Commons Sitting of 22 April 1825

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that some misunderstanding had arisen in consequence of a conversation between the hon. member for Staffordshire, and the learned member for Winchelsea as to the course meant to be pursued respecting the bill for altering the Elective Franchise in Ireland; and as it was his intention to oppose the principle of the measure, he was desirous to know what course it was intended to follow? Should the discussion take place that evening upon it, it was his determination to take the sense of the House.
Mr. Lyttletonsaid, that some misunderstanding had certainly arisen on the subject, in consequence of which, several gentlemen who had intended to take a part in the discussion, and particularly those who meant to oppose it, were not then in their places. But, it was impossible he could lose that opportunity of taking some step in the business, and he should be contented simply to ask leave to bring in the bill, and let the discussion take place on a future day. He should be sorry to be called on to make any statement, unless he had an opportunity to make a complete one. He therefore trusted the House would allow him to bring in the bill now, and take the discussion on Friday.
Mr. Broughamsuggested the necessity of as early a discussion as possible, in order that that explanation might be given which would either remove or confirm the doubts which were entertained of its

125
policy. There were difficulties which a further inquiry might clear up. He was not a member of the committee himself; and had therefore, no opportunity of acquiring official information, but he knew that there were certain questions, which would be best cleared up by inquiry before a committee. He therefore hoped that an earlier day than Friday would be fixed for the second reading.
Mr. Calcraft,said, he was no party to this arrangement. The bill required an explanation: its object was perfectly misunderstood, and it ought to be made intelligible to the people both of England and Ireland. The bill was generally thought to enact the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling voters, but that was not its object. If it were, he would be the last to give it his support. Even those who were in the habit of daily conversing with Irish members, entertained a complete misapprehension the objects of the bill. How strong, therefore, must be the misconceptions upon the subject in the minds of the people in general.

BUTTER TRADE IN IRELAND.
Sir H. Parnellpresented a petition from the Butter-makers of Doonane, in the Queen's County, praying for a repeal of the laws for regulating the Butter Trade of Ireland.
Mr. Hutchinsonhoped, that if a committee were appointed to investigate this subject, due notice of its formation would be given, so as to afford those who were interested in the trade an opportunity of stating their sentiments.
Mr. Grattansaid, that the abuses in the trade appeared to be so great, that he hoped a committee would be appointed in the present year to examine the evil, and to recommend measures for its correction.
Sir G. Hillwas of opinion that no new measure should be adopted respecting this trade, without a very serious and extended inquiry.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that the subject might be full y discussed, without altering the law this session.
Mr. L. Fosterfelt that the subject was one of deep importance. If any alteration were made it the law, it ought to be preceded by a vary minute inquiry.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he had no objection to inquiry; but, in his opinion, it ought to take place at the commencement of next session. If the examination were now set on foot, it would have a great effect
126
on the exportation of butter. Day after day the price of that article would be influenced by the evidence given, or the statements made before the committee.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the corrupt practices carried on under the butter act were a most severe infliction on poor and industrious people. Complaints were particularly made of the butter-tasters. It had been represented to him, that those persons were often induced to neglect their duty for a bribe; that they sometimes attended to perform their functions in a state little short of intoxication; and that they often decided on the quality of the butter, not as it really deserved, but in proportion to the emolument which they were to reap from their corrupt practices. He had inquired into these points; and had found the allegations well-founded. In one instance, five guineas had been given to the wife of a butter-taster to induce her husband to certify that butter of second quality was of first quality, that it might be exported in this fictitious character. Parliament were called upon to inquire into this subject; and he could see no reason why that inquiry should not commence now.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that ministers were quite ready to go into the committee, either in this, or the next session.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he now begged leave, on the understanding to which the House had come last night, to move for leave to bring in a bill " to regulate the exercise of the Elective Franchise in Ireland." He would, in consequence of the understanding to which he had alluded, abstain from making any observations on the introduction of this bill. He hoped, however, that an early day would be fixed for reading it a second time, when gentlemen would have a full opportunity for the expression of their opinions. To himself, it was a matter of no importance whether he opened the grounds on which he introduced this measure on the present occasion, or reserved his statement for a subsequent period. The House had come to an understanding on that point early that morning, and that understanding had been renewed this evening. The consequence was, that a vast number of members had left the House. Amongst them were many who were especially unfavourable to the views

