whom the present grant is proposed, if left to his own magnanimous reflections, would have consulted his feelings and character by a communication the very reverse of that which had been made from him: he would have declared, "It is for Parliament to explain and decide upon their own acts; and if they shall determine that the privy purse is not liable to pay what money they may be disposed to grant, at least let not the public burdens be increased for me." Such sentiments he in his soul believed would have been the rule of conduct in the quarter he alluded to, had not his Royal Highness been deluded by the strange and inflated statements made in that House respecting the flourishing state of the country, which it was impossible to hear without astonishment and disgust. The House ought no longer to be deceived. If they were to go on, piling expense on expense in a time of peace, the consequences must be fatal to the country. It was the duty of the House of Commons to act with firmness on the occasion, the first which had arisen for bringing to a test the sincerity of their professions of economy. To agree to the proposed grant would be disgraceful to them, and a matter of reproach to the royal duke who was the object of it. To refuse it would be to sustain their character with the nation, and to protect even the royal family itself from the effects of the extravagance of the present administration.

Mr. Peel

, as he had been very pointedly alluded to by the hon. and learned member who had just sat down, begged to be indulged with a very few words, in notice of the hon. and learned gentleman's extemporaneous effusion. The hon. and learned member, however, must recollect that it was not every one who had the advantage of three days to make a reply. The hon. and learned gentleman quarrelled with his reference to the acts of parliament on this subject, and had talked of his making a sort of sentimental journey through the statute book. Now, he could only say, that if it was to be called a journey, it was one which he had made in company with some of the hon. and learned member's friends, to whom he referred him as having led the way. But it seemed that even the hon. and learned member himself had not thought the journey unpleasant, as he had gone some part of the same way and treated the House with a preamble of his own.

A Member, whose name we could not learn, said, that the privy purse had appeared to him to be the proper source from which to take this grant, and therefore he had supported the amendment on a former night. But he had never doubted the propriety of granting the sum itself, and therefore he should now support the resolution. The House had no right to call upon any individual, in any station of life, to perform a duty without assigning an adequate remuneration; and he felt that he could be charged with no inconsistency in supporting the grant on the present occasion, although he had voted on the previous night that it should be taken from the privy purse. If he had gained any popularity by the former vote, he might now lose it; but he was careless as to the consequences while he acted according to the dictates of his reason and conscience. He allowed, that in the present state of the country, every farthing that could be saved ought to be saved; but would any man assert that a great reduction had not been made in the expenditure, so as to enable the country easily to sustain this small additional burthen? The sum of 10,000l. could not be considered an extravagant grant; either that sum should be given or nothing.

Mr. Martin,

of Galway, said, he had but one sentence to utter in explanation; if he made it two, it would be one too much. He begged to state, that, in the committee he had not said that he would leave the vote to the decision of the rabble at Covent-garden; he stated that he would address himself to the population of England and Ireland from the hustings; he did not mean the mob—he meant the nobility, not the mobility—the nobility and gentry of the cities of London and Westminster, as a fair specimen of the rank and property of the united kingdom. He would scorn to address the rabble— the ragged rabble. If new duties were cast upon the duke of York, was it fair to expect that he should discharge them for nothing? Ought the House to permit him to discharge them for nothing? He would put a case to the hon. and learned gentleman. Suppose he were to find, on searching some musty record, that he was heir to a peerage, and wished to have his claim asserted by counsel, would not all his learned friends reply, "Oh! my dear sir, we can take no fee from you?" And would not the hon. and learned gentleman reply, "Oh! my dear sir, but you must, for I can very well afford to pay it?' He would insist upon paying all that could be expected. This was exactly similar to the case of the duke of York. The country could afford to pay the 10,000l., and on the part of his constituents he freely gave it.

Mr. Bernal

said, that without any anxiety to catch at the favour of the populace, he felt justly solicitous to earn that favourable opinion of the public which was generally the reward of a conscientious performance of public duty. The question before the House was one on which he thought the people had come to a decision very different from what an hon. member imagined. It was not a question of the pounds, shillings, or pence in the grant, but whether the principle of economy, which the House professed, was merely to be embraced in theory, and to be rejected in every instance that it was to be applied to practice. They now heard, for the first time, that this sum of 10,000l. was to be considered as the salary of the new office of custos personœ. By referring to the 52nd of the king they would see in the preamble, that a similar sum was granted to the queen, not as a reward for duties to be performed, but to meet increased expenses to which she would be exposed. They had not now heard it attempted to be proved, what new expenses were thrown upon the duke of York, and the grant was defended as a salary. The right hon. gentleman and others who had supported the amendment on the former night, by proposing to take the sum of 10,000l. a year from the privy purse, had not precluded themselves from opposing the grant it they were driven to do so. They naturally wished to avoid putting the duke of York in the situation of a claimant for a paltry sum from the public, by granting him a remuneration out of a fund which might. without injustice have been so applied. But if he had been so ill-advised as to reject a grant from that source, the House was bound to do its duty. As a representative, not of the city he had the honour to sit for, but of the whole kingdom, he declared that he should not think he had done his duty, if he did not reject the grant which, if carried, would weaken the best cement of the throne—the confidence of a thinking and powerful nation.

Mr. R. B. Cooper

said, that the House had not met for the purpose of imposing burthens on the people, but rather to consider in what manner a part of the funds put at their disposal by the death of her majesty might be applied. They had before determined that the privy purse was not the fund from which the custos should be remunerated: they were now called upon to decide whether he should be remunerated at all. He could not help feeling that the most ample provision should be made for this and the other parts of the Windsor establishment. When they considered his majesty as a man aged, afflicted, destitute, they would wish him to be surrounded with every comfort —when they considered him as their king, they would wish him to continue invested with dignity and splendor—but when they reflected also that he was an excellent man and an excellent king, that his reign had been marked with glory, and his life illustrated by the practice of every virtue, they should not withhold from him a tribute of the affections of a loyal and grateful people. He therefore hoped that the motion of which an hon. member had given notice, for restoring the two equerries, would be agreed to, and that his majesty would be surrounded by every testimony of their veneration, till he was removed to a higher and better kingdom.

Mr. J. Gordon

commenced a speech in support of the grant, by observing, that he would make no professions, because they were generally understood to mean nothing; but the hon. gentleman spoke in so low a tone, that we could catch only fragments of sentences. We understood him to say, that he thought the sum reasonable on account of the magnitude and importance of the duties of the custos.

