CIVIL LIST.

HC Deb 08 May 1820 vol 1 cc198-226

On the order of the day for further considering the Report of the Committee on the Civil List,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that before he moved the second reading of the resolutions, he should shortly explain the circumstances under which they were offered to their consideration. In doing so, he should have lamented if it had been necessary to trouble the House with that infinite mass of voluminous details which at former times it had been necessary to investigate. The object of those who had on former occasions offered those details to parliament was, either to explain the manner in which deficiencies had arisen in the civil list, and to exculpate those who had had the management of it, or to form the ground of some new system. Neither of those causes now called upon him for any observations He had no deficiencies to account for, because none had occurred since the last arrangement of the civil list, and he had no new system to propose, because the system then adopted had been found perfectly effectual. In comparing that last establishment in 1816, with the former arrangements, it was necessary to remark that at four former times had parliament made payment of the debts of the civil list, and four times without accounts or investigation on the mere statement of the fact in a message from the Crown—and thus four times had voted a permanent increase of the civil list. In 1782, a very considerable improvement in the civil list arrangements took place, and permanent rules were laid down for the administration its revenues. It was thus the civil list charges were divided into classes, to be paid in regular succession, and on this principle it was hoped that such, a system of economy would be carried into practice, as would prevent the recurrence of embarrassments. If Mr. Burke, the illustrious author of that bill, had gone a little farther, his hopes would probably have been well founded; but though he divided the ordinary expenditure into classes, a power was given to make occasional payments to any amount. Though no limits were set to the contingent expenses, there was no deficiency in the civil list thenceforward, till the breaking out of the French war—but after that; all the contingent expenses were so increased, that there was an arrear of 900,000l. At that time extensive accounts were laid before parliament—the debts were paid, and further provision was made for the civil list expenditure. From that time forward, though the ordinary expenses of the civil list exceeded the sums allowed for them, it was not found necessary to call for a direct provision for them, as the large sums at the disposal of the Crown, in the shape of droits of Admiralty, &c. afforded a fund to supply those deficiencies. Yet in 1801, the authority of parliament was again resorted to, and estimates were framed for the future expenditure of the civil list. In 1812, the subject came again under investigation, and an excess of 121,000l. per annum was found to have taken place. Between 1812 and 1816 a further increase of expenditure took place, and a greater excess happened than in any former years. A committee was then appointed, which sat three months, and the arrangements in consequence of its report were brought forward in the House by the noble secretary of state for the foreign department. That bill repealed so much of Mr. Burke's bill as regarded the payments according to the order of classes, and directed that the demands of each class should be answered by appropriations at the beginning of each quarter. The advantage on the score of economy from this arrangement was very considerable, because the different departments of the household being thus enabled to deal with ready money enjoyed an advantage thereby, which they had never had under any other system of the civil list. It also provided in a complete manner for the comfort and convenience of the persons, many of whom were in narrow circum-stances, who depended on the civil list. The distress which some of the officers suffered who were five, six, or seven quarters in arrears, might be easily conceived. In both these particulars, the I arrangement of 1816 was an improvement, but with respect to the public the advantage was still more considerable, by its economy in comparison with former times, The expenses of the civil list since 1816, had been less by 150,000l. than the average of the three years before. In proposing the establishment at present of a system similar to that of 1816, he was proceeding on a principle already sanctioned by parliament, of providing a sufficient, but not an extravagant allowance, retaining such a control over the expenditure as would prevent the recurrence of future debt. The establishment of 1816, he should therefore propose entire, with the exception of the reduction of the first class. That class contained allowances to the amount of 298,000l. a year, being the allowance for the Windsor establishment, the privy purse of his majesty, the allowance to her late majesty, and the privy purse of the Prince Regent exercising the functions of royalty. Of these allowances, the king's privy purse of 60,000l. a year, was all that would remain; and as this class alone was the only one in which the circumstances connected with the demise of the Crown had made any alteration, it was the only one on which he should propose any change. There would be thus a saving of 238.000l. with the exception of such provision as the liberality of parliament chose to make for the servants of his late majesty. He did not feel it necessary at that moment to go into any further detail, as he understood there was a motion in amendment to come from the other side of the House. If that should be the case, he should have the usual courtesy of the House in being allowed to reply. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That this report be now taken into further consideration."

