Commons Sitting of 6 June 1825

Hindoo Widows—FEMALE IMMOLATION.
Mr. Humerose, to call the attention of the House to a subject which, he regretted to say, had not been noticed in an earlier part of the session. He alluded to the government of India, per-
1044
mitting the practice of widows immolating themselves on the funeral piles of their husbands. He held in his hand a petition from Crail upon the subject; and it would be impossible for any member to give his attention to the subject without feeling a desire that an end should be put to so revolting a practice. He wished to know when the hon. member for Weymouth intended to bring forward his motion. The evil was of great magnitude. This practice was not enjoined by, or consistent with, the Hindoo religion; and it was the opinion of the best-informed persons, that an end might be put to it, without danger of any sort.
Mr. F. Buxtonsaid, he had been restrained from bringing this question before the House, chiefly by the political state of affairs in India. He proposed to do so in the first week of the next session. He remarked, that in five years, there had been, in the province of Bengal alone, 3,400 females burnt on the funeral piles of their husbands. The real amount, in all probability, went far beyond the official returns. Gentlemen conversant with India had assured him, that the real numbers were nearer 10,000. He feared that the conduct of government had unintentionally promoted this wickedness. To say the least, the natives had not been made acquainted with the feelings of the British legislature, by any declared disapprobation of the practice. The police of the Indian government were required to attend the burnings; but they were directed not to interfere to prevent them. This was construed into a silent acquiescence in these abominations. Now, what rendered these facts the more melancholy was, that the practice itself was not absolutely enjoined by the Hindoo religion. some of the most active of the local magistrates and judges had recorded their opinions, that the practice might be put a stop to by the mere expression of the will of the British government, and that the natives would be gratified with the change.
Mr. Trantsaid, that haying had considerable experience in this matter, from a long residence in India, he could not refrain from giving some expression to his sentiments on this occasion. He observed, that Bengal exhibited a greater number of these sacrifices than any other province of India. It was, in fact, the chief seat of Hindoo superstition. Why it was so, he did not pretend to determine. But, sure he was, that it would be highly

1045
dangerous for the British government to interfere, with a violent hand, in any thing which concerned the religious rites of the Hindoos. He had himself known a native of that country, the most enlightened man of all the Asiatics he had met with. This person saw enough of the superiority of European education to induce him to have his children brought up in those schools. In a conversation which he had with this person upon the atrocity of these burnings, that man, clever as he was, had justified the practice, and said, "That is a point of our religion, and your government must not interfere with it."
Mr. Wynnthought it was highly desirable to put an end to such ceremonies, or if not, to check them as much as possible. But, it was a subject which must be treated with much caution and delicacy. In. his opinion, no legislative measure could remedy the evil. Its abolition must be the work of time and circumstances. They must not think of legislating for India as if it were a confined district, to the inhabitants of which our laws, habits, and manners were perfectly familiar. If they wished to succeed, it must be by acting gently and progressively upon the feelings of the people; and this could only be done by the local authorities.
Sir C. Forbessaid, that when lord Wellesley was in India, he might, with one stroke if his pen, had he not been restrained, have put an end to the practice. He applauded the government of that great man in India, which was nearly as perfect in mildness, wisdom, and firmness, as could be expected from the defects of our common nature. That nobleman had put a stop to infanticide, which was as stoutly defended on the score of superstition as this horrid practice of burning widows. The case had materially altered since then. The religious jealousies of the people had been awakened. Shoals of missionaries had been allowed to go in among them; and their feelings had taken a posture of hostility which before they would not have experienced. Still, he was of opinion that the British government would do well to compel the Directors, and through them the local authorities, to interfere. It was absurd to suppose that the love of life was less powerful in the bosom of a Hindoo woman than in any other person. The sacrifices were not voluntary. They were the effect of persuasions from the Brahmins and the relatives of the women. The
1046
miserable victims would be happy to take refuge under a law of the British legislature making it murder for any one to aid or abet these sacrifices. Until something of this kind was done, it would be in vain to expect the suppression of the abominable rites.
Sir Hyde Eastwas convinced, that the sacrifices had been considerably increased by the repeated discussions in parliament on the subject. He attributed many of them to the growing jealousy which the natives entertained of the interference of government, and of the shoals of missionaries who had mingled with them. If these men merely preached the gospel, he would have no objection to their residence there. They might persuade the unfortunate widows that it was "better to marry than burn."
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that so far from thinking that parliament ought not to interfere, he felt convinced that nothing effectual would be done towards quashing this abominable idolatry by the local authorities, until they were compelled by law.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hope of effecting the extirpation of these cruel rites by the mere disposition of the court of Directors, and their instructions to the local authorities, might be judged of from this fact—that from 1787 down to the end of 1820, there had not been one line, not even a word of disapprobation expressed by the Directors to those authorities. The first movement of the kind took place in consequence of the motion of the hon. member for Weymouth. He was convinced, that the business must be effected by a committee of that House. No half measures would do here. All that the government and the court of Directors had hitherto done, had only had the effect of legalizing the murders in the eyes of the natives. They ought first to inquire in a committee as to the safest and most efficacious means of suppressing them; and then to adopt a law for the peremptory enforcement of those means.
Sir I. Coffinsaid, that the readiest way to lose India would be to interfere with the superstitions of the people.
Sir Hyde Eastapplauded the local authorities for their successful efforts in reducing the number of sacrifices.
Mr. F. Buxtonwas obliged to the hon. member for doing away in his second speech with the charge which he had made in his first. He had first charged him with increasing the number of immolations: in