Mr. W. Williams

hoped that the House would bear with him, while, for the first time, he offered a few observations to their notice. He could not entirely concur with any gentleman who had yet spoken. The question in no way depended upon the love and esteem the House bore for his majesty's person. He was well convinced that the nation would make any sacrifice if it could contribute to the personal comfort of their afflicted monarch, but it was most preposterous to argue that the grant of 10,000l. a year to the duke of York would in any way contribute to the king's personal comforts. Those who so contended, in fact asserted, that the duke of York would be more attentive to his aged and benighted parent in proportion to the amount he received for those attentions. This was an imputation that could not be merited: but, indeed, the whole discussion seemed calculated to lessen the respect of the people for the royal family placed over them. He could not agree, that by any act of parliament, much less by the 39th and 40th of the king, the privy purse had been made private and untangible property; if it were, what right had parliament, in 1812, to impose new burthens upon it? This answer was decisive. He was by no means disposed to concur in the report of the committee on the Windsor establishment: he highly disapproved of many parts of it, and he had read with disgust the minutiae inserted relating to the royal household. What had the nation to do with the kitchen or the clothes of his majesty? What effect could such details produce but that of lessening the royal dignity in the eyes of the public? He sincerely wished that the House could retrace its steps in this respect, and vote the whole sum for the Windsor establishment in one mass, to be privately apportioned. It was not without deep regret that he entered upon the consideration of the question now before the House; he wished it had been avoided; but since it was here, it must be decided. By referring to the printed debates of 1812, it would be found, that even at that time the chancellor of the exchequer had not proposed the grant of 10,000l. to the queen, without an apology for the largeness of the sum. Yet a more sincere lover of his king and country could not be found than the late Mr. Perceval. If, then, at that period, the minister himself thought 10,000ltoo much, it became the House to determine with caution what it ought now to assign to the duke of York, as faithful guardians of the national purse. He could not persuade himself that 10,000l. was the proper amount; nor could he be satisfied if nothing were given. It had been said on a former night, that in questions of this kind, if any doubt existed, the benefit of it ought to be given to the Crown. He was quite of a different opinion; for if any doubt existed, it ought unquestionably to be given in favour of the people. He was, therefore, on these various grounds, disposed to steer a middle course; and whether he was or was not supported, he should feel it his duty to move an amendment, by leaving out "10,000l.," and inserting "5,000l." instead thereof.

Mr. Long Wellesley

thought he should be guilty of a gross dereliction of public duty, and a great violation of public ho- nour, if be agreed to the motion. He would not be deterred by any expressions which might be used from any part of the House from taking that line which he thought proper. He agreed very much in the view taken of this subject by the hon. member who had just sat down. Looking to the reductions effected in the Windsor establishment, he must be permitted to express his astonishment at finding their amount so small. With that hon. member he looked with a feeling of extreme disgust at the manner in which those retrenchments had been conducted; they had been made on no one fair or solid principle of public economy. If the sum of 10,000l. was considered as too much for the duke of York, what could be said of the 6,200l. appointed for carriages and horses? The sum of 10,000l. appeared to him to be too great, particularly as the chancellor of the exchequer in 1812, on the establishment of the situation, said, that it was given to the queen for other purposes. He would vote for any sum which a fair and just economy would think proper; but doubted whether the sum of 10,000l. ought to be considered as for the expenses of travelling to Windsor. He begged to be understood not to give his vote as against his royal highness personally, or any other member of the royal family; but standing there as he did, an unbiassed and independent member of parliament, he thought it his duty to stand between the people and an unfair and exorbitant grant.

Lord Ebrington

said, that although he was conscious of his inability to make any material addition to the arguments which had been already adduced in support of his view of the subject, especially after the eminently able speeches of the two distinguished legal gentlemen (Messrs. Scarlett and Denman) he felt it his duty to state the grounds upon which he meant to vote on this question. He maintained, that the conclusion on the other side was incorrect, that because the gentlemen with whom he had the honour to act had, on a former night, voted that the 10,000l. a year proposed to be granted to the custos persoœ should be paid out of the privy purse, it was therefore to be argued, that they recognized the propriety of that giant, or were pledged to support it. The line of argument, indeed, pursued by his right hon. friend fully guarded, he thought, against any such conclusion. For the substance of that argument was, that if any additional expense should be incurred by the individual appointed to superintend the care of the king's person, that expense ought to be defrayed out of the privy purse of his majesty. But there was no admission, either direct or implied, that any such expense would necessarily arise. His right hon. friend had very properly argued, that any such expense should be paid out of the private funds of the king, and he (lord E.) was confident, that if such an arrangement were made, and any lucid interval should occur to his majesty, he would express the gratification of his feelings that his private property was so appropriated, instead of having any expense incurred by his son for the care of his person, saddled upon the public purse, in addition to all the burthens which it was condemned to de-fray. His majesty would, he had no doubt, in such an event, be extremely discontented with the ministers, who had thus dragged his favourite son into public discussion upon such a subject. Those ministers had, indeed, incurred a very serious responsibility by such conduct; for they had hazarded the popularity of a most meritorious individual. The merits of the duke of York were universally acknowledged, and especially in his high station as commander in chief, in which he had, during a period of peculiar difficulty conducted himself with peculiar credit. His friends, therefore, and the friends of the royal family in general, had great reason to complain of those who had obtruded a proposition upon the House which was so unhappily calculated to depreciate the character of his Royal Highness. The precedent as to the allowance to the queen was, in his opinion, in no degree applicable to this case, and still less was the proposition of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) admissible, that the House was called upon in this case to establish a precedent for the grant of 10,000l. a year to any future custos personœ. The noble lord concluded with expressing his intention to vote, not only against the original motion, but against the amendment.

Mr. S. Cocks

regretted that the name of the duke of York should have been brought so often before the House. The situation of custos was a great public office, in which there were great public duties to perform. The House and the country were bound to take care of his majesty's person; and were also bound to appoint a special person to have the superintendance of his majesty's concerns and the care of his person. The parliament thought the queen during her life was the person best fitted for the situation. The custos personœ was a great public officer, who deserved remuneration for performing the duties of a situation of great trust and responsibility. What would be the feelings of the House, if a private individual was appointed to the situation? Would they not pay him? Certainly they would. The duke of York, there-fare, considered as a private person, deserved the grant which was proposed to be given to him. The hon. member said, he was far from being desirous of wasting the public money, but he could not think that this grant could tend to produce that effect.

Mr. D. W. Harvey

, considering the distressed state of the country, could not consent to a needless and wanton expenditure of the public money. If he felt satisfied, that the office of custos required the salary of 10,000l. a-year on the part of the duke of York, that is, that it made the additional expense absolutely necessary, no man would more cheerfully grant it than himself. For what were they called upon to sanction such a grant? To give dignity to the office? No. The House never intended that the sum of 10,000l. should be expended to give additional lustre to the duke of York. Some gentlemen had recommended to make a distinction between the office and the person who held it. That he thought impossible. In the occupancy of the office, we could never forget that his royal highness was invested with that office, and that his Royal Highness was the son of the king. The hon. member wished that ministers had favoured the House with an estimate of the supposed expenses incurred by the duke of York for this extra exercise of filial duty. If they had ventured upon such a curious calculation, the items would be found consolidated into one general sum—the expense of post-hire from London to Windsor! In viewing the various offices of his Royal Highness, he could not forget that the duke, besides his 18,000l. a-year, was commander-in-chief, with all its emoluments, and that he also received a considerable sum from the droits of Admiralty. The 10,000l. a-year could not therefore add to his dignity or splendor. It was degrading to the royal family to say that this office would receive its dignity from the amount of the sum to be granted, and not from the importance of the office itself. For the same reason that he objected to the sum of 10,000l. as a remuneration to the royal duke, he should object to the proposed reduction of it to 5,000l. It was disgusting to read the printed details of several items in the proposed establishment at Windsor, and he thought that it must be, in like manner extremely unpleasant to cause an exact account to be made out of the various minute expenses which might arise to the royal duke in passing from Oatlands to Windsor, in order to discharge the duty of custos personœ to his majesty. And yet, in order to form a just estimate of the sum which should be granted for these expenses, such an account ought to be made out and presented to the House, if the attempt should be persisted in, of throwing that expense on the civil list [Much coughing.] He was about to sit down; but before he did so, he must say, that he would always construe such coughs into cheers.