Lord John Russell

said, it was with considerable pain, that, on an occasion of a grant such as the present, he felt it his duty to move that this report be taken into further consideration at a future day. This he did with the view of its coming before a select committee. It would have given him much pleasure if his majesty's ministers had taken this latter part of the task upon themselves, because it would best have come from them. He felt, also, doubts of the success of his motion, when he found that neither the learning, the wit, nor the eloquence of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) were successful in an appeal on the subject the other evening. His motion, however, had one advantage which did not belong to that which was submitted by his hon. and learned friend—that it was not complex in its nature, nor intricate in the immediate question to which it referred. The question to which he wished to call the attention of the House was simply this—whether they, the representatives of the people, just returned from the people, with their professions and promises still on their lips, would, in a new parliament, take estimates into which they had made no inquiry, on which they had given no opinion, and agree to those estimates without looking either to the necessities of the sovereign or the distresses of the people. He thought that a mature and due examination into those estimates would be more grateful to the monarch, more beneficial to the people, and more satisfactory to the House itself, than the plan which was proposed on the other side. The time, too, was one at which minute examination into every branch of our expenditure was called for; it was a time when the complaint of distress was heard from all classes—when our commerce was embarrassed and our agriculture reduced. A part of this distress, by the way, had arisen from the arrangement with respect to bullion payments last year. He did not mean to find fault with what had been done in this respect; he only mentioned the circumstance for the purpose of showing how much more difficult it was to retrieve errors than to fall into them. In this state of the country, when we had more taxes than at the end of the war, the House, he conceived, should pause before they sanctioned any grants without a due inquiry into the grounds on which they were proposed, and the necessity which existed for them. For his part, he would say, that if the arrangement of 1816 were as economical as the establishment of the president of the American republic, still it ought not to be adopted without due consideration. As to the assertion of a right hon. gentleman with respect to time, he would say, that ministers had dissolved the parliament when full time might have been allowed for the consideration of this subject. If it were intended to pass it over now without consideration, it would have been as well to mention the whole sum required, and say, "that was the sum demanded by his majesty," as to come down with those resolutions to the House for the sums now proposed. With respect to the present civil list, he conceived there was a fallacy in it, for it should be considered that the queen was still to be provided for, as well as the servants of the late king. There were also some of her late majesty's servants to be provided for; yet these, he thought, should form part of the list. It should be recollected, that when the last arrangement was made there were two establishments. There were, it might be said, two kings and two queens to be provided for; and was it not a little too much to say (if any regard to economy was kept in view) that the same sums should now be demanded as when these several establishments were to be supported? His late majesty had a groom of the stole—an office which might be reduced without any derogation from the due support of the royal dignity. At least there were many offices of that kind which might be spared, without derogating in any respect from the dignity of the Crown. Many of the unmeaning institutions of feudal times might be safely reduced, without producing any diminution of the monarch's dignity, or any inconvenience to the public. That such an office as that of master of the hawks belonged to the "olden times," and had once contributed to the splendor and dignity of the Crown, was surely no reason for continuing it at the present day, when it was entirely useless. If such situations were to be upheld from respect to ancient usage, and without any regard to their utility, the king ought still, on the same principle, to have his fool, and be allowed straw for his beds, and litter for his chambers. But, of all the faults which were to be found with the civil list that had been proposed, the greatest defect was in its arrangement. Various arrangements of the civil list had been made on various occasions; and from the report of the committee of 1815 it appeared that its debts had been paid nine different times: 4,866,000l. had been given to the civil list out of the droits of admiralty; upwards of 9,000,000l. had been paid out of the consolidated fund; making, together with other sums, an amount of 17,641,000l., which had been supplied to the civil list when the committee made its report; and, adding to this the various civil charges which had been defrayed since that period out of other funds, it was a moderate estimate to say, that, altogether, 20,000,000l. had been paid towards the civil government, from funds different from the ordinary civil list. The old and original notion of a civil list was, no doubt, that the whole charges of the civil government were to be paid out of it. These charges, however, were soon found to be so great, that the allowance granted in the name of civil list could not cover them all; but still no perfect arrangement was entered into for supplying these deficiencies. Some parts of these expenses continued to be paid out of the consolidated fund, some were left chargeable on the civil list, and others were paid partly out of the one fund, and partly out of the other. Thus, the Speaker of that House was paid under one head, and the judges under another. The heir-presumptive was nowhere to be found in the civil list; but, on the other hand, the lord chancellor and rat-catcher of Carlton-palace appeared under the same head, and were paid partly out of the civil list, and partly out of the consolidated fund. When his hon. and learned friend moved the other night for an inquiry into some branches of the civil list, the whole of his arguments were met by the phrases "a stipendiary king" and "an insulated king;" and the right hon. gentleman opposite had deprecated the idea of inspecting the household accounts of the king, as a degradation fatal to the dignity of the monarchy. But who, he would ask, had brought before the House the accounts of the civil list? Why, ministers themselves. Those very papers from which the right hon. gentleman had read a list of charges for bread, butter, cheese, &c, by way of exemplifying the degradation to which such an inspection would subject the Crown, had been brought down by ministers, in order to show the debts on the civil list. It was not to be considered, however, because these were debts on the civil list, that they were debts of the king. On the contrary, the noble lord opposite at the time the subject was discussed, stated that they were not expenses of the Crown, or of any part of the royal family, but sums given as presents to foreign ministers, and charges of a similar nature; for instance, so many thousand pounds to celebrate the festival of the restoration of Ferdinand 7th at Madrid. Then the term "stipendiary king" was repeated over and over again, and the desire to insulate the sovereign from the civil charges was represented as a horrible thing, calculated to strip him of all his dignity, and reduce him to the level of a president of a republic. A want of respect for the Crown, or a desire to lessen its dignity, was not a prevalent feeling in this country. They saw that in the most violent political publications—even in those of Cobbett—there was every respect paid to the Crown; nor did there appear any wish to introduce a republican form of government. The hon. gentlemen opposite, when they wished the measures of government to be supported, did not call on the friends of their country to rally round the minister, but round the Crown. It therefore could not be dangerous, but would rather be productive of benefit, to insulate the king from the civil charges, for the Crown was not protected by the charges on the civil list. What protection, for instance, could it derive from the charges under the head of secret service money? Surely, it would not be supposed that the Crown was protected by the money paid to Oliver, Castles, and Edwards, and men of that stamp. But besides those offices that added nothing to the dignity or safety of the Crown, there were several of a different description on the civil list, which, in his opinion, required some regulation. It had been the wise policy of this country to remove its judges from places of political debate, and to give them no temptation to yield to improper influence. But on the civil list there was one judge who had a seat in that House; and this circumstance lie considered a deviation from that salutary principle which was so well calculated to secure respect for those who administered the laws of the country. He hoped he had now said enough to induce the House to go into an inquiry on the subject of the civil list; and he should therefore conclude by moving, as an amendment, that the word "now" be omitted, and that the words "this day week" be inserted.

Mr. Warre

seconded the amendment, and said, that when the committee of 1816 was appointed, it was deprived of the very life and essence of a committee of inquiry. When his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) proposed that it should be allowed to send for persons, papers, and records, his proposition was negatived; and when a proposal was made to call before the committee an efficient officer of the lord Steward's department, it was rejected. The committee had nothing to proceed upon; they were obliged to trust implicitly to papers delivered to them from the different departments. Into the grounds on which those papers were formed, they were not allowed to inquire. He could not, therefore, rely upon the accuracy of those statements, or upon the correctness of those calculations, to which the chancellor of the exchequer appeared to think the House so peculiarly bound to attend. He was by no means disposed to countenance any denunciation against the splendor of royalty. On the contrary, no man could be more anxious to support that splendor; but he objected to any degree of expense unnecessary for that purpose, and believing, that such expense was included in the civil list, as it was at present arranged, he was desirous for a full, fair, and elaborate inquiry upon the subject. Such an inquiry he was led to expect that ministers themselves would have been forward to propose, upon the accession of a new king; that expectation was, indeed, encouraged by the language of ministers themselves upon the discussion of the civil list in 1815. But, at all events, he having pledged himself on that occasion to support such an inquiry upon the demise of the Crown, felt that he was called upon in this instance to redeem his pledge, and therefore he seconded the motion of his noble friend.