127
which he took relative to this measure; and therefore he felt himself bound in honour simply to explain what the nature of the intended bill was. The hon. member for Wareham was of opinion, that the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders of Ireland would be a measure of a very arbitrary nature. He thanked the hon. member for having called for information on this subject; and he would take the liberty to observe, that he did not mean to extend the provisions of the bill to those freeholders who held their freeholds under the same practice that prevailed in England at this period. The bill would only refer to freeholders whose votes were subject to registration. The sum which gave to those individuals the right of voting at present, it was the object of this bill to raise. He would not state positively, although he had formed a strong opinion on the subject, how high the qualification ought to be raised; but, in his opinion, 10 l. per annum would be an eligible qualification; that, however, he left entirely in the hands of the House. Another point which had been alluded to, was the period at which the act should begin to operate. It might be suffered to operate forthwith; or at the period when the present registry expired, or at the termination of the several leases. He thought the end of the registration would be the proper time for the act to begin to take effect. But he felt that this was a proper matter for consideration in the committee. The hon. member then moved " That leave be given to bring in a bill to regulate the Exercise of the Elective Franchise in Counties at large in Ireland."
Mr. Broughamobserved, that, in consequence of the understanding to which it was stated the House had acceded, a number of gentlemen had undoubtedly gone away. This being the case, it would be inexpedient to go into a discussion of the measure now: but, it ought to be stated, that on this occasion, leave to bring in the bill was only called for. If there were any hon. members who wished to defeat the measure at once, they would have an opportunity of stating their arguments against it on the first reading.
Mr. Bankessaid, that this was a measure of so alarming a nature, that the attention of the House, and of the public, ought to be particularly called to it. He would take the first opportunity, when this bill was brought forward, to divide the House upon it; and he should therefore
128
wave, at present, any further observation on the measure. In his opinion, the bill was open to the most serious objections. It was one of the most unconstitutional and arbitrary measures that ever was introduced to the House.
Mr. Grattansaid, he looked upon this as a very alarming proposition.
Mr. Secretary Peelmerely rose to say, that, in acquiescing in the motion for leave to bring in the bill, he made no concession whatever. The rule of the House formerly, was different from that which now prevailed. It was now customary to grant leave to bring in a bill, merely for the purpose of considering what its effect was likely to be. Afterwards its contents were debated; and it might be rejected on the second reading. In consequence of the understanding which was come to last night, he would not offer any objection to the present motion: but his opposition to the measure should be precisely as decided in the stage when it came to be debated, as if he opposed its being brought in originally.
Mr. Broughamtrusted, that he might be understood, after what he had stated that morning, as not having pledged himself to Support this measure. On a future day he should take an opportunity of stating his opinion on this question.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that if ever there was a bill brought into parliament which required the most minute detail, it was this identical bill. This he would assert, that if members in the House understood it, very few persons out of the House did. He, for one, did not understand it in detail; and therefore he was anxious for explanation.
Sir T. Lethbridgesaid, that in his opinion, the bill which it was proposed to bring in was not at all calculated to answer the expectations which it had raised. A great deal had been said about relief to the people of Ireland; but, he could not see what relief they would find in being deprived of privileges which were really valuable, and which made them of some importance, and in receiving instead of privileges, an imaginary good. An hon. friend of his, whose conversion had created so great a sensation in the House, had said, that he would not vote for the bill which had been discussed last night, unless the bill now before the House, and that for providing for the Catholic clergy, should also be carried. Now, in the common course of proceedings in parliament,

129
the first of these bills would have passed through all its stages before the fate of the other two bills could have been decided. The hon. member for Armagh must, therefore, either not vote at all, or he must vote inconsistently with the declaration he had made.
Mr. Calcraftrose to order. He submitted that it was neither parliamentary nor delicate to allude to the words of a past debate and particularly when the member by whom those words were supposed to have been used was not present.
Sir T. Lethbridgethought he was perfectly justified in alluding to the declaration made by his hon. friend, the member for Armagh. He thought he had much more reason to complain of the interruption of the hon. member, which imputed to him an intention to speak of the declaration made by his hon. friend in an injurious manner—an intention which he altogether disclaimed.