Mr. Wynn

did not think that this was a proper time to mix up in the question the considerations of what was given to the royal Duke as commander-in-chief of the army. The word salary had now been introduced for the first time, in examining the provision which should be made for the custos of his majesty's person. It would have shocked their feelings, if, at the time when the appointment of a custos was first introduced, a salary had been proposed for her majesty. Mr. Perceval, on that occasion, as an inducement for the House to comply in voting the sum which he proposed for the custos, said, that it was to be considered that the queen would not lead a life of seclusion, and would be subject to many expenses besides those which were merely incidental to the office. For his part, he (Mr. W.) gave his vote on that occasion for the increased grant, on the consideration that it was not merely for the expense of the custos. If he had been deceived, it was by the declaration which had been made. He thought, however, that the House did right in giving credit to the declaration, because, if, in consequence of ill-health, her majesty had been obliged to go to Weymouth, or Bath, there would have been a considerable addition of expense. What was the next change? When, from ill-health, it became evident that her majesty could not continue the duty, it was cast upon the council, and then, although it was attended with much inconvenience and expense to them, yet it was not proposed to give them one shilling. He wished that no application had been made to the House on the present occasion; but if they were to go into the details of the question, they should consider it as a salary, or take the expenses altogether. With his feelings on the subject, the sum originally proposed appeared to him so much more than what could be justified by the circumstances of the case, that he found it impossible to give his assent to the proposed grant of 10,000l. to his Royal Highness.

Mr. Bathurst

wished to impress upon the minds of gentlemen, that the royal duke, in his situation of custos, became an officer of the public, and therefore deserved remuneration for his services. His Royal Highness had not solicited this additional public duty; it was imposed upon him by an act of parliament. The question was a question of money—how much might be saved by a refusal of the proposed grant. The sum of 10,000l. was proposed on the one side of the House, and 5,000l, on the other. For his part, he would support the former sum. If his Royal Highness deserved any salary or compensation, 10,000l. was not too much.

Lord Carhampton

said, that he rose with reluctance to offer opposition to any grant to any branch of the royal family, much more to the illustrious commander in chief. But that feeling would not prevent him from discharging his duty as an independent member of that House, or dissuade him from resisting, as far as his individual efforts could extend, that most unprincipled, unfeeling, audacious (he was about to use another epithet) demand upon the public purse. In opposing that attempt on the public, or rather the rapacity of those who wanted to pay court to the royal family, he felt he best evinced his respectful and loyal attachment to the Crown, for he was convinced that the attempt was made more to serve the views of the courtiers than to advance the interests of the monarchy itself. In the last session the ministers endeavoured to obtain a grant for the royal family, which the House of Commons refused. After that failure, they must be aware that if they did not succeed in the present instance, out they must go. It was most probable, therefore, that as they feared they should now walk out, they were laying the train, for more easily walking in hereafter [a laugh, and hear, hear!]; for the House might rest assured, that if this expense was once saddled on the country, it would never be got rid of. Those who ventured to ask for such a grant in the present circumstances of the country, would hereafter find plausible reasons for its continuance. He did not think, even if the House of Commons were so forgetful of their duty as to grant it, his royal highness the duke of York would accept it: he felt convinced he would not. That, illustrious personage must feel that his honour, his dignity, his unsullied character were best preserved by not being mixed with the discussion of such a question. He would feel the influence of all those considerations which the state of the country excited: he would recollect the conduct which the duke of Richelieu, in the embarrassed state of France, pursued. He would tell the ministers, that after parliament had granted him an allowance of 50,000l. a year, they should not have exhibited him to the country as so grasping as to require 10,000l. for the mere trouble of occasionally driving from Oatlands to Windsor. Depend upon it the illustrious duke would not be outdone by a Frenchman. But the House must be convinced, that if the 10,000l. was once granted, out of the red hook it would never get. Even if a demise of the Crown took place, the House would then hear some new proposition for making the grant permanent. If they feared the effect of a motion for its continuance, the same would be disguised in the shape of an equivalent. Precedents for this course of proceeding unhappily were not rare. They could be found in the equivalents granted to the commissioners of the Irish lottery, and to the commissioners in Eyre. One of those Irish lottery commissioners died—one should have supposed his equivalent would have died with him. No such thing— another commissioner was appointed. When it was asked, how this could happen, as there were no lotteries in Ireland? The answer and the reason were—True, there are none, but there may be. The same reasoning would become again available. It might be asked, why continue the 10,000l. when there was no custos, or when there was no sovereign, whose infirmity demanded a guardian. Aye, would the minister answer—there is no custos now—but one may be wanted hereafter— and at all events it was wiser to keep a custos on the establishment. If it could have entered the contemplation of parliament, that such an unexpected and disastrous event as the death of the princess Charlotte would have so speedily occurred, would the House have been justified in granting a sum of 50,000l. to the prince Leopold, all amiable as he was? Such a consideration should have its due effect on the House, when grants of this nature were proposed to be placed on the public purse. The refusal of it in the present instance could not injure the popularity of the duke of York. In the army every soldier loved him; and, as one who had the honour of belonging to that profession, and who yielded to no man in his affectionate regard for the commander in chief, he felt it his duty to show that the military men in that House were not less likely than other independent members to discharge their duty to the country; and that they in their representative capacity were not bound, to use a vulgar, but apposite expression, on all occasions "to go with the shop."

Mr. Hart

observed, that the question resolved itself into this—Whether such a grant ought to be imposed on a distressed and miserable people, and by so doing, disgrace be brought upon the character of the royal personage for whose use it was demanded?

Mr. Griffith

expressed his intention of detaining the House for a very short time. From the flourishing account of our resources which had been given by a noble lord on a former night, he might be disposed to concede the sum proposed as a remuneration to the royal duke; but since that night he had found, from authentic documents that the highly-coloured picture of the noble lord was but a daub. Since that night he had heard, from a very respectable correspondent at Liverpool, that a house at Bolton in Lancashire had failed; by which 4,000 persons were thrown out of employment. He had also heard that six houses at Manchester had failed. The hon. member, in proof of the distress of the country, next alluded to some circumstance respecting horses employed in agriculture, and concluded by saying, that under these circumstances he did not think it right to give his assent to the proposed remuneration for an office which it was the filial duty of his royal highness to. perform.

Mr. R. Ellison

would support the grant as long as his venerable sovereign lived, and he had no fear that such an expense would be made perpetual. He thought there was not a man in England who, upon hearing or reading of the present debate, would think the sum of 10,000l. a remuneration too great for his Royal Highness.

Mr. Fremantle

spoke at some length in favour of the grant of 10.000l. No man, he said, was a stronger advocate for economy than himself, but he should always draw the distinction between economy and parsimony. He had been told of the distress of the country, and it had been represented as being so great, that it would be utterly impossible to raise the sum of 10,000l. by taxation. Was it possible to conceive that the country was really in so wretched a condition? Could it for a moment be believed, that this great commercial country, with all its advantages, both abroad and at home, was reduced to a state so contemptible? He was persuaded that if the feelings of the people were consulted, they would unanimously declare in favour of the grant; they would, as Englishmen, judge with loyalty, with liberality, and with justice. The hon. member concluded by saying, that he never gave a vote more cordially than he should that of this evening for the salary to his Royal Highness.