Mr. Huskisson

said, he had always thought that there was great difficulty in discussing this question, because, from the terms in which they expressed themselves, it appeared as if there were opposite and conflicting interests at stake. But he was sure that every person who carefully directed his attention to the subject, would perceive that the civil list involved the general interests of the state. In the first parliament of a new reign, such an inquiry as that proposed by the noble lord was likely to be received with great favour. But he would tell the noble lord, that, in the practice of former reigns, there was no precedent for such an inquiry. There was nothing in the circumstances of the late demise, or the present accession, which could be urged as a reason for taking the civil list out of its ordinary course. The amount of the expenditure necessary for supporting the dignity of the Crown, and defraying the charges of the civil government, was not necessarily changed by the demise of one sovereign, and the accession of another. On the present occasion, indeed, there were circumstances which, even admitting that precedents were in favour of the noble lord's motion, would induce the House to deviate from such a course. When the noble lord talked of the groom of the stole, his answer to the noble lord was, that the groom of the stole belonged to his late majesty, and that the saving arising from the termination of that office would be carried to the account of the public; for the whole of the Windsor establishment terminated on the demise of the late sovereign, If no change had taken place from the situation of regent to that of sovereign, the noble lord might have had some cause to complain, and some grounds for demanding inquiry. But when it was proposed to give back the whole of that establishment which had been made for the late sovereign, neither the one nor the other of the noble lord's propositions could be sustained. It could not be made out that the establishment for the prince of Wales, when Regent, had been more than was necessary, or that in the administration of that establishment there had been any unnecessary expense. As to the first of these propositions, the noble lord would not say, that his majesty ought to have a smaller income as king than he had enjoyed as regent; and if the noble lord was disposed to quarrel with the manner of the application of that income, he had not made out the shadow of a case. All the particulars of the application of the civil list were before the House in the report of 1815, in details so minute as to be almost unbecoming the dignity of the Crown; so that any gentleman, if he thought there was an instance of unnecessary expenditure, might be able to point it out without any farther inquiry, The office of master of the hawks had been laid hold of, and held up to ridicule, as one that added nothing to the dignity or safety of the Crown, and that ought therefore to be abolished. But when he stated that this office was a freehold, granted by a former monarch, and as much property as any grant of lands made by Henry 8th, he thought he had satisfactorily answered all that had been said about it. The very same might be said of many other trifling salaries which had been made the subject of ridicule. The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) had, on a former night mentioned the vicar of the Tower, with his salary of 6l. 13s. 4d., and had ridiculed the continuance of such an office; but if the hon. and learned gentleman had stated at the same time that this salary, and others of the same class, were granted in perpetuity, he would have been more correct. If the hon. and learned gentleman, or the noble lord, thought that these charges should be subjects of a particular motion, with the view of abolishing them. [Mr. Brougham denied that he had expressed a wish to abolish them]. He was happy to find that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned gentleman, and he wished he had been pleased to state the reasons which induced him to treat these offices With so much ridicule. As to what had been said about the relative value of money at the time the civil list was settled and at present, he would appeal to all who recollected the state of the country in 1816, the price of commodities, and the state of the exchanges, whether the currency was not then as valuable, and the prices of commodities as low, as at present. He would assert positively that this was the case; and, in consequence of this circumstance, estimates were at that time laid before the House, in which a reduction of 21,000l. was made on 150,000l., in the three great departments of the master of the horse, the lord steward, and the lord chamberlain. This deduction was made without any report or recommendation from any committee. Here the right hon. gentleman took a review of the original institution, and of the several changes in the arrangement of the civil list. By the 12th of Charles 2nd, the civil list was first established for the support of the splendor of the throne, in aid of the produce of the hereditary revenue. In the reign of William 3rd, a civil list was granted to the king to the amount of 700,000l., that sum including the receipts of the hereditary revenue; and it was provided, that if those receipts should exceed the sum specified in the act, the excess should not be appropriated without consulting the judgment of parliament. By the act of George 2nd, the amount of the allowance to the civil list was settled at 800,000l., with a provision, that if the receipts of the hereditary revenue should exceed that sum, the excess should be at the disposal of the Crown; while, if there was any deficiency, such a deficiency should be made good by parliament. In these two statutes of William 3rd and George 2nd, although so contrary in some of their provisions, gentlemen would see the heads of the hereditary revenue, and might easily comprehend the difference between that and the casual revenues of the Crown. Upon the accession of the late king, the first act of his reign involved a surrender of all the hereditary revenues, in lieu of a settled allowance for the civil list, his majesty still retaining what are called the casual revenues. But previous to this surrender, the hereditary revenues were deemed the private property of the Crown, the utter alienation of any part of which was provided against by a specific act of parliament. By the act of the 22nd of the late king, which was commonly called Mr. Burke's act, a classification of the civil list was arranged, and in this state it remained until 1816, when that change took place in the system which it was now proposed to continue. In 1816, certain charges were transferred from the civil list, over which it was impossible for the House to exercise any degree of control; therefore these charges could not be properly continued in that list. For instance, the payment for printing and stationary for that House. The expense under this head was, at the commencement of his majesty's reign, not more than from two to 3,000l. a year; whereas, within the last war the expense of printing alone amounted to no less than 100,000l. Now, he would ask any man if it were possible for the Crown to contemplate such a contingent expense out of the civil list as this? He had already stated, that to a fixed income, which was granted to the late king at the beginning of his reign, there was applicable an infinite variety of expenses, over which the Crown possessed no control. To prevent this had been the object of an arrangement entered into for the purpose of putting the Crown in possession of certain funds for the defraying of certain expenses. But, as the case stood before, it was impossible, as he had shown in the article of printing, that the Crown could ever contemplate such a charge upon the civil list, because it could not be that out of a certain fixed income the Crown could provide for it. In short, the whole attention of the committee of 1816 was directed to this point—to remove from the civil list every charge which was of an uncertain, fluctuating, or varying nature. The third class which had been alluded to was the charge for foreign ambassadors; but this he should contend was a very proper charge to be provided for by a fixed sum. So far from wishing to see it removed, he thought that if parliament ventured every year to specify what should be the allowance for these ambassadors, many things connected with the subject might escape its notice, and the present amount would swell to a much larger size. To prevent this inconvenience the allowance was fixed. As to what the noble lord had said about the large expenses of fetes or festivals, honourable gentlemen must know there could be nothing of that sort charged, without coming under the consideration of parliament. He thought the arrangement of 1816, one which was calculated to allow all those proper expenses which were necessary to support the becoming splendor and dignity of the Crown, subject only to the advice and suggestions of its responsible advisers. The benefit of this system had been seen from this circumstance—that, during the four years for which it had now existed, not one single shilling of debt had accrued—a circumstance before unknown and unheard of in the history of the civil list. The arrangement, therefore, of 1816, went to this—to establish a proper civil list, and to regulate its expenditure. Now, this office had been, in some degree, before vested in the lords of the Treasury; but to put this matter under the observation of an officer, who might have it always under his direction, was, for the first time, however desirable, effected by that arrangement. This was achieving that object which parliament had ever had in view, namely, that of confining the expenses of the civil list within those limits which the liberality, not less than the prudence of parliament, had considered necessary. He should maintain that here a great object had been effected. It now remained for the honourable gentlemen opposite to show in what particular these expenses were excessive, or in what particular the sum granted by parliament to the regency, for the due support of the splendor of the throne, had been too much, taking into account the increased expenses which had at that time devolved upon it. It was upon those grounds which he had endeavoured to make out that he should oppose the motion of the noble lord. He felt satisfied that there was no head of those expenses, to which the noble lord's speech had alluded, which parliament was now fairly called upon to re-model.