Mr. Wynnsaid, it was beyond all question contrary to the practice of parliament to allude to expressions which had been used in a debate that was past, and still more so in the absence of the member by whom they had been used. It was true, that the House allowed a great latitude beyond the strict letter of its orders; but he believed, that in no instance, after the objection had been taken, a member had been permitted to persist in violating the established custom of parliament.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, there could be no doubt that a direct reference to the words of a debate was not parliamentary; but, the hon. baronet had not done this. He had referred only to an intention expressed by the hon. member for Armagh, by which that hon. member had said he should regulate his conduct. This was very different from quoting the words in which that intention had been conveyed. Whether to do this were delicate or not, was another question, which each individual must decide for himself, but of which house, he conceived, could take no notice.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he thought that to refer to a declaration, as the hon. baronet had done, was not less irregular than to refer to the precise words in which it had been made; and for this reason—?that the person by whom it had been made being absent, he could have no opportunity of explaining or justifying what he had said.
The Speakerrose amidst loud cries of " Chair." He said, that having been so
130
distinctly appealed to, he could not hesitate to express his opinion, that the irregularity spoken of did not depend upon the fact of the person to whom the allusion was made being present or not, although the question of delicacy certainly did; because the House considered that all its members were present in every debate. The question, then, was, whether it was according to the practice of parliament to refer to the matter, or to the distinct words, of any part of a former debate. Now, it was altogether disorderly to refer to the express words of a debate; and this, as he had already said, whether the member by whom they had been used was present or not. With respect to a reference to the subject matter of a debate, it was the practice of the House to allow great latitude. If it were not for the excuse which this practice furnished, the whole debate had been irregular from its commencement; because if it was opposed to the forms of the House to refer to a former debate, it was not less so to refer to an understanding that leave should be given to bring in a bill. In his opinion, however, nothing could be so inconvenient to the progress of business in that House, as for the Speaker strictly to watch every violation of the letter of their orders. He therefore commonly left such subjects to be regulated by the general sense of the House, taking from them the hint, and declining himself to interfere, unless under circumstances likely to obstruct the public business.
Sir T. Lethbridgebowed to the decision of the Chair; but he could not avoid observing, that it was some consolation to him to know, that if he had been out of order, he was not so alone, the whole discussion being, as the Speaker had said, irregular. Still he contended, that, if the House should give the hon. gentleman leave to bring in his bill upon no other statement than that which he had made, they would do a very uncommon thing: and admit a bill, of the principle of which no one had said a word in recommendation.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, he believed there was a general understanding, that in consequence of the late hour to which the debate of the preceding night had extended, the discussion of the principle of this bill should be postponed. For his own part, be had no doubt that the measure which it proposed to carry into effect was calculated to do away a great abuse, and to confer a lasting benefit on Ireland.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that notwithstanding the sentiments which the hon. baronet had expressed, he did not believe that the Catholic freeholders of Ireland would give him any credit for the new-born-zeal which he seemed to feel for their interests. They would rather be inclined to suspect that he intended, by throwing obstacles in the way, to defer the passing of that other and greater measure, of which he had been so long the opponent. For his own part, he confessed that he was most anxious to see this bill passed and, notwithstanding the assertion of the hon. baronet, that it was hostile to the interests of the people of Ireland, he was ready to go before that people in competition with the hon. baronet, and abide their decision on the subject. He should support the measure, because he believed it would materially aid the success of the other and more important one of emancipation, and because it would prevent the demoralization of the lower orders, of which the present system was the cause.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, he had seconded the motion of his hon. friend the member for Staffordshire, and he saw no reason for withdrawing the support which he had given to this measure.
Mr. Secretary Peeldeprecated any partial discussion of a measure, which, at a proper time and season, would come regularly under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had the bill now ready to present to the House. He proposed that leave should be given for it to be printed; and he would take any day that it might be convenient for the debate on its second reading. He hoped the House would not oppose any difficulty in the way of this proposition, otherwise he must be under the necessity of meeting the dilemma in which he was placed by now giving notice of a motion on the subject.