Mr. Tierney

began by assuring the House that he should not detain them long, but, in the few observations which he had to make, he was anxious to set himself right with those hon. members who had appeared to think that in his speech, on a former night, he had allowed the propriety of the grant, and had merely disputed about the fund from which it ought to be taken. He had made no such admission; he had most distinctly avoided any allusion to such a topic, having then no other object than to record a principle, that the privy purse should be charged with what he could not but consider a private expense appertaining to the king. That principle having been negatived by the House, there still remained a question, whether any farther expenses than those already allowed for the Windsor establishment were necessary in consequence of the office of custos. Now, what was the state of the case? A bill was already in opera-lion, appointing the duke of York custos. His Royal Highness had already entered upon his office, and yet the bill which settled the appointment had not said a syl- lable about any salary, nor had the duke himself applied for any. In other words, the office, instead of being considered, as in all other cases, connected with the salary, had, in this case, been considered as so entirely distinct from any question of emolument, that not merely the lords who sent down the bill, and who, indeed, in strictness ought Dot to originate such matter, but even the Commons had not, in any stage of the proceedings, given a feint of the necessity of any remuneration. How was it that his majesty's ministers had thought proper to keep this question back until now? The House had a right to be strictly informed as to the reasons of such an informal and anomalous proceeding. It was not from the feelings of the royal duke that this application originated; for in the communication which his Royal Highness had made to the House, through the noble lord, he had expressed his Willingness and anxiety to fulfil the duties of his office without any compensation; though, if one should be voted, he would not accept it, if it were to be charged on the privy purse. The House, then, had no information which might guide them, either with respect to the motive or the amount of the grant now called for; and in the absence of such data, they must look to the nature of the office itself. In general, when parliament had to legislate respecting any great office, they had means of judging at once how far the salary was proportioned to the duties or usefulness of the functions; but here no such measure was presented to enable them to come to a fair decision. He really regretted as much as any man to descend to the minutiae of pounds, shillings, and pence; but there was no other mode of treating such a question; and whatever of disgust belonged to it, was to be attributed to ministers who forced the subject upon the attention of the House, and not upon the House, who did their duty in submitting it to a thorough examination [Cheers]. To come, then, to the estimate of the expenses which his Royal Highness might probably incur in consequence of this new office, he had no doubt that every attention which the warmest filial affection could suggest would be cheerfully and constantly paid by the royal Duke to his afflicted father. Still, the only sort of attention that he could pay, would be that of visiting him once or twice a-week at the most; more than that he was sure the physicians would not be likely to allow. Would, then, any man rise up, and venture to say that 10,000l. was not too large a sum for the hire of post-horses from Oatlands to Windsor, or from London to Windsor, once or even twice a-week? Was it not obvious that a tenth part of 10,000l. would be enough to cover such an expense? Yet, what other expense could there be? was there any other; and if so, why was it kept back from the knowledge of the House? What was the real state of the case? Was the duke of York in want of 10,000l. a-year? If so; let ministers speak out, and not come to the House in this sneaking paltry manner, to shuffle them out of their money under false pretences [loud cheers]. But it is said, that certain acts of liberality must necessarily devolve upon the custos. Be it so, but parliament has already provided a fund for those donations, and there was no probability of any fresh drains. But then it was pretended, that the nature of the office was of the highest and most solemn importance; nay, that it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the king and country. Was it so? Then he must say, that the king and country had both been very ill treated by his majesty's ministers; for this high and necessary office had been in virtual suspension ever since June last, and in actual positive suspension since November, A month, at least, before the death of her majesty, the ministers must have seen, as well as the public, that there was no likelihood of the long absence of that melancholy event; and yet they took no steps to supply the approaching vacancy in this indispensable office! Her majesty died in November: the indispensable office became vacant; yet ministers stood still. Why was not parliament called together? Why was this great constitutional office, as ministers affected to call it, suffered to be in. abeyance? Was it a choice of evils only; and was it thought the severer of the two, that ministers should have a parliament, than that his majesty should go without his custos? But this office, about which so much high sounding language was uttered, was after all, not a public one [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. He would repeat, that it was not a public office: if it had been one, it could not have been exercised by the queen. No man, he supposed, was so rash as to pretend that the queen consort could exercise a public and responsible office. The custos was not in any sense responsible; it was his council alone that were so; no trust was reposed in him; the council deliberated; the council examined; the council made the report; the custos only received it Where, then, were the high duties that were to involve him in such extraordinary expenses? The House had been told that the lords of the bedchamber and the groom of the stole, whom it had been thought necessary to. discharge, had yet expressed an anxious wish to continue their duties about their sovereign gratuitously, from the affection they bore him. The commissioners of the privy purse performed their functions gratuitously; the council received no remuneration for their important services; and yet all these persons must, more or less, incur expense in the discharge of their several duties, which they cheerfully bore out of regard to their afflicted king. And yet we were to be told that the duke of York, whose office would be comparatively trifling, and whose affection must be supposed to be stronger, could not visit His own father without the incentive of 10,000l. a-year. He would have no trouble as to the management of the royal establishment, for there was a groom and his. deputy expressly for that purpose. His only duty would be to look after the medical attendants, and to receive their report. This was all that had been done hitherto, at least during the last nine months. But then it was said, that it was seemly and decorous that the custos should be well paid; but was it not also seemly arid decorous that 10,000l. a-year should not be taken from a suffering people without a satisfactory explanation of its necessity? Was it not a shocking thing for ministers to place the Duke in this invidious light, that while even the discharged lords and grooms were eager to serve from affection alone, the son should require a large remuneration for the discharge of mere filial duties? The ministers told the House that the Duke was in a peculiar situation; that he held a high office as commander-in-chief, which demanded his daily attendance. What then? Which of his two offices was to be neglected? Was it that of commander-in-chief; and if so, was he to be paid 10,000l.a-year for that neglect; and for no better reason than that he was to be whirled backwards and forwards from Windsor to London, and from London to Windsor, once or twice a week? This would be to set up a new standard for the remuneration of service; and on future occasions there would be a precedent for stifling all inquiry as to the quantity of labour or the quantity of usefulness. Yes; but, says the noble lord this is a case of one of the royal family. So much the worse. It was for the royal family to set an example. It was for them, by their forbearance, to make the privations of other men more palatable. Eagerness and rapacity in the highest quarter would produce only discontent and disgust. He had deprecated and lamented this discussion as much as any man, and he thought that ministers would have reason to lament the result; though he had little doubt that, by the united efforts of themselves and their new coadjutors, they would gain their object that night. They would soon see that the minority, though branded with the title of infamous, would carry great weight throughout the country. It negativing the present motion, he did not mean to refuse payment of any reasonable expenses to the royal Duke, the amount of which might be taken into consideration after the present question was disposed of. He had only to suggest, that those who were for the amendment, as well as those who were directly opposed to the proposition of the noble lord, should all vote together, in the first instance, against the 10,000l.; and there might be a second division as to the amended amount: for both his own friends, and those who were for the amendment, were equally disposed to resist an exorbitant grant, for which no ground had been, or could be shown.