1047
the second speech, their numbers were said to have declined considerably.
Mr. Moneysaid, it was in the power of the government to suppress the practice without offending the native population. He referred the House to several instances, wherein the local magistrates had, by mere persuasion, prevented the burnings.
Ordered to lie on the table.

DUKE OF CUMBERLAND'S ANNUITY BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Broughamsaid, he should propose an amendment, with a view of affording every member an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this subject. It had been truly said on a former night, that there never was a question on which the general feeling of the country was more completely in unison with the opinion which the House had twice recorded, and which they were now in effect called upon to retract. The ground on which the question stood was simple, obvious, and capable of being stated in a very few words. They were not now called upon to consider the adequacy or the inadequacy of the provision formerly granted to the duke of Cumberland, but they were called upon, by an indirect, circuitous, and by no means a frank, candid, or honourable way, to rescind a former vote of that House. If any member thought that vote a wrong vote, he might have called upon the House to review its decision, and retrace its steps. That would have been a manly, candid, and honest way of proceeding. If any member still thought so, let him now, in God's name, stand up and say so. He doubted whether there was a member in that House who would do so. He had no doubt of the way in which the House would dispose of such a motion; but, if any hon. member took that course, it would at least be a fair, manly, and direct course. But, let not any man vote for a provision for the duke of Cumberland by a side wind. If no man had the manliness to attempt to get rid of the former vote in a plain, direct, and honest way, let not the House be ensnared into a reversal of their former decision, under the flimsy pretext of a provision for the child of the duke of Cumberland. He should move therefore, as an amendment, "that the House do resolve itself into the said committee upon that day six months."
Mr. Cokethought it was preposterous to demand an annuity of 6,000 l. for the duke of Cumberland's child, when it was evident that the grant was intended for the duke himself [hear,hear]. He looked upon this proposition, especially when he considered the retainers and placemen by whom it was chiefly supported, as a direct insult on the House. As a representative of the county of Norfolk, he felt it right to raise his voice against this grant, which he was convinced was highly displeasing to the public at large. The duke had an abundant provision without this additional 6,000 l. a-year. He should be grievously disappointed if the House voted this abominable, this insulting provision. He was sure they would not; but if they did, then should he be more than ever confirmed in the opinion, that this was a most corrupt House, and ought to be reformed.
Mr. Davenportthought the House would be guilty of gross inconsistency, if they now voted for a proposition which they had twice before rejected. This child for whom an annuity of 6,000 l. a-year was asked, did not wear a cloak long enough to conceal the real object of the grant. He felt it is duty, on this occasion, to vote against his hon. friends on the Treasury bench, and he could not compliment them on their skill in military tactics, in having put the infantry in front of the battle [a laugh].
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that if this vote were agreed to, he could look upon it in no other light than as a retractation of the votes given some years since. In opposing the present vote he felt a great degree of delicacy, became he was actuated by motives, the grounds of which he could not, with propriety, develope to those whom he now addressed. If the duke of Cumberland, chose to settle abroad, a grant might be made for the education of his son in this country. But, in that case, 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a-year would be sufficient. But to give 6,000 l. a-year, by a side-wind, to the duke of Cumberland, he never would consent.
Mr. J. Benettcongratulated the House on the burst of honest indignation which this grant had excited. When he saw gentlemen of different political sentiments uniting on a question of this nature, it almost made him doubt the necessity of a parliamentary reform.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, that when the grant to the duke of Cumberland was be-