Mr. Bankeswould only beg, that, if any, an early day might be appointed for the discussion of the subject.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he had never required any security for passing the great bill for emancipating the Catholics. Although it has been asserted, that the 40s. freeholders of Ireland were degraded men, he nevertheless felt it his duty to protect them, with as much regard to their civil rights as the highest commoners. In the instance of his own constituents, he could say, that he had found as honourable and
132
as high-minded men among the 40s. free holders, as among any other class of voters.
Mr. S. Ricedid not wish to prolong the discussion; but there were two important points on which he wished to be informed. The first was, whether his hon. friend meant to confine the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders only to those counties where corruption and fraud had existed? The second was, whether he considered this bill as strictly conditional upon the passing of the Catholic Relic f bill.
Mr. Littletonanswered both these questions in the affirmative.
Mr. Humeconsidered the bill as a matter of expediency. He wished the principle of the measure to be discussed; but, to admit the bill without discussion, was to admit also the principle. He objected to bringing in the bill that night, because the greater portion of the members had left the House, on an understanding that no discussion would take place on the subject.
Lord Althorptrusted, that the bill to be brought in would prove of the greatest advantage. The 40s. freeholders had not independent votes. He therefore considered it quite consistent with his wishing for a reform of the representation, to deprive of the right of voting those who had no independent votes.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill. It was shortly after brought in by Mr. Littleton, and read a first it time.

SPIRIT DUTIES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Spirit Duties Acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had upon a former occasion explained to the House the grounds upon which he thought it expedient to place all the laws relating to distilleries in England on one identical and intelligible footing, and to do away with the inconveniences which were daily found to result, from the circumstance of different laws prevailing in different parts of the kingdom. It would not, therefore, now be necessary for him to advance any general reasoning on the subject; and he flattered himself that the House would readily concur with him in thinking, that something was necessary to be done to effect this object. It appeared to him, that no alteration would be so effectual as that which should assimilate the distillery laws of England with those of Scotland and Ireland. He would state

133
generally the sort of regulations which he proposed to adopt for this branch of the trade and manufacture of the country. In the first place, it was necessary to impose certain restrictions on the persons carrying on this trade: he should be glad if this had not been necessary, but the large amount of the duties rendered it impossible to wave them. In Ireland and in Scotland no persons were allowed to carry on the trade of a distiller without the certificate of a justice of the peace. This regulation, which the peculiar circumstances of Scotland and Ireland rendered necessary, he did not propose to adopt in England. The qualification which he should suggest instead was, that persons carrying on the trade of distillers should inhabit and pay the rates of houses of the rent of 20 l. per annum This would facilitate the collection of the duty; while, if persons who could distil in a tin kettle were permitted to do so, the excise would be cheated at every turn. The next regulation was, that all persons licensed to carry on the trade of distillers, should be resident within a quarter of a mile of a town in which there should be 500 inhabited houses, in order to secure a sufficient number of excise officers for the preservation of this branch of the revenue. With respect to the size of the stills, it had been found necessary in Ireland and in Scotland, where smuggling was extensively carried on, to use stills of small dimensions, because larger ones were ineffectual to prevent it. In England there was not the same necessity, and it was therefore his intention to reduce the size of stills from 3,000 gallons, the present rate, to 400, the dimensions at which they had formerly stood. He would now state to the committee the alterations which he intended to propose respecting the duties. The existing duty was 10 s. 6d. per gallon, at 7 per cent over proof. It would, he thought, be great improvement on the present system, to adopt the rule which was observed in Ireland and Scotland; namely, to fix the duty according to the proof strength of the spirit, and that duty he proposed should be 5s. 10 d. per gallon. He would shortly explain why he had fixed on that particular sum; which might otherwise appear somewhat singular. The first idea was to fix a duty of 5s. upon spirit distilled from malt, and 6s. on that distilled from grain; but, on looking into the details of the subject, he found that it would be difficult to make a distinction
134
between the two kinds of spirit. He was therefore determined to make the duty uniform, without reference to its being distilled from malt or grain. It would be in the recollection of the House, that a bill had past last session for regulating weights and measures, which was to take effect next year. According to that bill, the standard by which measures were to be hereafter regulated was the imperial gallon, which differed from the ordinary wine measure on which the duty on spirits was at present taken. The imperial gallon might be represented by six, whilst the common wine gallon might be represented by five. If he had fixed the duty on the common wine gallon at 6s., the relation which it would have borne to the imperial gallon would have been inconvenient; as it would have left an indescribable fraction of a farthing unaccounted for. The duty of 5s. 10 d. on the common wine measure, however, corresponded exactly with the duty of 7s. on the imperial gallon; and thus any intricate calculation would be avoided in the settlement of questions which might arise between the excise-officer and the dealer. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving several resolutions to the effect which he had stated.