Mr. Brougham

said, he was really sorry at that hour to detain the House, and perhaps owed some apology for again claiming its attention; but he thought proper to offer a few words in explanation of some observations of his, which had been greatly misunderstood by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He was most unwilling to allow the House, or even the right hon. gentleman himself (who, he trusted, was the only person who, hearing what be had said, had so misunderstood him), to go away under an impression so wide of his real meaning as that which the right hon. gentleman himself seemed to labour under. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think, that in mentioning the particulars of those seven heads, to which he had called the attention of the House on Friday last, he meant to complain of the expenses under such heads, or to propose the abolition of the offices themselves. Now, nothing could be wider from his real intention, or more foreign to the application of that very argument, for the purpose of which he had cited these heads. But the right hon. gentleman said—"Oh, if you did not mean to propose their abolition, you have now an opportunity of saying so." No such thing: why should he be called upon to unsay that on Monday which he had not said on Friday? There was no ambiguity, he conceived, in what he then did say; and the fact was, that his statement was the very reverse of that commentary, that gloss which had been just given to it by the right hon. gentleman. He had stated those instances only in support of an argument to procure the separation of those heads from the civil list. Among others they would find those of the vicar of the Tower, the keeper of the lions, and the rat-killer. Not that he thought these offices useless or ridiculous; far from it. No doubt the rats were as likely to exist there as those more noble and more lordly animals, the lions; their existence could be as little a matter of doubt as that of a much graver and more serious character—the worthy vicar—or as that even of the keeper of the lions himself. Not that he for a moment proposed to abolish that noble office, of whose dignified utility they were by that paper perpetually reminded, turn their eyes which way they would. Not that he objected to that officer's moderate salary of only 15l. 10s. per annum, whether he considered the smallness of the compensation, or the great quantity of vermin, which, without question, he must destroy, or the general obnoxiousness of that vile race of rats. Far from all this; he never meant to insinuate any thing of the sort. And he would now mention, much more gravely and seriously, another office, which he only spoke of for the purpose of showing the infinite variety and discordancy of offices for which the civil list was at present chargeable; he meant that of astronomer royal—an office which the House would remember he had before particularly mentioned; and sure he was, that no person who heard him in that House, nor any one out of it who knew his veneration for that noble science, or his respect for the individual by whom the important office was filled, could for a moment mistake his meaning upon this subject. He would not for a moment propose to diminish one pound of that gentleman's salary, which was so nobly and at the same time so hardly earned. But he was justified in instancing the office as one out of this extraordinary mixture of appointments; for it came under the same head as those of the famous vicar of the Tower, the keeper of the lions, and the rat-killer. All that he had to say, therefore, was, that it was hard he should be misunderstood as proposing that these offices should be abolished, or paid out of no funds at all, since he had only suggested that they might be paid out of the consolidated fund; neither did he consider that it would be any greater degradation to the Crown for these offices to be paid, together with itself, out of the consolidated fund, than it was for the Crown at present to defray the expenses of many such offices as were charged under the different heads he had mentioned.