Mr. Canning

observed, that it was evident the gentlemen on the other side, were determined to think ministers in the wrong, whatever course they pursued. When in compliance with the feelings of the House and of the country, they had cut down the Windsor establishment, and had entered into minute details of expenditure, the necessity for which he cordially agreed with many hon. gentlemen in regretting, the cry on the other side was, "Why do you not propose at once a general comprehensive measure, instead of wasting the attention of parliament on such petty details?" When, in compliance with this suggestion, the ministers reserved from the detailed, communication of the committee, one great item of the proposed establishment (the 10,000l. a year to the custos;) and proposed it at once for the vote of the House, on its own obvious merits; up got an hon. gentleman (Mr. Williams), a lover of wholesale measures too, and insisted on cutting this item in half. That proposition however, though sufficiently contradictory to the general doctrine preached to night, did not satisfy the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney), who, as if wishing to drive the House ad absurdum, was not content with splitting the wholesale vote, framed according to his own special recommendation into two, but was anxious further to reduce it into fractions, and to calculate, to a farthing, the amount of expense to which the custos could, by possibility, be exposed. It might have been expected, that some credit would be given to ministers for not asking any thing exorbitant, after the experience which the House had had of the labours of the committee on the Windsor establishment. It must be pretty clear, that ministers had conducted themselves with every possible regard to economy, when, with all the vigilance and jealousy that could be brought to bear on the examination of their plan for the reduced establishment at Windsor, the only diminution that the committee could find room to suggest, was, the striking off two equerries—value under 1,000l. a year; a saving so paltry, that it was difficult to imagine that it had been suggested for any other reason, than to save the honour of an economizing committee. Through put the evening there had been the strongest wish expressed to avoid any general review of the proposed establishment, and to confine the debate simply to the one question of the 10,000l. a year; yet of the hon. gentleman who had spoken, not one had refrained from entering on the larger question; and least of all an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Denman), who had risen early in the debate; and who, after stating his desire that every point should be avoided but the specific question before the House, and after complaining that a right hon. gentleman had, on a former night, made a set speech on the subject, had himself contrived to illustrate his own rule by descanting, in an oration seemingly of the same species on every possible topic that could come under parliamentary cognizance; beginning with the distresses of the country, and ending with the Catholic question.

Whether the spirit with which ministers had been actuated in reducing the Windsor establishment to its present scale, (a scale, he must say, grating to the feelings of all, and justifiable only by die considerations which dictated it) showed them to be insensible to the public distress, and to the motives arising out of it for rigid and unsparing economy, it was for the House to judge. Such a reduction of the establishment of the royal invalid was, to ministers, a most painful duly; but the performance of it was a sacrifice to the wishes and expectations of the people. They were not without apprehension, that even in this object, and with these motives, they might have gone too far. They had no apprehension that parsimony itself could grudge the establishment which was now proposed. The gentlemen on the other side had not treated the question before the House fairly. They had argued as if the custos was a new office, now first created, with a new salary of 10,000l. a year, now first about to be conferred on it. Had that been the fact, parliament would certainly have had a right to demand a minute detail of every item of the duty, and every shilling of the expense. But the case was very different. The House were called on, not to build, but to pull down: not to lay new foundations, but to examine with what propriety any part of the existing structure could be removed. In doing this, however, it was their duty not to make unseemly rents in the edifice, or to let in the unhallowed gaze of vulgar curiosity on the naked wretchedness of unsheltered majesty. They should recollect that though afflicted and helpless, the sufferer was still their sovereign. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite had said, that a vote of the House acceding to the proposed grant, would be a popular vote. He was really at a loss to know where the hon. and learned gentleman gathered his notions of popularity. But this he (Mr. Canning) would say, that, whether that House was to be considered as the exciter or the echo of the feeling out of doors, he did not on all occasions think popular clamour the best criterion of the state of the public mind. He was sure there was a large, although perhaps not the largest class, who felt that the present was a question on which it was disgraceful to enter on beggarly details of possible saving. His majesty's ministers, therefore, had no easy task to perform to meet the expectations of one part of the community, and not to offend the feelings of the other. They had endeavoured to take a reasonable course between the two, and he repeated, that whatever might be the feelings of those, feelings which he thought entitled to no small degree of respect; who conceived the reduction to have been excessive and irreverent; he had no apprehension of not having satisfied the most sanguine economists by a reduction which cut down the expenses from 158,000l. to 60,000l. including the 10,000l. for the custos.

This one benefit had certainly arisen from the committee of inquiry that it was felt and even allowed by the hon. gentleman opposite, that the establishment at Windsor could not possibly be reduced any lower. Of the 50,000l. allotted for that establishment, the repairs of Windsor castle alone amounted to 20,000l. a year; leaving only 30,000l. for the other expenses of the king's household. No one could grudge the 20,000l. annually applied to the repairs of Windsor Castle; not merely as the dwelling place of its present venerable inhabitant (fit shrine for such a relic!) but—even supposing that purpose at an end—for the purpose of preserving to future ages so grand a monument of ancient national magnificence. The whole question, therefore, for the House to consider was, whether, in comparison with the original amount of expense, such a reduction had taken place in the total charge as was consistent, on the one hand with the due maintenance of the office, and on the other with the just expectation of the country; or whether it was the duty of parliament to cut off the allowance to the custos also, for the sake of adding another 10,000l. to the savings? As to curtailing the allowance to the custos, and voting him a smaller sum, he supposed no one would persist in so offensive a suggestion. It would be at once to disgrace the office and to render the economy ridiculous.

And here he must remark, in answer to the observation, that that sum would be a burthen to the country, that, although not to save what there was an opportunity of saving might be extravagance, it could not in this instance be fairly described as entailing a burthen on the country. The charge exists. It exists as part of an establishment, more than one half of which is surrendered to the wants of the country. Not to surrender all, is pro tanto to maintain existing expenditure—but it is an outrage to sense as well as decency, to call it the creation of a burthen. He would say but a few words on the question of the responsibility of the custos, on the absence of which responsibility the right hon. gentleman had placed so much reliance. As a legal question he was not prepared to argue it; nor did he suppose that many precedents existed on the subject. Happily, there had not been frequent occasion for the agitation of such a topic; but, looking at the question with the eye of constitutional analogy, he should certainly say, that a custos, though a queen consort, was a responsible functionary. Queens consort had been appointed regents in the absence of the king. Was that an office of responsibility? But however that question (and he admitted it to be a nice and delicate one) might be decided, he presumed that parliament had the power of creating a responsible office; and that the office of custos had been made so, he thought must be obvious on the least consideration of the subject. As to the allowance, if he were asked whether he thought his royal highness, the duke of York, would incur additional expense in the discharge of the duties of his new office, he would answer, that upon his conscience he believed his Royal Highness would.—But what may that expense be? That he could not pretend to calculate; but the House, he was persuaded, would consider how many claims of ancient pensioners on her late majesty's charity at Windsor, not provided for in any degree by any public arrangement before her demise, would now look to his Royal Highness's benevolence; and found upon his Royal Highness's succession to his royal parent's office, a claim to his hereditary bounty. No man, he would venture to say, ever came to the head of a considerable office in the state,—of however inferior rank or emolument—without finding new claims to his pecuniary assistance growing up around him, far beyond any which arose out of the possession of income from other more independent sources. Such claims are not susceptible of estimate; but they increase in amount and importunity, in proportion to the rank and importance of the office,—in proportion (he might add) to the known generosity of the holder. He was therefore for the whole grant of 10,000l. Without entering into the nice calculations of the right hon. gentleman, who conceived that the expenses of postchaise horses and postboys might be covered by 1,500l. a year, he would say at once, that when he coupled the necessary expenditure of the office with the generous disposition which belonged to him by whom it was to be incurred, he was not disposed to gage the exact amount of that expenditure, or the exact extent of that disposition; or to examine minutely whether the original proposition of 10,000l. would meet the demands on his Royal Highness, leaving some fractional benefit; or whether those demands might not be brought within 5,000l.; or whether they even could not be covered by the 1,500l. named by the next bidder. It was enough for him to know, that the grant now proposed was not thought by the last parliament too large to be given to the queen consort, when the custody of his majesty's person was confided to her superintendence, to feel satisfied that it was not more than ought, under similar circumstances, to be allowed to the duke of York.