Sir J. Newportexpressed his satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. gentleman. Great advantages must be the result of a free intercourse. He hoped that with this measure, all the trammels that now interrupted the commerce between England and Ireland would end, and that full scope would be given to the exercise of the industry and energies of both countries. Ireland and Scotland should be considered as much a part of England, as Essex or Kent. He therefore gave his cordial approbation to measures, which equally tended to advance the interests of all parts of the united kingdom.
Mr.W. Smithopposed the measure, and said that it would, in his opinion, contribute more to the disadvantage of England, than any measure that could have been adopted. The immorality of the thing was beyond all question; for there was no necessity to enable a man to get drunk for a shilling; he could do that easily enough already; and as to the proposition laid down by the right hon. gentleman, he considered it as fallacious, as if any one were mathematically to assert, that by adding unequals to equals the result would be equals. In the report on the Police of

135
the Metropolis in 1817, it appeared, from the most incontestible evidence, that almost every crime of the most atrocious character, such as murder, robbery, and burglary, was committed under the influence of ardent spirits. If this were so, he would ask whether that could possibly be a measure of good tendency which went to reduce the price of spirits, as he was satisfied it would be reduced, to little more than half the present amount? But, it was said, that though the duty was to be reduced one-hall, double the quantity of spirits would not be drunk, nor would the quantity drunk by the same individuals, be increased in any very great proportion. The right lion, gentleman, however, argued very differently when he proposed the reduction of the duty upon wine. He then talked with great confidence, of the increased quantity of wine which he hoped would be drunk; and, could he suppose that the reduction of the price of spirits would have a different effect on the lower classes of the people, than the reduction of the price of wine would have on the higher classes? It was said, that the Scotch were a sober people, not withstanding the low price of spirits in Scotland. The fact was, that the poverty of the lower classes of the people in Scotland was a check upon their intemperance. Low as the price of ardent spirits was in that country, they could not afford to purchase them. He might remind the House of the reply of Dr. Johnson to a person who observed, that a man might buy a Solan goose in Scotland for two-pence. " Granted," said the doctor, " but where will he find the two-pence in Scotland?" He confessed that he apprehended serious results to the morality of the country from the reduction proposed by the right hon. gentleman. Whatever might be the effect of the measure, he had delivered his own soul. The right hon. gentleman had taken no means to encourage the brewers, and to turn the people from dram-drinking to the consumption of beer. He sincerely regretted that he should have proposed a measure, which was calculated to have so demoralizing an influence on the habits of the people.