1049
fore the House some years ago, he had thought that illustrious individual was very hardly dealt with. Much obloquy had been levelled at this royal duke; but he would say, on his honour and conscience, that those accusations which had been industriously circulated through the country were destitute of foundation. The duke of Cumberland and his duchess were at present enjoying the highest degree of domestic happiness and comfort [a laugh]. But laying aside the individual merits of that royal duke, it would be most unjust to deprive him of the fair provision to which he was entitled from his rank and station as a prince of the blood. His present allowance was by no means adequate to his support. Numerous applications were made to him, and large sums were distributed in charity; and, could any thing be more unreasonable, than treat a young prince of the blood, who was likely to acend the throne, should be deprived of a suitable education? It would be inconsistent with the feelings of Englishmen to separate the father from the son; and there could not be a worse lesson to teach the young prince, than that his first duty was to separate himself from his parents.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, let this question be placed on its true grounds, and what did the proposition amount to but this—to give the duke of Cumberland 6,000 l. a-year—a proposition which the House had already resisted. It would, therefore, have been more manly in the government, to have brought forward the subject on its true grounds. He was anxious to maintain the dignity of the royal family; but he thought the provision which the duke already possessed, together with 3,000 l. a-year which the duchess received from the king of Prussia, was quite sufficient. Although he did not think an objection on the ground of moral character was sufficient to prevent an adequate provision to the members of the royal family, yet it was a sufficient reason to prevent his giving them more than was necessary. He thought the vote bad in itself, and worse from the manner in which it had been brought forward. The royal duke appeared before them like an individual who requested the parish, in formâ pauperis, to enable him to maintain his own child. Oh, fie!
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the proposition was not made on the ground that the present income of the
1050
duke was inadequate to his maintenance. He was quite prepared to justify the grounds upon which it rested. He had no hesitation in saying, that, if the circumstances were the same now as at the period when the question had been discussed before, any proposition to give the duke that which the House had twice before refused, would expose the government to all the reproach and hard language which gentlemen had dealt out to them; for it would be nothing less than calling on the House of Commons to rescind their former vote. But the circumstances were completely different. You gave 6,000 l. a-year to the other princes; on their marriage. The duke of Cumberland had had two children since that period and yet you refuse to put him on a footing with his royal brothers. It was, of course, competent for the House to deal with the question as they pleased ; but he denied that it was any outrage to the country, or any insult to the House for ministers to have proposed it. Although the hon. member for Hertfordshire did not ground his opposition altogether on the personal character of the duke, yet the member for Surrey had done so. Now, amidst all the insinuations which had been thrown out on this subject, he never had been able, for the soul of him, to discover on what point it was that gentlemen really founded their opposition. He could perceive no circumstance which could induce the House to refuse this grant, which might not also be put forward as an argument for depriving the duke of that income which he at present enjoyed. He thought the House would be acting unreasonably, nay, unjustly, if they did not agree to the proposition.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, his expression was, that where only a necessary provision was called for, he would not look to the personal conduct of the individual; but that where more was demanded he certainly would.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, he would vote for the grant, on the ground of confidence in the government. Here was a prince born, in whom they must all take a deep interest; and he conceived that every means should be afforded for his proper education.
The House divided: For the amendment 113; Against it 143: Majority against the amendment 30.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Knatchbull, sir. E.

Acland, sir T.

Knight, R.

Allen, J. H.

Lamb, hon. G.

Baring, A.

Langston, J. H.

Bennett, J.

Lester, B. L.

Bernal, R.

Leycester, R,

Bernard, T.

Lloyd, sir E.

Birch, J.

Lushington, S.

Blake, sir. F.

Macdonald, J.

Bright, H.

Mahon, hon. S.

Brougham, H,

Marjoribanks, S.

Burdett, sir F.

Martin, J.

Buxton, T. F.

Maule, hon. W.

Calcraft, J.

Maxwell, John.

Calcraft, J. H.

Monck, J. B.

Calvert, C.

Mostyn, sir T.

Chaloner, R.