In the last debate on the subject, it had been asked by an hon. gentleman, whether the duty of his Royal Highness as commander in chief was to be neglected for that which fell on him as custos to the king? If there existed any incompatibility between the office of commander in chief and that of custos, and it was supposed that it would be impracticable for one person to discharge the duties of both situations, that was an argument applicable, not to the sum which his Royal Highness was to receive, nor to the question of the fund from which that sum ought to be paid, but to the appointment altogether. Why was not that objection urged when the bill for appointing the duke of York the successor to his royal mother as custos of his majesty came down from the House of Lords? It came down unincumbered with any pecuniary arrangements; and although that latter circumstance by no means warranted the supposition that the Lords intended his Royal Highness should hold the office without fee or reward, yet it certainly facilitated very much the un-invidious statement of any objection to his Royal Highness's appointment to the office. Why was not the statement then plainly made that his Royal Highness's time was already sufficiently engaged in the discharge of his military functions? With all that laudable regard for retrenchment which the hon. gentlemen opposite so warmly professed, he hoped they did not, on that occasion, carry their econo- mical notions so far as to overlook the objections to the appointment arising from the incompatibility of the two offices, merely because the silence of the bill as to any pecuniary consideration warranted the hope of getting a cheap custos in the person of his Royal Highness the duke of York. The fact certainly was, that his Royal Highness had accepted the office without any stipulation whatever. The House of Commons might, if such were their pleasure, hold his Royal Highness to his bargain; but he trusted they would not be inclined to throw on his Royal Highness the additional expense which must attach to the situation in question, merely because his Royal Highness, without any previous condition, had accepted an important office, which perhaps, under such circumstances, no other man would have accepted. The course which had been adopted on this occasion had in his opinion, been wisely chosen. Its object had been to exonerate the duke of York from allsuspicion—which nevertheless had been in a manner charged against his Royal Highness—of having an eye to emolument when taking upon himself the office to which he had been appointed. The duke of York was now in the office. Pay him, or pay him not, there his Royal Highness was, and the House were sure that, be their determination what it might, he would discharge the duties of his new-trust with zeal and fidelity. Of this they had already an ample earnest, in the manner in which his Royal Highness had long discharged the duties belonging to his situation as commander in chief—duties which he (Mr. Canning) was confident would in no way interfere with those of custos.

But the message delivered by his noble friend on a former night from his Royal Highness had not escaped animadversion and censure. A worthy alderman on the other side of the House had talked of the indignation which that message excited in his mind, and of the astonishment with which he heard that his Royal Highness was disposed to relinquish all emolument rather than plunge his hand into his father's private purse. He (Mr. Canning) could hardly conceive how feelings of such a description could be awakened by the indication of a principle less intent on the acquisition of gain than delicate as to the source whence it was to be derived. But perhaps the worthy alderman would have advised his Royal Highness to follow the Old maxim: ———Rem facias rem, Si possis, recte; si non, quocunque modo rem. —a maxim which he (Mr. Canning) trusted did not govern the conduct of the great mercantile community of which the worthy alderman was the representative.

The great argument of the other night, however, he understood to be given up. He believed it was no longer contended by the hon. gentlemen opposite, that the privy purse ought not to be held sacred [Symptoms of dissent were here manifested oh the opposition side of the House.] He begged pardon if he was wrong: but he really thought that the argument to which he alluded had been given up, as every speaker on the opposite side of the House had carefully avoided touching upon it that night. He was now to understand, then, that the argument was not given up? The right hon. gentleman then, retained his opinion with respect to the liability of the privy purse? But now, it appears, he thinks that the custos ought not to be paid at all. With this last opinion could any thing be more preposterous than the right hon. gentleman's having suffered the House to debate eight or ten hours on a former night on the question then brought before them? On that occasion the debate must have been, not whether the duke of York ought to receive a certain sum out of the privy purse—which certainly every human being except the right hon. propounder of the question imagined to be the matter in dispute,—but whether, if his Royal Highness were to be paid at all, he ought to be paid out of that fund or out of another. He (Mr. C.) well knew the ingenuity with which hon. gentlemen could bring the same subject under the consideration of the House in different shapes; but really this was the first instance he had met with, in his parliamentary experience of a debate and a division on an hypothesis —on a question moulded for no other purpose than to gratify a speculative curiosity! How fortunate it was for the right hon. gentleman on that occasion, that the division on his proposition was so different from what he evidently expected! To the last moment of the debate he seemed to think that he should effect his object, and to anticipate the result with high glee. As the question was, contrary to these expectations, decided against the right hon. gentleman, no embarrassment ensued; but had the result been different— had it been determined that the privy purse was the proper fund to be applied to for the sum to be paid to the custos,— pleased as the right hon. gentleman would have been with this affirmation of his doctrine—yet into what a scrape would he have led the House! for his next step must have been to turn round and convince the House that no grant whatever ought to be made, and that the proposition which they had just affirmed was a pure abstract proposition leading to no practical result whatever. He was the more desirous to point out this strange absurdity, as there were many young and unskilled members in the House, who as yet were but little acquainted with the right hon. gentleman's dexterity, whom it might therefore be necessary to put on' their guard. The great danger from the right hon. gentleman was, not when he deviated into what he intended to be pleasantry; nor even when he indulged in general declamation, however great his ability in all ways; but when he took another course—when he assumed the earnest tone of straight-forward, country-gentleman-like plainness and sincerity; declaring his grave, confirmed, sober conviction on any point—O! then came the moment of peril:—then, if they were not wary, would the right hon. gentleman entrap some of them, as he had done on a former night, into a vote for a proposition, the real character of which they little suspected. Had the right hon. gentleman's proposition on Monday been carried in the affirmative—had the House decided that the privy purse was a proper fund to be made liable to pay the sum to be allowed the custos of his majesty's person, many hon. members would have come down to the House on the present evening for the purpose of voting the money; but then it appeared that the right hon. gentleman would have turned round upon them, and have moved that no money should be paid at all [Cries of No! from the Opposition benches]. Nay, if it were denied that such would have been the right hon. gentleman's course, he (Mr. Canning) felt himself at a greater loss than ever on the subject. Was he to understand, that if the House had determined that the privy purse should bear the charge, the right hon. gentleman would have had no objection to the annual allowance of 10,000l.? [Mr. Tierney said, that in that case he should have had no objection to it in the world.] Mr. Canning thanked the right hon. gentleman for his information, and declared that he had not understood before, and he was persuaded the public had not understood, that the 10,000l. might be paid to, the duke of York and welcome, provided it were taken out of the privy purse. What, then, became of all the arguments directed against the grant itself, as extravagant to give, and unbecoming to receive? He did not mean to say that these were the arguments of the right hon. gentleman himself, but they were the arguments of the right hon. gentleman's friends, almost every one of whom had contended, that the custos ought not to be paid at all. But it now appeared, that in the right hon. gentleman's opinion, all their arguments were good for nothing; that the payment might be a very fit payment to be made,—and that, in effect, the only real question to-night, as on the former night, was, out of what fund that payment should come? He (Mr. C.) would state why, in his opinion, the privy purse ought not to be that fund. He had not arrived at that conclusion from supposing that there was any inherent quality in a privy purse of the sovereign of this country which ought to render it, in all cases and under all circumstances, sacred; but he could not forget, that successive acts of parliament had made the privy purse of the present sovereign his own peculiar property,—had fenced it round as strictly or more strictly than the property of any private individual was guarded by the laws. It was true, that, originally, the privy purse was a part of the civil list, and that at the commencement of the present reign no character of sanctity was attached to it. But, in the exact proportion in which parliament interfered with the other parts of the civil list, had they recognized the privy purse as the property of the sovereign. It had been first so recognized in the proceeding of 1780, of which Mr. Burke was the mover. Secondly, in the bill founded on that proceeding, which was brought into the House in 1782, but not carried into a law. Thirdly, in the act which passed in 1786, embodying, and enacting the system framed by Mr. Burke. In all these cases the whole of the civil list was brought under the control of parliament, except the privy purse, which was specially exempted from it; and, in the last case, which gave to these arrangements the form of law, the amount of the privy purse was specifically stated, as at present, at 60,000l. Fourthly, the Regency bill of 1788 secured the privy purse, its profits and savings, to the king. Fifthly, by an act passed in 1799, the power, in the king, of bequeathing those savings as private property was distinctly recognized. Sixthly, by the act of 1811, which set apart the privy purse as the indubitable property of the Crown, as it had been set apart by the Regency bill of 1788—a precedent the more important as it could not be doubted, that the latter had received the approbation and sanction of his majesty after his recovery. And lastly, the act of 1812 completely set the question at rest.