Mr. Humestrongly recommended the Chancellor of the Exchequer to equalise, to a greater degree than lie had proposed, the duties between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and also to reduce the duties on malt. He could not agree with the lion. member for Norwich, as to the
136
danger to be apprehended to the morals of the country, from the adoption of this measure. He begged his h in. friend to look to Holland and France, where the price of brandy and gin was half what it was in this country. Would he find in those countries such scenes of drunkenness and crime, as he apprehended from the low price of spirits? He believed, that in the countries where the price of spirits was highest, the greatest excesses took place. And this was easily accounted for: it was the disposition of man, when he could only obtain an indulgence occasionally, to get as much of it as he could; but, if circumstances enabled him to obtain the gratification regularly, the temptation to commit an excess was removed. He was satisfied, therefore, that the reduction of the duties on spirits, so far from operating as a temptation to intemperance, would only have the effect of enabling the lower classes of the people to indulge regularly and temperately, rather than irregularly and without moderation, in the use of spirits; and the moderate use of spirits he believed to be much more salutary and beneficial than it was commonly supposed to be. Besides the countries to which he had adverted, he would mention the United States of America, where, though the price of spirits was much lower than it would be in this country after the reduction of the duty, there was no disposition to intemperance among the people. Good wages and low prices were the best security for good conduct.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had felt great difficulty it determining what should be the amount of reduction of duty. He admitted that it would have been very desirable to approximate still further than he had proposed towards a complete equalization of duties. He should not have feared to reduce the duty in England still lower, if he had felt himself warranted in increasing the duty in Ireland and Scotland. If he had lowered the duty still further in England, the revenue would have suffered too much, if he had not increased the duty in Scotland and Ireland; and such an increase of duty, immediately after the success of the recent experiment, would I have operated as a fresh encouragement to smuggling. As to the apprehensions of the hon. member for Norwich, that the country would be deluged with drunkenness, in consequence of the reduction of the duty on spirits, he thought that hon. member's

137
anxiety for the morals of the country had led him to take unnecessary alarm at this measure. He did not participate in those fears; and he thought the objections of the hon. member had been satisfactorily answered by the reference which the hon. member for Aberdeen, had made to the state of countries, in which the price of spirits was much lower than it would be in this country after the reduction of the duty.
Mr. Hutchinsonsupported the resolution, and trusted the right hon. gentleman would adopt tie suggestion of the hon. member for Aberdeen by reducing the duty on malt.
Captain Gordon thought the country greatly indebted to the right hon. gentleman, for a measure which was calculated to suppress illicit distillation in all parts of the empire.
The resolutions were agreed to.

BRITISH MUSEUM—MR. RICH'S COLLECTION.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,adverting to the report of the committee appointed to consider the expediency of purchasing for the British Museum the collection of coins, antiquities, and manuscripts of the late Mr. Rich, observed, that that report was so explicit and satisfactory, that it was quite unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any details or arguments on the subject. Nor could it be necessary for him to impress Upon the House how highly honourable it was to the country, to make every effort for the due cultivation of literature and the arts. The collection in question was one of undoubted value, and was declared by competent judges to be well worth the sum required for it. He would therefore move, " That a sum not exceeding 7,500 l. be granted t o ins majesty, for the purchase of Mr. Rich's collection of manuscripts, antiquities and coins, to be placed in the British Museum, for the benefit of the public."
Mr. Humecordially supported the motion. He said he would take the present opportunity of expressing his regret at the condition in which many of the valuable monuments in the country now were, and of asking the right hon. gentleman if he would hate any objection to the appointment of a committee to inquire what was the state of the monuments which had bean erected to the memory of our distinguished countrymen, where
138
they were placed, the expense that had been incurred in their erection, and how far they were at present accessible to the people? If the right hon. gentleman had no objection to such a proposition, he hoped that either he, or some other member of his majesty's government, would make it, in order that the public might know what was the result of the great expense on the subject which they had incurred. Among other things, he was informed, that the shillings which were collected at the doors of Westminster Abbey went into the pockets of the persons who were appointed to take care of those monuments; but he also understood, that there was another fund from which those persons ought to be paid, and which the dean and chapter put into their own pockets. He thought this was a subject which should be inquired into.
Mr. Bankesadmitted that the expense which the public were put to in the erection of those monuments gave them a fair claim to inquire how the funds received for exhibiting them were applied; but he thought the onus of such inquiry ought not to be thrown upon the chancellor of the Exchequer. The subject was, he granted, a fair one for inquiry.
Mr. Humedisclaimed the slightest imputation on the right hon. gentleman. All that he wished to know was, whether government would sanction the appointment of such a committee as he had alluded to; as otherwise, any proposition for its appointment would be nugatory.
Sir C. Longdid not know any thing of the fund to which the right lion. member bad alluded, as being provided for the care of the monuments in Westminster Abbey. He could assure the hon. gentleman that his majesty's government had no other wish on the subject, than that the public should have the full benefit of the money that had been expended upon it. As to the present vote, there could be no difference of opinion about the value of the collection which it was to secure; and he thought it but common justice to observe, that there had never been any collection offered to the trustees of the British. Museum, in a more fair, liberal, and handsome manner.
The resolution was then agreed to.