Mr. Tierney

said, that this discussion came on under circumstances of a nature perfectly unparalleled. It regarded the appropriation of a sum of 850,000l. at a period of public distress entirely unprecedented. It had appeared, in the course of that evening's debate upon another question, that the agricultural interest of the country was in a state of great depression, and that it was not probable at present that the evil would decrease. Of our commercial affairs there was but one opinion. They had heard from his hon. friend what was the state of our commercial relations, and he had announced to them that the depression experienced in them was not likely to be removed. He was addressing the House at a period when distress, he regretted to say, had broken out into acts of violence in several parts of the country. He was addressing them at a time immediately following a general election—when, whatever had been the differences of political opinions Which had prevailed from one end of the empire to the other, upon whatever topic, among whatever descriptions of men, there had been but one general cry, in which all parties had joined—a demand for the ex- ercise of a most rigid economy. Addressing an assembly like that which he had then to address, under such circumstances, no apology he conceived, was due from him, if he at once declared that he could not agree in the principle of the proposition stated by the right hon. gentleman. His objection to the motion of the noble lord, amounted, in fact, to this-—that inquiry on this subject was without precedent, and consequently that there was something indelicate in refusing to vote this money without investigation. This was the end and scope of the right hon. gentleman's objection; but in another part of his speech, which was not quite consonant with that which he had just mentioned, the right hon. gentleman had said, that no inquiry should be gone into, because the present arrangement was the result of previous investigation. The right hon. gentleman had also said, that because there had been no excess upon the civil list since its arrangement in 1816, it was therefore an arrangement which ought to be permanent. With respect to the latter observation, it seemed to him (Mr. Tierney) that it would have been much better to have voted, in the first instance, 2,000,000l. instead of 1,000,000l., because, if the original proposition was extravagant, but was to be supported as no excess had accrued, the larger sum upon that principle would have been still less liable, both to the excess and to the objection. That arrangement was the result of a committee appointed in 1815. The bill was brought in in 1816; and therefore he was to take it for granted that this establishment of the civil list was the result of that inquiry. He believed it would be in the recollection of hon. gentlemen, that he did object to the arrangement proposed by the noble lord, and that at the time he gave his reasons for so doing. He had stated on that occasion, that he cared little for any estimate which was to be framed by the officers of the Crown, and which was not to be sifted by public inquiry. He did state then, that that was absolute mockery which was to produce nothing more than certain papers, which they who were to present had an interest in preparing. It was nothing to say that those papers furnished ah estimate, because for the lord chamberlain so many thousands were charged, for the lord Steward so many more; this formed nothing more than a mere list of prices, and amounted to just nothing, if no op- portunity were afforded of seeing upon what ground they were stated. Nor was it any thing to say, here is so much charged for wine, or so much for any other article; for such charges the House would have no other security than the simple unqualified word of the framer of the estimate, subject to no check whatsoever. The answer which had been made to him at that time was, that there never had been an instance of imposing such instructions as he wished upon such a committee: and since then his predictions had been but too soon and too completely verified. With respect to the Board of Works, it was soon found impossible to go on at all without inquiry, and a fresh board was established, in order to supervise and examine the accounts of the other. As to the household, a certain gentleman was indeed appointed, with a salary of 1,500l. a year; but, notwithstanding all that the right hon. gentleman had said of the merit of this appointment—not withstanding the opportunity of regulating the quantity and price of eggs and butter supplied to the royal household—no remarkable effect had followed, no great reductions had been made; but with respect to the Windsor establishment, there the case was different; there reductions were soon recommended; there the household of a dying king was considered as a fit and immediate object of retrenchment. Having examined colonel Stephenson, a report was speedily drawn up, and reductions were recommended under a great variety of heads. Well, then, here was a precedent for the right hon. gentleman for going into a committee to institute an inquiry. It had been asked by the right hon. gentleman, whether, in the event of such inquiry, it was proposed to assign this or that sum for this or that charge? He (Mr. Tierney) had said nothing of the kind; nor had he expressed himself upon this head, whatever might have been passing in his mind. He did, indeed, think it incumbent upon a committee to settle what would be the proper sum for the regulation of all those expenses; but he had not pledged himself at all upon the subject. He did not know but that the result of an inquiry might be to establish the charge of the civil list at what it was; neither did he know but what it might he to show, that it should amount to less than what it was by several thousand pounds; but this he knew, that if a saving of only one thousand pounds could be effected, it should be adopted. It would prove to the country their real desire to observe a strict economy. It would show that they had a feeling for the distresses of the country, and the country itself would willingly pay the charge of 849,000l., if it could be shown that the result of such an inquiry had been to save a charge of one thousand pounds. Now he begged not to be understood as at all stating that such a saving could or could not be made. That was to appear by the report of such a committee as he wished to see appointed.—He should next beg to call the attention of the House to that famous report, in which the whole principle of the arrangement of 1816 was to be found. That report contained all the numerous details which had been alluded to by the right hon. gentleman. After the right hon. gentleman had seemed to consider that the matters which that report treated of were not matters now to be entered into by a committee, he (Mr. Tierney) would mention an instance of their competency who drew up the report. They had recommended, they had made a proposition to the House, that an additional officer upon the household, with a salary of 1,448l. per annum should be appointed; and by a mercy, or rather by an act of folly on his (Mr. Tierney's) part, the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer was permitted to postpone the consideration of the subject to the next year—and then what happened? That ministers were ashamed of the proposition, and the matter was dropped. "But," said the right hon. gentleman, "this all arose from the noble lord's considering the alteration of prices, and the difference in the value of money; this and other reductions were made upon that principle." No such thing. No less than 139,000l. per annum less than the estimate was the deduction made from the civil list, without any thing intervening, and in a very short space of time; and by whom? By the right hon. gentleman himself. He would ask the right hon. gentleman whether the noble lord made this reduction by reason of the altered value of money, and the difference of prices? If he answered in the affirmative, how happened it that under the third class, the noble lord had made an immediate reduction of 20,000l. per annum? Add to this, 10,000l., the charge for gardens, and here was a deduction altogether of 30,000l., exclusive of other occasional payments; but with respect to the saving to be made upon those occasional payments, no man could know what was the amount of them. It was said, that these were to be taken out of the civil-list now, and accounted for hereafter. But did any man know what they would be? Was it meant to throw on the House the necessity of going through all those details which were before it, in order to get at the precise sum which could be so saved? He therefore knew of no other means, but by a committee of inquiry, of coming at the fact of what had been the savings of last year. The estimate which had been brought forward by Mr. Pitt, in 1804, had been alluded to; that estimate contemplated the amount of the probable expenses of the civil list for the next seven years ending in 1811, and upon this the arrangement of 1816, had, in part proceeded. It went on with the two years and three quarters next following 1811, and then made the estimate as upon that period collectively. Now those two years and three-quarters he threw out of the estimate altogether. They were two years and three-quarters marked by very particular circumstances, about which much unpleasant discussion had arisen, and which he did not now wish to revive. There was also another report made in 1812, which took for its basis a period ending in the year 1811. But honourable gentlemen on the other side had made this extraordinary assumption, that the estimate of 1804 was one which Mr. Pitt never intended to carry into effect—one never meant to have operation—in short, a mere random-shot. For his part, he never, in all his life, was any great Pittite, but he would not see Mr. Pitt treated in this way. They said they could not find out upon what grounds this estimate was made. Why not? All the gentlemen who made it, except Mr. Pitt and Mr. Rose, were, he believed, still alive. Here, then, was the estimate of Mr. Pitt; but, instead of adopting it; instead of considering it—they said, "Let us put every thing aside; Mr. Pitt never meant to carry this into effect, and therefore let us say no more about it." "In 1804, Mr. Pitt's object," said the right hon. gentleman, "was, to make the civil list 940,000l." giving, as his reason for this assertion, that from the estimate which he had made he had deducted 82,000l. out of one charge alone of 135,000l. He (Mr. Tierney)gave Mr. Pitt credit for an intention to make a farther reduction than this in the civil list, judging from the estimate of former years. Taking an average of the three preceding years he would have effected a saving of 47,000l. per annum in those three years; and what was there surprising in Mr. Pitt supposing that he could keep the civil list within the bounds prescribed by parliament? The years 1782, 1783, and 1784, were those upon which he founded his proposition as regarded the saving of 47,000l. a year; but it had been argued, that the seven years ending in 1811 were those which constituted the true criterion upon which the estimate of 1816 had been framed. That position he distinctly denied; and he begged of the House, at least of those hon. members who had had an opportunity of seeing the details, to consider what had been the sums charged for the last seven years, which he might call the expenses of his late majesty. He would beg them to consider, that his late majesty was liable to very heavy demands, by reason of his large family. He would beg them to consider the charges of the board of works, and what had been the cost, not for repairs, but for the improvements of that stupendous pile, Windsor castle: next, for the decoration, furnishing, &c. of apartments in the palaces for the princesses, and of the apartments in Kensington-palace for the princess of Wales. He would beg them to consider the heavy expenses of removing the princesses to and from Windsor, stated at 20,000l.; and farther the removals of the royal family to Weymouth; and, putting all these very heavy costs together, were they to be told that the last seven years were the proper criterion upon which the estimate for the expenses of the civil list at the present day were to be framed? Then, with respect to the value of money in 1816, great and general distress was prevailing at that time, but it was denied, repeatedly denied, in that House. The pressure was said to be temporary, and they had been told the same thing in speeches from the throne, and directed not to be alarmed. The chancellor of the exchequer had even indulged himself and the House with promises and anticipations of saving to the country three millions and a half of taxes, because;—prices were going to fall. But the right hon. gentleman had made a great mistake. It was very true that that right horn gentleman did then, as he was very apt to do upon the least rise of the 3 per cents, hold up his head, and talk loudly and cheer ingly, which he had continued to do till within the last three or four months.