Newman, R. W.

Chetwynde, G.

Normanby, visct.

Coffin, sir I.

Ord, W.

Coke, T. W.

Osborne, lord F.

Coke, T. W. jun.

Palmer C. F.

Colburne, N. R.

Parnell, sir H.

Corbett, P.

Pelham, J. C.

Creevey, T.

Phillips, G.

Crompton, S.

Phillips, G. H.

Davenport, D.

Poyntz, W. S.

Davies, T.

Pryse, Pryse.

Denison, W.

Pym, F.

Denman, T.

Rice, T. S.

Drake, T. T.

Rickford, W.

Drake, W. T.

Robarts, A. W.

Dundas, C.

Rowley, sir W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Rumbold, C.

Ebrington, visct.

Scarlett, J.

Ellice, E.

Scott, J.

Ellison, C.

Sefton, earl of

Evans, W.

Smith, S.

Fane, J.

Smith, W.

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Smith, hon. R.

Fitzroy, lord J.

Sumner, H.

Foley, J. H. H.

Sykes, D.

Frankland, R.

Tavistock, marquis

Gaskell, B.

Tennyson. C.

Glenorchy, visct.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Gordon, Rt.

Townshend, lord C.

Grant, J. P.

Tremayne, J. H.

Grattan, J.

Western, C. C.

Griffith, J. W.

Wharton, J.

Guise, sir B. W.

Whitbread, S. C.

Hamilton, lord A.

Whitmore, T.

Heron, sir R.

Williams, W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Williams, sir R.

Hume, J.

Williams, J.

Hurst, R.

Wood, ald.

Ingleby, sir W.

Wrottesley, sir J.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Johnstone, col.

Duncannon, lord

King, hon. H.

Sebright, sir J.

On our re-admission to the gallery, the House being then in a committee on the bill, we found
Mr. Broughamon his legs. He said, that there was upon the face of the bill an evident inconsistency, inasmuch as it
1052
pretended to have one object, and was calculated to accomplish another. It proposed to provide for the education of the prince of Cumberland, and it secured an annuity of 6,000 l. to the duke of Cumberland for his life. The hon. baronet (sir C. Forbes), who had addressed the House at a period when, of all others, it was most convenient for those who favoured the duke of Cumberland to express their opinions [the hon. baronet spoke after the gallery had been cleared, and before the division took place], thought that sufficient justice could not be done to his royal highness, unless he was paid up all the arrears of the annuity which the House on a former occasion refused to grant him. The duke, he had no doubt, would, without hesitation, accept the hon. baronet's generous offer; and nothing, he dared say, could be more grateful to his feelings. But ministers were not affected by the enthusiasm which had so far led away the hon. baronet. They proposed that the annuity should only be paid henceforth, and that it should be continued from this time as long as his royal highness's life should last. There was a provision in the second clause, which limited the payment of the grant of the duke on condition that the prince should live in England, unless the king should give licence to reside abroad. This was the notable manner in which the framers of this bill had introduced it to the House. He, however, wished to give the committee an opportunity of doing properly and fairly that which it was pretended this bill was to accomplish. If there was any gentleman who thought that the duke of Cumberland could not educate his son on 18,000 l. a-year, he would give him an opportunity of voting for the means of educating him. He would propose that a sum should be given to the king, who was by law intrusted with the care of all the branches of the royal family. He would give his majesty, by a legislative enactment, an ample sum, a sum more than enough to educate the young prince, even if he were the son of the richest nobleman of this country. He would propose to give him 3,000 l. a-year, providing that the king should employ this money for the education of the prince. He would give this sum to the king, who now had a legal authority over the prince, and whose ministers were responsible, in whom the House could trust, because over them they had some control, while