Having thus, with a brevity for which; he ought to apologize, enumerated the series of acts by which the legislature had given a new character to the fund in question, he would make a few observations on what had fallen the other night from an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Scarlett) who had discussed this part of the subject with infinite acuteness and ingenuity. He could assure that hon. and learned gentleman that he had witnessed the exercise of his talents on that occasion with as much satisfaction as could have been felt by any one of those who shouted around him. In reply to his right hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, the hon. and learned gentleman had declared, that the preamble of the act passed in the early part of the present reign for regulating the civil list, which had been quoted by his right hon. friend, was not more conspicuous for expressions of gratitude to the sovereign than the preamble of the act of the 1st of George 2nd, but was in fact verbatim in the same language. He (Mr. C.) confessed that he had been astounded at this declaration; knowing, or at least believing, that. George 2nd had not surrendered the hereditary revenues of the Crown to the disposal of parliament, but had enjoyed them all his life; and seeing that the surrender of those hereditary revenues by the present king, on his accession to the throne, had been the chief topic of acknowledgment and panegyric in the pre-amble of the act quoted by his right hon. friend. He had been at a loss to conceive how George 2nd could be complimented for what he did not do, in the same manner as George 3rd for what he did. But as the hon. and learned gentleman made the statement with the book lying open before him, he had abstained at the time from expressing any distrust of the quotation. He had since examined the preamble adverted to by the hon. and learned gentleman, and had not been able to discover in it a single word of the language employed in the preamble of the 1st of George 3rd, with reference to the commutation of the hereditary revenues. The reason was obvious: neither George 2nd nor George 1st, nor any predecessor of his present majesty, stood in the same situation. If George 3rd was, indeed, to be considered as a pensioner on the public bounty, it ought to be remembered that he had obtained his pension by giving up a valuable consideration to the public. George 2nd retained his hereditary revenues; in addition to which, the annual sum of 120,000l. was set apart with an unilateral agreement, that if the revenues and the grant together fell short of a certain sum, the deficiency should be made good by parliament. George 3rd, on the contrary, gave up his hereditary revenues; which, if he had enjoyed them up to the present period, would have placed his majesty in a much better pecuniary situation than that in which he actually stood. A more peculiar delicacy ought, therefore, in his opinion, to be observed with regard to his majesty's property, not only than to that of any former sovereign, but, he had almost said, of any private individual, since his majesty's consideration for the public interest had induced him to act with so generous a liberality towards his people. All, however, that he (Mr. C.) desired was, that the same security should be afforded to his majesty's private property as was given by the laws to the private property of the meanest of his subjects; and that the first monarch of his race who had reposed an unlimited trust in his people's justice, should not be also the first whose property was to be invaded by a rude and unsparing hand in the hour of sickness, age, and helplessness. It was nothing to him to be told that his majesty was insensible, and could not know it—that he was blind and could net see it—that he was deaf, and could not hear it. He (Mr. Canning) should not be able, from such considerations, to derive any consolation for any wrong done to his sovereign. He could not lose the memory of what his king had been, in the contemplation of what he was. He could not forget that the greater part of that period during which the House of Bruns- wick had governed these realms—a period which had been emphatically termed the reign of constitutional liberty—had been passed under his majesty's happy rule. He could not forget how materially the unstained character, the faultless example of his majesty, during a storm of near thirty years duration, which threatened the stability of his throne and the independence of his kingdom, had contributed to save the country both from external and internal danger. In his present secluded and melancholy condition, ——all nature left a blank, And knowledge at one entrance quite shut out, a ruin, it was true, but a venerable ruin; the infirmities of the king were any thing but an argument against his rights. "Scathed by Heaven's lightning," but consecrated as much as blasted by the blow, he yet exhibited to the awe and veneration of mankind, a mighty monument of strength and majesty in decay. He stood like the oak of the poet, stripped of that luxuriant foliage, and spreading those denuded arms, which had afforded shelter to successive generations, et trunco non frondibus efficit umbram. —Let not the House, then, listen to the suggestions of trenching upon the property of such a sovereign—guaranteed to him as it was by justice and by law, and protected by every compact and by every sentiment that link the frame of society together.

Mr. Scarlett

said, he rose merely for the purpose of setting himself right with regard to a misapprehension, as to what had fallen from him in the former debate. What he had then stated was, that many expressions similar, if not verbatim the same, to those of the preamble to the 1st of Geo. 3rd. were to be found in the preamble to the, 1st of Geo. 2nd. [No, no! from the Ministerial side.] He was obliged to those gentlemen who did him the honour thus to assist his recollection, and he would therefore read the latter preamble. No doubt it contained none of those effusions of loyalty which were produced by his majesty's surrender of his hereditary revenues, and on which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) had descanted with so much animation, but which did not occupy above two or three lines in a very long preamble. If, however, the right hon. gentleman was desirous of finding similar demonstrations of ardent and affectionate loyalty, he would ‡ refer him to an act passed in the time of Henry 8th, in which the parliament, in eloquent and glowing language, enabled the king to devise away the whole kingdom by will.