—Under all these circumstances, he still persisted that those years were not a fair criterion of calculation. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to observe, that without such a committee of inquiry as had been proposed it was impossible to know what saving could or could not be effected in the civil list. The difference between a state of war and a state of peace must have effected a very material change, not only in the principles upon which different estimates had been framed, but also in the savings to be effected. The right hon. gentleman opposite had opposed inquiry; and one ground of his opposition was, that the former estimate had been agreed to without inquiry, and that, therefore, a committee was improper. Now he begged the House to look at these two items of charges—850,000l. for England, and 200,000l. for Ireland. He should be glad to know who inquired about the Irish estimates? It was by no means clear that the English estimates had been inquired into; but as to the Irish, he believed nobody at all had taken that trouble. Before the arrangement of 1816, there had been an increase on the civil list of 127,000l. beyond the sum established by parliament; yet the noble lord talked of reductions made to the extent of 250,000l. Was it meant that, because of the former excess of 127,000l. they were to vote for the permanent institution of the civil list as it now stood, in order to avoid such an excess for the future? Another item, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, was the privy purse; and this he termed a royal fund. The House was well aware, that it was established at 60,000l. per annum. An attempt had been made to induce the House to simplify the whole of these matters, by putting this also upon the consolidated fund. This, however, was vehemently objected to, upon the score of its former settlement upon his majesty. The kings of England were accustomed to be considered the fathers of their country. Sums of money were vested in them in the gross, in order to be afterwards distributed by them as the supreme magistrates. These had been since taken away, and not a single farthing of them was left, excepting only this allowance for the privy purse; and what was still more extraordinary, her majesty herself could not find a place upon the civil list, la a bill to provide for the regulation and maintenance of the royal household, her majesty was altogether excluded. The grounds upon which this exclusion had been made, they might some day have an opportunity of discussing; but he must consider it as most extraordinary that her majesty was thus situated. The grounds of such her condition were beyond all human comprehension. She was to be considered, and had been recognized, as queen of England by the lord chancellor, and by one or two other eminent individuals, and, happily for herself, was represented by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham). It was, indeed, extraordinary that there should be this omission. He must say, that he never expected to be called upon to vote for a bill to provide for the maintenance of the royal family and household, out of which the queen of England herself was to be excluded, after being recognized by the lord high chancellor. He would let this pass; but he could not help observing, that either her majesty was very hardly used, or else his majesty was very hardly used.—The right hon. gentleman here took an opportunity of again impressing upon the House the necessity of going into a committee, and observed, that it behoved ministers, before they called on him to vote a sum of 60,000l. per annum for the privy purse, to show how much besides was placed at the disposal of his majesty. It was material, he continued, for the House to know what funds his majesty had of his own; and here he would ask, if any proof were yet wanting of the necessity of inquiry, whether any man who heard him knew—excepting, indeed, it was some one connected with the revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The former, he believed, to be about 10,000l., the latter 15,000l. per annum, or 25,000l. a year jointly. This would make the yearly amount of the privy purse 85,000l. But then there was the sum of 385,000l., an excess of its income paid out of other funds during the last sixty years, and this sum of 385,000l. would average upon the whole reign about 6,000l. per annum, to be added to the 85,000l.; making therefore, so far as he could calculate it, a total yearly allowance to the privy purse of 91,000l. He had given notice of a motion for to-morrow respecting the sum of 385,000l. which appeared to have been paid into the privy purse; but as the discussion of this night had very much embraced that subject, he was willing to forego it, provided the committee now moved embraced that question in its investigations. He begged the House to look at the mischief that might arise from empowering ministers, from time to time, to grant out of the casual revenues of the Crown, for the privy purse, such sums as they might think necessary; and it would not be forgotten that the moment those sums were actually in the privy purse, no man living had a right to ask a question about them. This was a point which the House and the country ought to view with the utmost possible jealousy. Of what particulars did this large sum of 385,000l. consist? Suppose it were represented by lord Liverpool, or the chancellor of the exchequer, that his majesty wished to add to his property at Brighton a considerable extent of land, and that it was fit that the sum of 20,000l. should be paid into the privy purse for that purpose, who, after it was so paid, could be called upon to account for the appropriation of the money? Did the House think it right that such a power of making direct presents to his majesty should exist? He did not mean to charge the present government with any endeavour by a circuitous mode to obtain the money themselves, because such was not the fashion of the times, and he sincerely believed that they were incapable of it; but was clear that they always possessed the means of currying the royal favour and tampering with the royal feelings in this way. Suppose any one of the ministers had given offence to the sovereign, and wished to make it up by a little money paid into the privy purse; according to the present arrangement he could do it, although, of course, he did not suspect that it could have the desired effect. He knew nothing from authority, but it was a common proverb that what everybody said must be true to a certain extent; and would any man deny that his late majesty died worth a great deal of property? This property must have been saved out of the civil list; and was the country to be saddled with a heavy civil list, in order to enable the king to make savings? True it was, that his late majesty had a large family to provide for, but no such motive existed in the present case. At this moment, every farthing saved to the nation was of importance; and what pretence was there for granting one single sixpence beyond what was necessary? Then, why not inquire what was necessary? and surely the enormous sum of 385,000l. was of itself a sufficient reason for a minute investigation.—I state all this, God knows (continued Mr. Tierney), with a great deal of pain to myself, because I am well aware that it is liable to misconstruction. There are many rumours abroad which may or may not be well-founded, and if I listened to them I should think it a very bad time indeed for any gentleman on this side of the House to do any thing that might possibly wound the feelings of his majesty. What may be the consequences of the part I have taken I neither know nor care; but this I know, that if public confidence be of any value, no man ought to hope for the confidence of the country who does not endeavour to deserve it by fearlessly stating his sentiments in this House. When we are talking of economy and retrenchment, I cannot come down here to take away the salaries of some petty clerks, or to reduce the pensions of a few poor-half-pay officers, and shut my eyes to this proceeding, by which such enormous sums are to be voted to his majesty without inquiry. I know I am doing my duty; and if I am at all acquainted with the character of the king, I am sure that he will rather thank me than blame me for the part that I am taking [Cheers]. What is it we wish on this side of the House? Nothing more than that the Crown should stand well with the country; and, in times like these, can there be any thing more important than that the people should feel a firm assurance that his majesty requires no farther sacrifice from them than is absolutely necessary to support the character and dignity of the throne? An opportunity like the present may never, perhaps, again occur; for there never was a moment so favourable for obtaining popularity on the part of the Crown. I am as confident of this as I am of my existence, that if his majesty had not been surrounded by those who gave him this bad advice, he would have stood in a very different position before his people to that which he now occupies. Every man must be aware that the country looks with great anxiety to the deliberations of the House on this question; not merely because it is agitated at the commencement of a new reign, but because it will take the decision as an; earnest of the intentions of ministers for the future I say, and I say it without the fear of contradiction, that there are large sums, which, if a proper inquiry were set on foot, might be saved to the country. I say, too, that all ranks are bound to make sacrifices; and, by going into this committee, the House will at once set an example that its great object is economy and public relief, without sparing any quarter, whether high or low. Let it do its duty honestly, fairly, and impartially. I have done mine, and I repeat, that I have not done it without great pain to myself. I implore the House to listen to the complaints out of doors, to entertain the proposition; and I entreat honourable gentlemen, before they decide against all inquiry, to consider what they owe to those who sent them here, as well as what they owe to the national tranquillity and the security of the monarchy. The right hon. gentleman sat down amid the cheers of the House, which lasted for some time.