1053
they had none over the duke of Cumberland, who resided abroad, who was irresponsible, and over whom they could have no control. He would give the king 3,000 l. a-year for the education of this child; and if that was not liberal he did not know what was. The duke of Cumberland was sufficiently provided for; and, by adopting this course, they would provide for the education of the young prince, without violating a constitutional principle. He would therefore move, that the name of his majesty should be inserted in place of that of the duke of Cumberland; and that the sum of 3,000 l. per annum should be granted to the king during the life of the young prince of Cumberland.
Sir C. Forbessaid, the learned gentleman had thrown out an insinuation, as if he had said that with closed doors, which he would not say with the doors open. He was ready to acknowledge that he spoke to the House, and not to the newspapers; and he thought, if that mode were generally adopted, the House would have shorter speeches and more business. If the learned gentleman meant, however, that he had taken an opportunity of saying with the doors shut what he would not say with open doors, he would say for himself, that he was as incapable of doing that as any member of the House. In his opinion, the duke of Cumberland would not have justice done him unless he received all the arrears of the 6,000 l. a-year. Charges had been insinuated against the duke, which no hon. member would make against any person in that House: let them be openly stated, and he had no doubt the duke would answer them. But, the very persons who now made these charges, were the duke to be called to the throne, would be ready to profess themselves his most devoted humble servants. He had no personal acquaintance with the duke. His vote and his opinions were wholly dictated by public grounds.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had stated, that it was bonâ fide the intention of government that the prince should be educated in England, and he had given a proof of the sincerity of this statement, by shewing that he was prepared for introducing into the bill a clause for this purpose. With the same view, he felt no indisposition to insert in the grant that it was to be confined to the minority of the young prince; for the
1054
government had no wish to confer an annuity for life on the duke of Cumberland of 6,000 l. a-year. It was not inconsistent, therefore, with the views of ministers, to introduce into the clause words confining the grant to the minority of the prince. It was impossible to accede to the proposition of the learned gentleman, not to give the money to the duke of Cumberland, but to his majesty. If it was fit to give any sum for the education of the prince, it was not fit to deprive the father of all control over the education of his child. If the money were given to the king, the duke would lose all control over his child, and it would be ten thousand times better not to give the money at all, than to give it under such conditions. It was difficult to show that 6,000 l. was necessary for the purposes of educating the prince; but it would be as difficult to show that any other precise sum was necessary. If a less sum were given, and the duke were to live abroad, it might make it impossible for the young prince, who was to be educated in England, to visit his father, and thus all intercourse between them might be cut off.
Mr. H. Sumnerdisclaimed all intention of expressing any hostile feeling towards the duke of Cumberland, or of throwing out any insinuations against him. He would, however, support the amendment.
Mr. Broughamcontended, that as the law now stood, the power was vested in the king, of controlling and directing the education of the prince, and that giving the sum he had proposed to his majesty, would not alter the law. The children of prince George were taken from under his Control in the reign of George 2nd, and ten out of twelve of the judges then held that this was agreeable to the law of the land, on the ground, that the king had the control over all his issue, as long as they were minors. The late king also had exercised a control over the education of the princess Charlotte. She was taken from the mother, not from the paternal right being stronger than the maternal, but from the king's power extending to all his offspring, of which he was to have the custody. The clause he proposed, did not alter the law, nor imply that the king should exercise the right of directing where the prince should live, any more than he did under the present law. He prayed the House to consider what they were about to do. Their avowed object was to provide for the education of