Mr. Brougham

assured the House that he would keep a promise which was often made, especially at so late an hour, but which was not always fulfilled. He should occupy very little of their time, while he stated the reasons that induced him to oppose this resolution. Indeed, he should not have given these reasons at all, but for the speech of the right hon. gentleman who had sat down a little while ago, and the pains which he had taken to divert the House from the question before them, and to lead their attention off to any other subject but the particular one on which they were to decide. He had charged his hon. and learned friend—and this was not the first time the charge had been brought against him that night—with answering speeches that had been delivered on former occasions. But he now charged the right hon. gentleman with being himself an example of a defect which he reproved in others. The right hon. gentleman had nut only replied to a speech made on a former night, but had advanced additional arguments on a subject already discussed. His hon. and learned friend certainly had alluded to the former discussion; but in arguing on the present resolution, he had confined himself strictly to the subject of the resolution, whether the grant should be made or not; and had not entered on the consideration, whether it should be paid out of the privy purse, or out of any other fund. The right hon. gentleman had not even attempted to answer any part of that argumentative speech. He had also entirely mistaken the grounds on which his right hon. friend opposed the resolution. His right hon. friend had distinctly said, that though he himself would not quarrel with the measure, so long as the public did not pay the 10,000l., so long as that grant to the duke of York was paid out of the privy purse, or out of the duchy of Lancaster; yet there might be others who would not agree to the measure even on these conditions, and on a future night he might take their objections. The right hon. gentleman said, that this side of the House could not be pleased; that they objected equally to the minute and disgusting details of domestic expenses, and to an estimate of the whole without any details. Their complaint was, that ministers never came manfully forward, but sought shelter under committees, and made use of them to degrade the members of the royal family, whom it was their duty to protect and dignify. The right hon. gentleman had misrepresented a little what had happened in the committee. "What great reduction," said the right hon. gentleman, had been made in the committee? Two equerries at a salary of 600l. had been struck off! The right hon. gentleman had kept to himself the fact, that my lord Morton, and my lord Harcourt had been struck off the establishment, together with several similar offices, making in all a reduction of from 7 to 8,000l. on the amount proposed by ministers. He had understood the right hon. gentleman to say that 10,000l. were already appropriated and settled by act of parliament on the office of custos, and that the death of the queen did not make any difference, as the grant must be continued while the office was continued. The act of 1812 had been referred to as the authority for this construction, and he should therefore read part of it. [The hon. and learned gentleman then read part of the act.] He contended that the sum was granted to that individual while custos, and mustrevert to the public at her demise. It then became the property of the public, and it would require a new act to take it from the public. The resolution proposed that a certain sum should be allowed the duke of York to meet the expenses of the office of custos; but whence arose that increased expense, and how could he be exposed to any at all near that sum? As long as government was willing that the expense, great or small, should be paid from any other fund than the public purse, the House of Commons said, take it. But the House said, that government must not call on the public to pay this expense, for then delicacy would cease, because it was better to be indelicate even to the royal family, if necessary, than to be guilty of a breach of trust to the public. Was this sum to be given for necessary expense? On that he would go to the House and to the country, and on that the House must go to the country. He would ask the member for St. Mawes, who talked so gallantly of his constituents, how the expense could amount to one-tenth of that sum. But, said the right hon. gentleman, though the expense did not amount to 10,000l. a year, there was the high dignity of the person, and the high dignity of the office, to be considered. He implored the House to consider the fallacy of this argument. It was customary to pay a salary somewhat proportionate to the rank of the person; but the resolution stopped that construction of the grant; for it said that the sum was to meet the expenses. In order to support this argument of the right hon. gentleman the resolution must be altered, and the rank of the duke must be introduced. The history which had been given of the whole affair seemed to carry with it the air of a thing got up. The right hon. gentleman had said, that a bill was first introduced without providing any salary, that the duke might take the office without pay. Then it was brought down to the House of Commons, and there all was to be managed without the duke of York knowing any thing of it. If this history meant any thing, it meant that the duke was to be kept ignorant of the whole, and that the delicate task was to be assigned to him without his having any reason to expect a salary. But what followed? The noble lord came down with a message on the subject from the duke, and threatened the House with infamy, if they did not allow his Royal Highness 10,000l. a year out of the pockets of the public. He thought it would have been better if the noble lord had not tried to extort money by that threat. Being aware, then, that there was no expense proportionate to the amount of this grant; that there was no responsibility attending the office; that there was no great labour attached to the duties of it; and reflecting, that the duke of York stood in so near a relation to his majesty, he saw no reason, either from the speech of the right hon. gentleman, or from any thing he had heard from others, to alter the opinion which he had formed on hearing the irresistible speech of his right hon. friend.

The question being put, That "10,000l." stand part of the resolution, the House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 137. Majority. 110. The resolution was then agreed to.

List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.	Barham, J. F.
Aubrey, sir J.	Barnett, James
Blandford, marquis	Bankes, Hen.
Baring, sir T.	Benyon, Ben.

Birch, Joseph	Methuen, Paul
Bennet, hon. H. G.	Milbank, Mark
Braddyll, Thos.	Monck, sir C.
Bernal, Ralph	Morpeth, lord
Brand, hon. T.	Moore, Peter
Brougham, Henry	Newman, R. W.
Browne, Dom.	Newport, sir J.
Byng, G.	Nugent, lord
Belgrave, lord	Neville, hon. R.
Churchill, lord C. S.	North, Dudley
Campbell, hon. J.	Ord, Wm.
Calvert, Charles	O'Callaghan James
Calcraft, John	Pares, Thos.
Carew, R. S.	Palmer, C. F.
Carter, John	Parnell, sir H.
Coffin, sir J.	Peirse, H.
Coke, T. W.	Piggott, sir A.
Colclough, C.	Power, Richard
Concannon, L.	Phillips, C. M.
Clifford, capt.	Philips, George
Crompton, Samuel	Philips, Geo. jun.
Curwen, J. C.	Price, Robert
Davies, T. H.	Pryse, P.
Denman, Thomas	Ramsden, J. C.
Denison, Wm.	Rancliffe lord
Dickinson, Wm.	Rickford, J.
Douglas, hon. F. S.	Ridley, sir M. W.
Dundas, hon. L.	Robarts, W. T.
Dundas, G.	Robarts, A.
Dundas, Thos.	Russell, lord W.
Dundas, Charles	Russell, lord G. W.
DeCrespigny, sir W.	Russell, lord John
Evans, William	Russell, R. G.
Edwards, John	Rumbold, C. E.
Ellice, Edward	Sinclair, George
Euston, earl of	Scarlett, James
Fane, John	Sebright, sir John
Fazakerly, N.	Sefton, earl of
Foley, Thos.	Smith, Wm.
Fitzgerald, lord W.	Smith, S.
Finlay, K.	Smith, hon. R.
Gordon, Robert	Smith, James
Graham, J. R. G.	Spencer, lord R.
Graham, Sandford	Stewart, Wm.
Grenfell, Pascoe	Symonds, T. P.
Gurney, R. H.	Tavistock, marq. of
Guise, sir W.	Taylor, C. W.
Griffith, J. W.	Taylor, M. A.
Gaskell, Benj.	Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Harcourt, John	Thorp, alderman
Hill, lord A.	Tremayne, J. H.
Harvey, D. W.	Waithman, alderman
Heygate, alderman	Walpole, hon. gen.
Honywood, W. P.	Webb, Ed.
Hurst, R.	Wellesley, W. P. T. L.
Hutchinson, hon. C,	Western, C.C.
Lamb, hon. W.	Whitbread, Wm.
Lambton, J. G.	Wilson, sir Robert,
Lemon, sir W.	Williams, W.
Lloyd, J. M.	Wharton, John
Longman, G.	Wood, alderman
Lyttelton, hon. W. H.	Wynn, C. W.
Marryat, J.	Wilkins, W.
Macdonald, James	TELLERS.
Macleod, Roderick	Althorp, lord
Maitland, J. B.	Ebrington, lord
Martin, John