Mr. Canning

said, that all the points urged in the course of the debate were resolvable into a few plain, simple, propositions. The House was now called upon to do what had been done at the commencement of every former reign, namely, to vote a civil list for the support of the civil government and household of the sovereign. Under such circumstances the first step to he taken was, to examine the precedents of good times—he meant such as were regarded by all men with satisfaction. Going back to the Revolution, it was found that the vote of the civil list from the reign of king William to George 3rd, had been carried in this House in the first instance without minute investigation; and the only inference he wished to draw from this fact was, not that the House was bound to follow implicitly the course of precedents, but that those who proposed a deviation were bound to show the special circumstances that rendered it advisable. If it could be shown that in the course of the last reign there had been no examination into these matters, or that from the lapse of time it was possible that abuses had crept in, it might form some ground for the present proposal. If, on the other hand, it could be proved, that although an investigation, both minute and recent, had taken place, yet that since that date there had been great exceedings on the part of the Crown, a manifest want of economy, or an application for an increase, then some ground would perhaps be laid for a deviation from the ordinary precedent. But when these things had not occurred; when both points made in favour of that course which ministers had thought it their duty to recommend, and which had always been pursued; when minute investigation had been recently made, and when no excess had occurred since the last arrangement when it was clear that there had been no want of economy; and when it was found that that had been effected which was never accomplished before, namely, that the provision for the civil list had been made efficient;—then he thought a primâ facie case was made out, that it was not necessary to do any thing new, and that no reasons existed why they should not pursue the accustomed course. The right hon. gentleman had stated most fairly the grounds of his objections to that which his majesty's ministers had proposed. He had dwelt on the situations to which the sovereign had been left with respect to the revenues that were at his uncontrolled disposal. He had said that when a sum was handed over to the privy purse, no one had a right to inquire in what way it was disbursed. This was true, and this he took to be the very nature of the privy purse, and was no favour claimed for the present sovereign, as this had been common ever since the existence of a privy purse had been first recognized by parliament. But the right hon. gentleman had said, "you ought to recollect that his majesty has other funds at his disposal." It was true that he had, and so had the late king. He, in the early part of his reign, had received the revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall exactly as the present king did. He admitted that after the majority of the Prince of Wales, the income of one of them went from his majesty, but the income of the other he had enjoyed throughout his reign, and the present king had succeeded him in it. On this head he saw nothing to alarm the constitutional jealousy of the House. But the right hon. gentleman tried to excite (he did not say improperly) a feeling of jealousy on another subject, by speaking of the riches supposed to be left by the late king. He believed that he spoke correctly, when he stated all or nearly all the property left by the late king to have consisted of the sums that had accumulated during his majesty's indisposition. By far the largest part of the wealth which he had left to his successor was the produce of such accumulation. This would not surprise any one who reflected that there was no species of distress in the country that was not carried in petitions to the foot of the throne—he could not say to the foot of the throne, constitutionally speaking, but to the private palace of the sovereign. Known as he was to have great funds at his disposal, and being supposed to possess still greater, that he should be thus beset was not to be wondered at, and it would not excite surprise that there had not been a greater accumulation while he was able to disburse his funds. The character of his late majesty precluded the idea of his making any sordid accumulation of wealth that could at all excite the jealousy of parliament. With respect to the increase of landed property which had been alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, he would take upon himself to say, that it was so insignificant, that nine-tenths of the gentlemen that sat on either side of that House would not consider such an addition to their estates an object of material importance. With respect to the objections of the right hon. gentleman to the civil list, his arguments would apply as well to the smallest item in it as to the largest. He, however, believed that there was little cause for complaint, and that whatever might be the vices of the present age—whatever the plots formed against public men—there never was a period when public characters were so free from taint and imputation of a pecuniary kind. The right hon. gentleman proposed to go into a new inquiry on the subject of the civil list, and to sift over again what had been so recently sifted. But his purpose would not be answered if they did not go into an investigation of the privy purse; nor then as it should seem, unless guards such as had never been provided before, were supplied to prevent the misapplication of its funds. Though the right hon. gentleman might think the beginning of a new reign a fit period for entering upon such a subject, the House would bear in mind that such an inquiry could be instituted at any future period, and that such an inquiry was not usual at the beginning of a reign. In the time of the late king, it was not till the year 1782 that Mr. Burke brought forward his motion for the first inquiry into the arrangements of the civil list. Then it was that the whole system was altered; that parts of it were placed under responsibility which were never so placed before, and that that fabric of order was raised which at present existed, and which, though not perfect, greatly sur- passed what had previously been known. This, it should be remembered, had been done, not while the reign was new, but when it was twenty years old. When the right hon. gentleman could produce any facts that went to prove inquiry desirable, when a want of economy should appear, or when the Crown should confess that the provision which had been made was not sufficient, then would be the time for entering into that investigation which had been unnecessarily called for on the present occasion. He admitted the real wealth of the Crown was not that which was obtained at the expense of public discontent. But the question now was, did any thing appear in the course that had been taken to provoke discontent? He did not believe that any thing of the kind could be discovered, and he believed that by confining the new civil list within the bounds previously fixed, they would do their sovereign right, and do justice to the country. He knew not on what principle any advice but that which had been offered could have been given. He knew there was a difference between a regent and a king—between a vicarious and an actual governor. There were some burthens which did not fall on a regent, which must be borne by a king. Supposing the country to have been in a prosperous state, these might have justified a call for an increase, but, adopting the policy acted upon four years ago, he thought they had taken the safe course, and had marked a proper feeling for the distresses of the people, which had however been brought to bear against them. The right hon. gentleman said,—"It is true there has been no excess on the civil list, but then it may be proper to inquire if the provision made for it is not too large." This appeared to him an ungracious and hazardous mode of proceeding—ungracious to turn round upon the economy of the Crown, and say, "As there is no excess, the provision made must be greater than was necessary;" and hazardous as it went to impress upon the sovereign the expediency of concealing the fact that he was abundantly provided for, and to invite to that excess which it was most important to avoid. This conduct on the part of the right hon. gentleman reminded him of that of one of the kings of France, who gave his two sons a purse of gold each. One of them, after a time, returned his purse empty, the other gave his back full. The king upon this tied up the full purse and threw it into the street, at the same time saying to the son from whom he had received it, since you had not spirit to spend it, nor generosity to give it away, I will put it in the way of somebody else. The right hon. gentleman would visit economy with severity, when he was disposed to say, "If what you have is enough, it may be more than enough, and I must see if I cannot reclaim part of it." He believed it to be the sincere desire of his majesty, and of his advisers, to avoid any new exceeding, and to confine the civil list expenditure within the limits fixed by parliament; and doing this they considered that they were doing that which could excite no jealousy on the part of the House, which could create no discontent in the minds of the people. The effect of the vote that night would be the adoption of the provision made in 1816 for the regent as a suitable provision for the Crown, and the Crown therefore would retain but that splendor which was before thought necessary for the regency. The mention made by the right hon. gentleman of the 385,000l. handed over to the privy purse in the late reign, gave him an opportunity of stating, that from that sum 110,000l. had been paid in discharge of certain debts, and thus the annual 50,000l. set apart for that purpose had been set at liberty two years sooner than would otherwise have been the case. The sum which remained would give on the average of the whole reign an increase of income of somewhat more than 4,000l. per annum. Upon the whole, he could see no grounds for the proposed inquiry. He could wish this, the first parliamentary measure of the new reign, to be carried with unanimity; but whatever the result might be, he must say that ministers, in asking for nothing but what had been deliberately sanctioned by parliament four years ago, had approached that point at which it was hoped the House would be unanimous, and the country satisfied.