1055
a prince; and he would provide for it in a manner worthy of a prince; but he would provide for it in a constitutional manner. He would give the means to ministers who could not divert a shilling of it from its destination, rather than to the duke of Cumberland, who might employ it to pay debts contracted abroad, or to pay annuities which he had granted at home.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that the proposition made by the chancellor of the Exchequer was so fair and liberal, that he did not see upon what grounds the House could refuse to concur in it. He had stated, that the purpose of the grant was solely for the education of the son of the duke of Cumberland, and that in order to make this more secure, he would consent to the introduction of any words which would suffice to render that intention more clear. It was difficult, perhaps impossible, to say what degree of confidence or distrust was to be exercised towards the father in that child's education, without entering into a subject which was at once painful and delicate. It would be inexpedient, on all accounts, to do this. The persons who thought thus must give effect to their opinions by their vote; for nothing in the course of the discussion could be expected to turn them. But it was at the same time not to be expected that those who avowed no such distrust of the duke of Cumberland,—nay, more than distrust, dislike—nay, more than dislike, persecuting detestation; should conform to the opinions of others. What might be the ground for those hostile feelings, he could not pretend to say; but those who voted for taking the education of the son out of the hands of his father, and for diminishing the amount of the allowance, were only bringing to the test the opinions which had been so lavishly avowed towards the duke of Cumberland. The justice of those opinions was not a fit subject for discussion in that House. Every man must act as he pleased, and it was in vain to attempt to combat by argument what had not been fairly brought forward as substantial objections. Beyond the concessions which the government had already made, it was impossible to go. His majesty's ministers had no right to inflict upon the duke of Cumberland an opprobrium, which, if he could have deserved, they would have forgotten their duty to the country in bringing his name before the House [hear, hear]. So
1056
far as security for the due application of the money went, the House had a right to require; but, to enter into the subject beyond this, would be most unjustly to stigmatize the illustrious person who was so intimately concerned in it.
The House divided: For the Amendment 114; Against it 152: Majority 38. The House having resumed,
Mr. Broughamrose, just to submit, that whatever might be the case with respect to the decisions of the House, it would be no breach of privilege to comment upon the conduct of a committee. Then, having a right to observe on what had passed, he did feel himself bound to declare, that there never had been a vote, in his opinion, passed by any committee less calculated to raise that committee in the estimation of the country, than that which had just declared in favour of giving 6,000 l. a-year more to the duke of Cumberland. For it was nonsense to talk of this grant being made to the prince of Cumberland. It was a gift directly to the duke—an allowance, not of 6,000 l. annually for the education of the son, but of 5,000 l. annually for the expenses of the father. This was the true state of the transaction, and the only light in which the people of England would look at it to-morrow morning. They would be aware that a committee of the House of Commons, with its eyes fully opened by discussion, had, in its deep respect for the duke of Cumberland—in its esteem for his high public and private character—an esteem, no doubt, perfectly well-grounded, but in which they themselves did not entirely share—that it had preferred granting that illustrious prince 6,000 l. a-year; that was to say, 5,000 l. for his own use, and perhaps, 1,000 l. for the education of his son—to giving him 3,000 l. a-year only, which, after paying for that same education, would have added 2,000 l. a-year to his existing income. Now, for himself, he wished the committee joy of its vote with all his heart; and he hoped that the members would live long—that was to say, the rest of the present session, and all the next—to take the benefit of it. When, at the expiration of that time, too, they returned to their constituents—he meant such of them as had any constituents—he hoped that they would still further reap the fruits of their glorious triumph that evening over constitutional principle, common sense, consistency, and honest, plain, direct, and manly feeling. One word

1057
more only, upon what had fallen from a right hon. gentleman opposite, who, in the warmth of his eloquence and the weakness of his case, had said something about a "persecuting detestation" towards the duke of Cumberland. As regarded his own feelings, he would merely observe, that in all his life, he had never had the slightest communication with the illustrious individual in question. On a former occasion, so far from entertaining any desire to do or say that which might be unpleasant, it had been his fortune to differ from several gentlemen on his own side the House; among others, from the right hon. the President of the Board of Control, who then sat on his side, and to have exhibited at least so much toleration as to have objected to the introduction of the duchess of Cumberland's name in the way in which it had been given to the public, and to have defended the conduct of that lady as far as it was known to him. As for any supposed quarrel between the duke of Cumberland and the Whig party, the House had been reminded that the duke had once joined the "No Popery" cry, and that he had "never changed his opinions." Why, the fact was, that his royal highness had so completely altered his feeling towards the Whigs, and had shown so much courtesy to several gentlemen distinctly introduced to him abroad as of the Opposition party, that there were honourable members sitting round him who had actually felt a doubt how far, if any personal question arose with respect to the duke of Cumberland, they could, pleasantly, take part in it. From a sense of public duty, therefore, it was, and not from any private rancour, that he opposed the vote before the House; thinking, as he did, in his conscience, that it was the most unjustifiable job that he had ever seen attempted. In case the House should still feel inclined to take a more prudent course than it was now proceeding in, and to grant the 3,000 l. a-year, subject to the control of ministers, he now gave notice that, on the coming up of the report, he would move an amendment to that effect. In saying this, however, he desired distinctly to add, that he considered the grant as unnecessary altogether, and that he should certainly oppose it, in toto, in all its other stages.
Mr. T. Wilsoncomplained of the freedom with which the learned gentleman had attacked the committee, and thrown dirt upon every individual who had voted
1058
for the grant. He would tell the learned gentleman that he felt himself perfectly justified in having so voted with members whom he thought as wise, as honest, and as patriotic as the learned gentleman himself.
Mr. Broughamassured the hon. gentleman that he did not allude to him in what he had said; because he thought him the wisest, the honestest, and the most patriotic individual upon that side of the House.
The report was ordered to be received to-morrow.