Mr. Tierney

denied that he had wished to examine into the mode in which the privy purse was expended. As he did not intend to trouble the House with his motion to-morrow, he might be allowed to add, though not within the strict limits of explanation, that, from the statement of the right hon. gentleman, it appeared that the 110,000l. had been paid into the privy purse, and very likely most properly applied in diminution of debts. It, how- ever, still formed a part of the 385,000l. of which he had already spoken.

The question being put, that the word "now" stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 157.

List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.	Graham, J. R. G.
Allen, J. H.	Grenfell, Pascoe
Althorp, visc.	Griffiths, J. W.
Anson, hon. G.	Guise, sir W.
Anson, sir G.	Gurney, R.
Aubrey, sir J.	Heygate, alderman
Boughey, sir John	Haldimand, W.
Bentinck, lord W.	Hamilton, lord A.
Benett, John	Harbord, hon. E.
Butterworth, Jos.	Harvey, D. W.
Barham, J. F. jun.	Heathcote, G.
Baring, sir Thos.	Heron, sir R.
Barnard, visc.	Hill, lord A.
Barrett, S. M.	Hobhouse, J. C.
Beaumont, T. P.	Hollywood, W. P.
Bennet, hon. H. G.	Hornby, E.
Benyon, Ben.	Howard, hon. W.
Bernal, Ralph	Hughes, W. L.
Birch, Jos.	Hughes, col.
Brougham, H.	Hurst, R.
Burdett, sir F.	Jervoise, G. P.
Bury, visc.	Kennedy, T. F.
Byng, George	Lethbridge, sir T. B.
Bright, H.	Langstone, T. H.
Crawley, Sam.	Lamb, hon. W.
Calvert, Nic.	Lambton, J. G.
Calcraft, John	Lemon, sir W.
Calcraft, John, jun.	Lloyd, J. M.
Calvert, C.	Lushington, S.
Campbell, hon. J.	Maberly, John
Chamberlayne, W.	Maberly, W. L.
Carter, John	Marryat, Jos.
Cavendish, lord G.	Macdonald, J.
Cavendish, Henry	Mackintosh, sir J.
Clifford, capt.	Martin, John
Clifton, visc.	Milbank, Mark
Coke, T. W.	Mildmay.P. St. J.
Colborne, N. R.	Milton, visc.
Concannon, L.	Monck, J. B.
Coussmaker, G.	Moore, Peter
Crompton, Sam.	Moore, A
De Crespigny, sir W.	Mostyn, sir T.
Davies, T. H.	Newman, R. W.
Denison, Wm.	Newport, sir J.
Denman, Thos.	Nugent, lord
Duncannon, visc.	Ord, W.
Dundas, Thos.	Osborne, lord F.
Dundas, C.	Ossulston, visc.
Evans, Wm.	Palmer, col.
Ellice, Edw.	Palmer, C. F.
Finlay, K.	Pares, Thos.
Farrand, R.	Parnell, sir H.
Fergusson, sir R.	Parnell, W.
Fitzgerald, lord W.	Pelham, hon. C. A.
Folkestone, visc.	Philips, George
Frankland, R.	Philips, G. jun.
Gaskell, B.	Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Gordon, Robert	Power, R.
Graham, S.	Powlett, hon. W.

Pym, Francis	Sykes, D.
Rickford, Wm,	Spurrier, C.
Ricardo, David	Townshend, lord C.
Ridley, sir M. W.	Tavistock, marquis
Robarts, Abr.	Taylor, M. A.
Robarts, George	Taylor, C,
Robinson, sir G.	Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Rowley, sir W.	Webbe, E.
Rumbold, C.	Western, C.
Russell, lord G. W.	Whitbread, W. H.
Russell, R. G.	Whitbread, S. C.
Sebright, sir John	Wilkins, Walter
Smith, George	Williams, sir R.
Smith, Samuel	Williams, T. P.
Smith, Wm.	Williams, W.
Smith, John	Wilson, sir Robert
Smith, Robert	Wood, alderman
Scarlett, James	Wyvill, M.
Scudamore, R.	TELLERS.
Sefton, earl of	Russell, lord John
Stuart, lord J.	Warre, J. Ashley.

The Resolutions were then read second time, and agreed to.